Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Quote in the Career Section

This quote (full quote below)

I didn’t choose this moment; this moment chose me in that you decided that I was responsible, which is so amusing to me. I’ve been doing what I’ve been doing for years. I update the blog 10, 15 times a day. I treated the ground zero mosque story the way I treat every other story. To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims. But I covered it the way I covered any other story.

Is being used as an answer to her pushing Islamaphobia, however it is an answer to whether or not she is a leader in the fight over Park 51. Aside from not using the full quote in the article it is original research to make it appear to be an answer to question being presented in the article. Arzel (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree and go further. Burston, in the beginning of the paragraph before the quote, is saying the same thing as Steve Gutow in the "Paid Ads on Public Transportation" section. The Geller quote above is similar to the 1st quote in the Park51 section. I think we should get rid of the whole paragraph including the quote. This is a duplication. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

What a mess that paragraph is. Burston isn't even saying she "promotes Israel by pushing Islamophobia." And the quote that's placed as a response is from almost two years earlier. I don't actually understand the function of the "career" section in this article. It seems like it started out as a time-line but then turned into a clothes-line and now it's got so much pinned to it that it's not possible to follow its direction any more. Much of the material is duplicated in lower down sections. I'm daunted by the thought of even copy-editing it. I'm going to start a new section to discuss this. Also, I'll take out the paragraph while we're talking about it because Matthew 18:19 and so forth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What did I just do, you ask?

In case we need it here for ensuing discussion, I present to you the paragraph I just removed in its full unwikilated glory:

Geller, according to [[Bradley Burston]], promotes Israel by pushing [[Islamophobia]]<ref>[[Bradley Burston]], http://www.haaretz.com/blogs/a-special-place-in-hell/islamophobia-not-islam-will-be-the-end-of-israel.premium-1.459722 [Islamophobia, not Islam, will be the end of Israel,] at [[Haaretz]], 21 August 2012.</ref> although she denies that she is anti-Muslim, saying that it is "a slanderous slur and it's unfair".<ref name="guardian"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/08/10/prime-islam-basher-pam-geller-outdone-by-colleague/ |title=Prime Islam-Basher Pam Geller Outdone by Colleague|work=Hatewatch|first=Larry|last=Keller|publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center |date= |accessdate=September 14, 2010}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/08/25/white-supremacists-find-common-cause-with-pam-gellers-anti-islam-campaign |title=White Supremacists Find Common Cause with Pam Geller’s Anti-Islam Campaign|first=Heidi|last=Beirich|work=Hatewatch|publisher=Southern Poverty Law Center |date= |accessdate=September 14, 2010}}</ref> She said: {{quote|the ground zero mosque ... To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims.<ref name=NYT_8_Oct_2010>Barnard, Anne; Feuer, Alan (October 8, 2010). [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/nyregion/10gellerb.html "Pamela Geller: In Her Own Words"]. ''The New York Times''.</ref>}}

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Religion: Judaism (a whole new can of worms, I know)

This was discussed briefly on this page in 2010: Talk:Pamela_Geller/Archive_2#Religion. However, see (interminable, maybe inconclusive) discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive193#Jordan_Belfort_and_WP:BLPCAT and, I'm sure, twelve zillion other places. Since we have a source, cited in this article: [1] in which Geller says she "is not especially observant," I think it's wrong to describe her religion as Judaism.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Does her level of observation somehow deny her still being Jewish? And I'm not talking about ethnicity.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe that before we attribute a religion to someone we ought to have a positive statement from them that that's their religion. As far as I can see there's no such statement from PG, and there's a statement from her which tends to suggest that it might not be the case. Thus it seems to me to be better to err on the side of caution and attribute no religion to her until such time as a dispositive source can be found.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We can say her parents were Jewish -- but we then enter the "ethnicity or religion" quagmire. A former editor opined It is, strictly speaking, accurate and sourced. She's a right-wing Jew, which means pro-Zionist, anti-Muslim and quick to accuse others of anti-Semitism. I don't know if her insane hatred of Obama is really based on the notion that he's secretly Muslim or is just typical racism on another website, and if this is anyone's intent here - it is against Wikipedia policy to use BLPs for that purpose. Collect (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Are we going to insist on having someone say "My religion is Christianity" (and thus not be satisfied with "I'm a Christian")? That's an interesting proposal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Christianity is different, as it's only a religion and not an ethnicity. If someone says "I'm a Christian" there is no ambiguity. If someone says "I'm Jewish," there is. It's not sensible to say "I'm a Christian but I don't believe in God or anything else in the bible." It's perfectly sensible and not uncommon to say "I'm Jewish but I don't believe in God or anything else in the bible."— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

She says her children are more religious than she is, indicating some belief. If sources say she is Jewish that appears fine, unless there is a statement from her saying otherwise. TFD (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Which is insufficient on its own to say her religion is Judaism, but we do have enough to aver her ethnicity is Jewish. Read the massive BLP/N threads on that general topic. BTW, an atheist clearly can have children more religious than the atheist, but that scarcely says the atheist is religious, fer shure. Collect (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. I have no problem saying her ethnicity is Jewish; that's well sourced. It's attributing a religion to her without either an RS or a definitive statement from her. I feel the same about Christianity or any other religion. It's just that Jewishness is so much more thorny because it's both religion and ethnicity. Maybe that infobox field is more trouble than it's worth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources that say she is Jewish are sufficient. Some editors have speculated that as a Randian, she must be an atheist, but that is just speculation. TFD (talk) 16:01, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some editors have speculated that as a person of Jewish ethnicity she must be Jewish by religion, but that is just speculation.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

On the surface it seems like an innocuous question but it really isn't. One concern is how much her religion is relevant to her notability. I'm not clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading the article and pondering it a bit, I come down in favor of not mentioning it unless it can be shown that her religion plays a role in her writings or is otherwise relevant to her notability. All things being equal, we should eschew labels of all kinds wherever possible, on a uniform basis. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Career section as a whole

It is currently impossible to read, and daunting to think of rewriting. Perhaps it would be good to have a discussion about what principle(s) we should use to decide whether or not material goes into the "Career" section or down into one of the more detailed level two sections that follow it. I'd like to try to clean up the "Career" section and at least make it readable and chronological, and it seems like some consensus on appropriate contents might make this easier. I'm not taking a position on this yet, because I legitimately don't have an idea.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:56, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I also realized the problem. It's a mess. I looked at other BLPs and can't see a good pattern to follow. We have a "Career" section and then we have sections for major endeavors: blog, public transit ads, and Park51. I notice similar problems on other BLPs. Do we need a "career" section? Some BLPs put early career (prior to notability) in "background" with personal and family matters. Suggestions? Jason from nyc (talk) 04:57, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

In the meantime, I made Park51 and "public transit ads" subsections to SIOA. They are both Geller activities under the SIOA banner. I didn't change the content (except minor grammar). Hopefully this reorganization is not controversial. Jason from nyc (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I moved paragraphs that weren't about events (but merely expressed views) to the section called "Views." I added events in '06 and '07. I organized the rest in rough chronological order. That should suffice for now. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good start, and I'm impressed. I think it's a good method to put everything in a sensible order before adding to or removing from it.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Ben Smith in 2011 on PG at CPAC

I removed the following sentence from the paragraph on her 2013 exclusion from CPAC because Smith is talking about her controversial (or notorious, or whatever) appearance in 2011 rather than the events of 2013. Having it in that paragraph gave the impression that Smith was explaining events of 2013 which, obviously, could not be the case. However, perhaps there's a place for it somewhere, so I preserve it here for the use of anyone who thinks so:

[[Ben Smith (journalist)|Ben Smith]], at Politico, noted that two “sharply divergent strains of conservative thought about how to deal with Islam” pit Geller and Spencer against CPAC’s organizers and other conservatives who find that “most Muslims have social and political views that match with the Republican party.”<ref name="cpac">{{cite news|url=http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/At_least_Two_approaches_to_Islam_at_CPAC.html?showall|title=(At least) Two approaches to Islam at CPAC|last=Smith|first=Ben|work=[[Politico]]|date=February 11, 2011|accessdate=February 16, 2012}}</ref>

— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. I think that was my contribution but I can't remember why it was inserted. Perhaps I wanted to contrast the split within conservatism concerning her views. I no longer think it fits anywhere in the bio. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Notorious vs. controversial

Regarding this edit with edit summary less POV. Here's an argument I could make for "notorious" being less "POV" than "controversial" (all definitions from the OED):

a) Controversial, adj.: 1. Subject to controversy; open to discussion; debatable, questionable; disputed., which leads us to:

b) Controversy, n.: 1. The action of disputing or contending one with another; dispute, debate, contention., whereas:

c) Notorious, adj.: I. With neutral or favourable connotations. 1. b. Of a person, place, etc.: well or widely known; famous; (in later use) esp. noted for a particular quality or feature.

So calling the cartoons "controversial" is asserting, I might say, that they are disputed or questionable. On the other hand, I might say, calling them "notorious" is merely asserting that (under the "etc." clause of the definition) they are "well or widely known." However, I'm not going to make that argument. I was just amusing myself when I used "notorious" because, after all, it does certainly lend itself to misinterpretation due to:

d) II. With depreciative or unfavourable connotations. 5. Well known on account of something which is not generally approved of or admired; unfavourably known; noted for some bad practice, quality, etc.

The OED itself, rightly lauded for its evenhandedness, notes in teensy type under II before the list of attestations that: In some cases it is not possible to ascertain the writer's intent. Some milder quotations may belong at sense A. I.

All that to say that Jason from nyc was right to make the change, that I knew someone would change something, and that I'm glad it was him. However, I think "controversial" is not quite the right word here. What say you all to "famous," which is a synonym for my intended meaning of "notorious," and is certainly more neutral than "controversial," even?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Not the easiest case to find an ideal adjective for indeed. "Notorious" definitely in modern usage means "evil in some way" while "controversial" may not be ideal either. Why not "cartoons which achieved drew substantial anger from orthodox Muslim groups" or the like? We can certainly state that they caused anger, and with whom they caused anger, even though the anger was almost entirely restricted to relatively small groups. (This is one of the exceedingly few cases where I think we may need more than a single word - usually I prefer shorter wording for almost everything ) Collect (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC) (one word change) Collect (talk) 02:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, actually, the reason I quoted the OED was to show that "notorious" in modern usage doesn't "definitely" mean "evil in some way," but only sometimes does. Surely you don't think I'd leave out an "arch." on purpose, do you? Whatever we do, let's not get all what passes for passive in these latter days and have cartoons verbing adjectival anger.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, by making that minor change I was implicitly making the statement that I noticed all your changes and that was all I could question. I thought controversial might convey considerable attention as well as debate. It's the former that we want. Famous seems stilted. But I'll leave it to you (and others -- edit conflict). Jason from nyc (talk) 02:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that's how I took it! I just started this section to acknowledge that I'd noticed. It's why the whole thing is hypothetical.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering that several editors have tried to put an editorial black mark on Geller, I hope you can be appreciative of the concern expressed by others about using terms like "notorious". Not that I'm even suggesting you fall in the former camp. Your actions IMO are demonstrably NPOV. Thank you. Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Politicization by 9/11

Hmm, well.. the word means The action or process of making political or of establishing upon a political basis; the fact of being politically aware or active. It's the second sense we mean here. The article says:

The 9/11 attack was the most evil thing Geller could imagine. She felt we were at war with a group of people who played by a different set of rules. Savages.

She had to do something. So she learned about Islam, jihad, and sharia, the religion's code of law. Growing up, she was largely apolitical but always championed women's rights. She was particularly disturbed by women under sharia who were treated as second-class citizens. She read about women and young girls alike being beaten, raped, murdered. But the more she studied the religion, the more social issues took a backseat to her belief that Islam itself needed to be defeated.

"All these other issues are luxuries. I mean, if you ain't got your head," she says, "what's abortion gonna do for you?"

America slowly healed, but Geller had fundamentally changed. She says she was reborn. Along with it came a visceral fear.

"It's not some jingoism," she says. "It's your country. Where you gonna go? You won't like what comes after America."

So what's being said? She was apolitical before 9/11 but after she engaged in various political activities because she "had fundamentally changed" and had come to believe that "Islam itself needed to be defeated." Is this process not aptly described by the word "politicization?" I don't find the word so ugly myself, but (speaking of a stock of cliches), de gustibus... and so forth. I'm not tied to the word itself, but I think the fact is important. Omitting it would be like writing about St. Paul without mentioning the road to Damascus or Alice without mentioning her realization that it was just a pack of cards after all. That's the magnitude of this issue! (OK, I'm being hyperbolic because it amuses me and because it's a back door way to express my opinions, but still...)— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about "advent of her political consciousness"? I don't know. I do admit I'm too affectionate towards my own phrasing of things. Perhaps I should get over it?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

When looking for metaphors, I tend to go with "odyssey" as reflecting a journey from one place to another. Collect (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

While I'm partial to the Greek, the Roman phrase, res publica (i.e. public affairs) came to mind. We can say that 9/11 motivated her interest in public affairs. Or perhaps just "political issues" ah, but now we're back to the Greek (i.e. polis) Jason from nyc (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There also info in the ADL brief [2] page 2, describing her transformation from an apolitical self-described fashionista to political animal. Also, the Times article has "It was 9/11 that drove Ms. Geller to her keyboard. She had barely heard of Osama bin Laden, she said, and 'felt guilty that I didn’t know who had attacked my country.' She spent the next year educating herself about Islam." Thus, you can also say that 9/11 motivated her to read about Islam. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I like it! The fall of the twin towers heralded the advent of Geller's metaphorical odyssey from apolitical fashionista to engagée dans la vie politique just as the fall of Troy did for that of Odysseus from Anatolia to Ithaca. Is it too florid? Only time will tell.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Jihadism vs. Jihad

I really don't think it's OK to pipe jihadism to jihad even if Geller uses the words interchangeably. They're self-evidently not the same thing.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

From the context, Geller is referring to the "lessor jihad" or violent jihad or outer jihad. There's nowhere in our article where we say she opposes the "greater jihad" or spiritual jihad or inner jihad. Given the restricted meaning it seems better to link to jihadism which is what she seems to be referring to when she uses the term jihad. I thought it would help the uninitiated reader, if there are any. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that that's what she's referring to, all I object to is piping that to "jihad" as if that were all there was to it. Since we're not directly quoting her there it seems OK to me to just use the word that means more precisely what she means, even if it's not the word she says.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Views on Views

(1) I understand the objection to citation overkill, but the phrase "radical Islam" is acknowledged by a wide variety of sources and it is arguably the main concern of her crusade. It is give considerable weight by most who discuss her that its prominence deserves justification. It puts the issue to rest among contentious editors. (2) I provided a source to the claim that she sees jihad as a threat to civilization. The opposition to "savages" seems silly and confusing to the reader and calling jihadists "savages" seems like mere name-calling. (3) I quoted a CAIR official calling her "bigot and racist" as that seems typical while "idiot" seems petty. (4) I removed "after the ads ran" since the ads weren't introduced to the reader. I mentioned that she expressed her views in ads using the headline's descriptor "anti-jihad ads" to acknowledge that the press nominally refers to them in this manner even when they question her intent. Most other changes were left as written. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(1) Obviously I have no objection to the claim that she opposes "radical Islam." The citation overkill really bothers me though. Is this really such a contentious claim to make? It seems self-evidently true. Can we find a way to compromise so that there's only one footnote after the word while still leaving in the sources? If they hadn't been used elsewhere I would have merely contained them between a single pair of reftags. Perhaps we can still do this even though it'll result in duplications in the references section? I think that's preferable for ease of reading given that most readers probably don't even look at the refs section. I'm going to sign each of these comments individually to facilitate threaded discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There is contention among the sources. The ADL believes that she hides her bigotry behind the opposition to radical Islam. We talk about them elsewhere. Her supporters obviously take her at face value. Charles Jacobs is one of them as the quote below shows. The references are more for the editors who may want to explore this contention. And this is a controversial topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So what do you think about putting them all in a single reference and just allowing them to be duplicated in the refs section? I would really prefer this and would be happy to do the work of making sure it doesn't break invocations elsewhere.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I guess that's fine especially if you're doing the work. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(2) I have absolutely no problem with this as long as there's a source. I just made the change because I couldn't find one and didn't want to remove too much. I don't seem to be able to get past the paywall for the Jewish Advocate. Perhaps you could add a quote to the cite template?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's the quote: "Geller thinks Radical Islam is a threat to Western civilization and that our politically correct leaders who persist in being willfully blind are endangering us all. Having this view attracts detractors. Expressing it daily, with no holds barred, with gory photos of the victims of jihad and outrageous details of how our leaders betray us, has earned Pamela a baying herd of defamers." Jason from nyc (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(3) That's fine with me. I prefer people with articles to attribute quotes to so we have some indication that their opinions matter, but associating him with CAIR meets the same purpose. Plus, the guy I quoted turns out to be somewhat of a buffoon, so your version is better. Is there a good reason to cite two sources for this, given that they say essentially the same thing? If so, perhaps we can find a way around the double numbers for reasons described in my response to (1).— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I solved my own problem with that one just now: Muneer Awad; this guy is a much better choice to quote.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

(4) Good work there.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the article describe Geller as right wing per the sources, or should the article say "her critics call her right wing" And would it be a violation of BLP to do soModified after request below

This sources states she is a "Right wing blogger" It' addition was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, per the source, which the RSN board also said was fine for this edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Either But either also require additional context or this becomes a BLP VIOLATION. As explained by the most thorough source we have on Geller, the Village Voice, she has contrasting views on many subjects. Labeling her in such a matter as to equate her with the KKK is highly contentious, and unfair to a living person. Out of all the sources, the VV is the king of the hill, and to that we should defer.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is equating her to the Klan? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Klan is described as "far right", which is not what is under discussion here. So it seems that User:Two kinds of pork is confused. — goethean 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of RS that refer to the Klan as right wing.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? Sources (unspecified) call the Klan x (although Wikipedia does not call them x, it calls them y), therefore if we follow sources and call someone x, we are associating that person with the Klan? I don't think that argument works. — goethean 17:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone "right wing" is extremely contentious. I doubt anyone could disagree with that. Sources or the hand of god annointing her on the head notwithstanding, even if it's true, it's contentious. Do you disagree?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We are not calling her right wing, RS are. And no, it is not contentious, except among a few fans on this talk page, hell I am right wing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Progress at last. Perhaps we should start a new thread on the BLP board. I'll live with whatever consensus we get there.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the person. Neo-Nazis and the KKK and their leaders are far right. That seems uncontroversial (although there are some people, e.g. Neo-Nazis, who would and do dispute the label). Geller is a founder of the Birther movement and is known for being a proponent of anti-Muslim sentiment. So simply saying where she stands on the political spectrum? No, it doesn't seem super duper controversial to me. — goethean 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DS and goethean, thank you for the comments. I'll think on them for a bit. However if you could stipulate for the moment it is contentious, then you think my position is reasonable, or is there another issue?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure exactly what your position is. You say that we need more context. What further context would work? I object to Collect's suggestion that we say that it is Nussbaum and Takim who call Geller right-wing because that's not really accurate, as Geller's right-wingedness is well-known and widely attested. — goethean 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support "right-wing" per the sources with no distancing clause. Multiple, highly reliable sources for this well-known, undisputed, uncontroversial fact, including a peer-reviewed academic journal of religion and universally acclaimed, unimpeachable philosopher and cultural critic Martha Craven Nussbaum. — goethean 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the source from the journal of religion? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see it now - Takim. StAnselm (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose using Wikipedia's voice for a disputed label -- allow using opinions cited as opinions and including her other political opinions (pro-LGBT rights etc.) in lead as balance per NPOV Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can you point me to the sources that say that she is not right-wing? — goethean 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well I suppose you could call a person who favours LGBT rights and is pro-choice, and who has other not-very-right-wing-views "right wing" but that is sorta like calling a person who thinks the Pope is Satan a "good Roman Catholic". In fact, I suspect she has a few thousand views which are not "right wing" but why would you oppose balancing the lead with heer pro-Choice and pro-LGBT positions? Collect (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked for sources. — goethean 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

VV was enough I trust for pro-LGBT and pro-choice. [3] NYT has a long article on her - and does not call her "right wing" though she says liberals of the 50s cold be considered "right wing nuts" today in what appears a jocular comment. Sorry -- if "right wing" is used, so should "pro-choice" and "pro-LGBT." WP:NPOV is pretty clear on that. Collect (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But you have no sources which dispute the well-sourced characterization of her as right-wing. — goethean 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

One source != "well-sourced. I showed another source on this page which you appear not to like. Using a single source for a contentious claim where it is no big deal to properly ascribe it as opinion seems quite contrary to WP:BLP. And you also seem not to want the NPOV balancing material about her being pro-LGBT rights and pro-choice in the lead. Any reason why? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it would be similar to including her musical tastes or her favorite foods? Her right-wing activism is the source of her notability; her views on marriage are more of an interesting factoid. They're also nowhere near as well-sourced. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Geller is internationally known for her extreme anti-Muslim rhetoric and actions, not for her support for gay marriage or her support for abortion or what-have-you. There are not one but two unimpeachable sources (Nussbaum and Talik Takim), and a variety of other sources which were offered previously. And you have presented no sources which dispute the claim. I think that the lead should simply, factually, and well-sourcedly describe where Geller sits on the political spectrum. "NPOV balancing material" is not needed for neutral facts. It's not a libel to simply and factually describe a subject's political position. If a person's politics are conservative, is "NPOV balancing material" needed to point out that they aren't really all that conservative in some ways? No, and the idea is just weird. Do you mind if I ask where you think that Geller falls on the political spectrum? — goethean 20:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I suspect she is one of those blasted Libertarians who proudly wanders all over Nolan's chart without any decent regard for being consistent. Neither "left" nor "right" nor "up" nor "down" is any manner which would pinpoint her anywhere at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The usage of "libertarian" in the US generally refers to right-libertarianism. So I parse your statement to mean that you take her to be a right-libertarian. — goethean 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

And you thus infer that I must mean "right libertarian"? Um -- where in hell can you parse that one? I said essentially that her opinions appear to be a mélange with no attempt at spectrum consistency - and that ascribing any particular position on a left-right spectrum in Wikipedia's voice makes no sense here. Please do not parse things I do not write -- it makes for confusion at best, and misleads others in too many cases. Collect (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Collect, you specifically requested[4] that I respond to your comment, and when I do so in a calm manner, you yell at me for parsing, or interpreting, your comment. I find your reaction to be unbecoming of an administrator. — goethean 17:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Using WP vioce for the statement. This is not done for BLP's across WP for contencious statements, and frankly don't understand why this particular BLP should be treated differently. I have no problem attributing that she is called right wing, even in the lead. I think WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be guiding factors in these decisions. Furthermore, there is plenty of article which already goes into detail about how much people don't like her. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support "right-wing" in WP voice according to numerous reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Never edited this article, don't even know who the women is. Just ended up here just via the ANI page (actually due to QuackGuru). But as Collect stated, you can use the sources to support that she's right wing, but the article shouldn't put that in wikivoice. Since it's an opinion regarding her political leaning - a description, it must be attributed in some way, particularly in a BLP. Let me add that I don't necessarily think you have to phrase it as "her critics call her", if that's a contention point, if she is generally described as right wing, you can just say "she's been described as right wing" - that still attributes it outside of wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC is defective, in that it pretty obviously takes a stand on how the proposer thinks it should be decided. Scrap it and start over with a neutral statement of the controversy. As it currently stands, this RfC will not yield a result that could be considered credible. Also, the wording of the RfC isn't entirely grammatical or coherent. Roccodrift (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - RfCs are meant to be neutrally worded. I don't understand what the "And would it be a violation of BLP to do so" means in the RfC statement. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support WP voice: "critics say" does not reflect the sources, which are not all critics. Unless you decree that any academic writer or news writer who describes her as right-wing is as such a critic, which is obviously a piece of nonsense. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

@Roscelese:, as I mentioned above - I agree with you regarding critics, but you still must attribute it outside of wikivoice since it is a description (an opinion). "She is described as right wing blogger" for example instead of "She is a right wing blogger". One is a statement of fact in Wikivoice, the other is a description of a viewpoint. So there is a middle ground, but I think your support would indicate a violation of BLP. Hope you, and others will reconsider. Again, I have no interest in this person or article, but I do care about BLP and proper NPOV. Consider how this applies to any famous person, next these editors will run to put Progressive as a label for Hilary. Majority weight does not equal a fact statement. Morphh ^(talk) 21:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Think for a moment about the implications of what you're saying - that any description is an opinion that must get a vague attribution. "She is described as American." "She is described as a blogger." "Some say her first name is Pamela." –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems those would be undisputed facts. We have to be more careful about terms that could be considered pejorative and to present them neutrally. If the sources support it, a more neutral phrase would be to say she "is a politically conservative blogger" or at the least use the term "political right" which redirects to "right wing". Perhaps I'm being overly cautious, but I would avoid using charged terms like "right wing" or "left wing" in Wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 22:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support, I believe. It does not seem to be contentious as to whether she is right-wing. There are multiple reliable sources provided which say she is right wing (the Nussbaum just mentioned; Ruthven, Encounters with Islam (I.B.Tauris, 2012), p. 185; Lynch, The Sacred in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 119) and no reliable sources which contend the claim. Whether a claim is contentious does not depend on whether editors here contend the claim, it depends on whether reliable sources contend the claim (or otherwise fail to give adequate support for it). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, as full disclosure, I don't really think Nussbaum is a good source for this, but I guess she counts as a reliable source. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: We don't want to be bias or infer. I vote that we should say that she is described as "right wing." Leoesb1032 (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose or is it Omit? The sources do not explain what on earth "right-wing" means and in American conservatism (3rd paragraph) there are numerous strains. The sources do not explain what makes her right-wing. It is a passing reference in articles that have another purpose. Contrast that with "anti-Islamic" or "Islamophobic." Here sources give copious examples of what they are talking about and why it applies to Geller. If I received a paper that made statements about the subject with no argumentation or definition of terms, I'd fail the student. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support describing her as "right-wing", as per a plethora of sources that do so and a complete lack of sources disputing this characterisation. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment there appears to be a common theme that she is labeled as right-wing because of her anti-Islamic radicalization and then be default her support of Israel. It seems like the attack label of "right-wing" is really just a lazy way to avoid the truth that it is really just this one area in which she is considered to be right. Since this is already stated in the lead the additional label of right-wing does not even add any additional information. If anything it is confusing because she doesn't appear to fall into any other extreme positions (although how being pro-Israel and anti-Islamic Radicalism is extreme continues to be confusing). Arzel (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Oxford book The Sacred in the Modern World: A Cultural Sociological Approach, p. 119, ISBN 0199557012, and many other sources. Binksternet (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support describing her as right-wing, per above reasons. Pass a Method talk 10:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support plainly and unemotionally describing her as right-wing. We should follow our sources, not try to sugar coat them. From WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." WP:SPADE also applies.- MrX 16:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I saw this and the other RfCs referred to on the AN/I page. Yes, the reliable sources refer to her in various ways as right-wing. But I think that the article as currently written makes that point plainly and that further labeling just isn't necessary or desirable. The reader "gets it." Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - First off, is there a definition of "right wing" that everyone agrees on? If so, does this person fit it? Unless the subject has openly referred to herself as a "right winger" or professes to be "anti-left wing", why is this label even necessary? If this is the case, then just use the phrase "self proclaimed right wing activist" or whatever she is, cite the source, and move on to better things. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• No one has ever produced a "one size fits all" definition for "right wing" which is, indeed, a recurring problem.

• " The meaning of 'right-wing' and 'left-wing' varies across societies, historical epochs and political systems and ideologies. " (Social cognition: an integrated introduction Martha Augoustinos, Iain Walker, Ngaire Donaghue; SAGE, June 15, 2006 - 364 pages, page 30)

• Seems pretty sound. A person who is "right wing" in China and a person who is "right wing" in Sweden and a person who is "right wing" in the US and a person who is "right wing" in Canada may possibly agree on nothing at all. Collect (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So basically this discussion is pointless as the question posed is "loaded" at best... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

A right-wing person in China, Sweden, the U.S. and Canada would hate socialismsocialists (viz., the "Left".) In addition, they would reject the established parties as "too socialist." In fact, right-wing groups tend to cooperate globally, for example Pamela Geller speaking to the EDL. The example the source uses is hard-line Communists. There is a similarity in the psychology of hardline Communists in Russia and extreme anti-Communists in the U.S. However, whatever the source says, people do not refer to Communists as right-wing, even on Fox News. TFD (talk) 05:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Moderates reject socialism as well. Americans have a tendency towards pragmatism and away from so-called ideology. Many Americans disparage the "wings" and prefer to see themselves as independent or moderates. When push comes to shove some may admit to be center-left or center-right but many just say it depends on the issue (and we should just list positions on the issues to avoid WP:LABEL). It's much different in Europe given the multi-party democracies. Here the seating arraignment seems to be an obsession. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I said hate socialism (I mean socialists.) Moderates do not hate socialists. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have worked with socialists, for example the Labour government in the UK. But right-wingers would consider Bush and Obama socialists. Your use of the term "moderate" implies a left-right spectrum. And when Geller talks about the "Islamic/Leftist Alliance", no one has any doubt what she is talking about. While you are correct that most Americans are non-ideological/pragmatic, some position themselves outside the moderate/independent mainstream, i.e., on the left or right. We're talking about someone who is no longer welcome at CPAC, which is the furthest to the right one can go without being right-wing. TFD (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I dare not show all the misstatements, but start with the first "Nussbaum does not mention her only in passing". That book uses "Geller" in precisely 5 pages out of 288 pages. The sentences are: the opposition can be traced to right-wing blogger ... (page 195) referring precisely to the mosque issue. (Page 55) is about Breivik citing Geller -- which has nothing to do with Geller. (Page 52) is about the mosque issue. (Page 196) says she "somehow paid for a poster" -- about the mosque issue. ({age 48) compares Geller's writings to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is an interesting claim, indeed. Unless you feel comparing someone to the writers of that fraud is somehow relevant here? In short -- Nussbaum makes no claims about Geller other than relating to the mosque affair. And mentions here only in passing in a 288 page book. Now do you want me to point out the truth about the other cites you claim are in depth views about Geller? Cheers -- when an source is demolished, it is silly to try pushing it further. Collect (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit to prevent archiving. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge of SIPA into this article

An ongoing discussion about the organization Geller founded and is the President of, Stop Islamization of America, is currently taking place at Talk:Stop Islamization of America. Anyone who would like to voice their opinion either in favor or against this merge is invited to do it there. Thanks Shalom11111 (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

"Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:uyqBUt_QZg8J:atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/new-york-times-con-job-daisy-khan-had-never-seen-so-many-jews-in-her-life.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Given her career as a blogger in regards to Islam, I think this quote merits a mention in the article. Shabeki (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not unless some reliable sources call this interesting, or we're turning this into a quote farm. Drmies (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Here you go. Here's another as well. Shabeki (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the "Reconquista" of the invaders Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492AD insured the persecution and expulsion of Jews along with the Muslim Moors of Spain, and southern France. While under the Moors, Jews enjoyed the most prosperous period during the Renaissance up to that time in Europe. The social condition of tolerance and ecumenism of that period has come to be known as the 'Ishmaeli" movement, that further spurred, and otherwise preserved the best tenets and science of Western civilization. After the "Castilians" consolidated their power at Madrid, The "royal usurpers", not only caused the collapse of the economy by expelling the population that gave prosperity to "Spain", but the few Jews who stubbornly remained were forced to covert to Christianity, on pain of torture or death. This was also the beginning of the Spanish Inquisition, a most shameful and horrific "operatic" period. This Pamela Geller is a petty, raging neurotic who was better served joining the Israeli Army if she wants to really mix it up with terrorists!!! --65.88.88.66 (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Veryverser

Anti-Muslim

"Pamela Geller is an anti-Muslim activist with a history of paying for hateful ads on New York's public transit system." http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/anti-muslim-group-to-sue-mta-over-ad-rejection.html 12.30.109.2 (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Pamela Geller has repeated described herself as being "anti-Islam" and is even against notable Muslim organizations like CAIR, as well as other random, relatively non-controversial Muslims such as Judge Sohail Mohammed and millions of others (whom she accuses of committing "taqiyya" in an attempt to allegedly falsely integrate into American society all the while supposedly pushing some subversive Sharia-based agenda). But she also describes herself as not being against Muslims. From what I understand, she feels that all "true" Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against America, and those that do not are not "true" Muslims, or are possibly committing "taqiyya" to hide jihadist intent. She's also advocated Muslims leaving Islam by providing resources for Muslims to leave Islam on the same billboards in which she links Islam to fascism. It could possibly be a contrarian stance, or it could be subterfuge on her part to deflect criticisms of being accused of being a bigot or a racist. Given her behavior, it's probably fair to assume that she's anti-Muslim, but her own denial of being anti-Muslim should probably be included (even if she didn't provide a plausible explanation of not being anti-Muslim beyond a simple denial) in an effort to maintain the impartiality of the article. Shabeki (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Russia Today - rt.com

Has been discussed in the past at RS/N and BLP/N noticeboards, and found to be, at best, usable for opinions cited as opinions. This is, of course, an exceedingly important issue on any BLP. Collect (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I see rt.com has been mentioned three times at the WP:RS/N, once by you [5], and in two other instances [6] and [7], none that mention that this is per se a source that is not ok to use. As far as I have seen this is the only source that actually shows the adds, and therefore adds great value to the article for people that wonder how they look like. Nsaa (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Here is the source in question removed and added. Nsaa (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I was one who said it was usable for certain things - specifically opinions cited as opinion. The first discussion did not approve of RT for a fact claim, as you should notice. The second one you found was for whether RT could establish notability - it didn't. The third hinged on what claim was being made - and it was clear that RT is not specifically RS but that it can be used for some claims (opinions cited as opinion, notably). You missed quite a few discussions like [8] etc. where it is considered a source with specific editorial objectives. In short - feel free to use RT.com for opinions properly cited as opinions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. The last one was very interesting and I agree with you on what you say. Have you any doubt about the adds pictured in the article? As far as I see in this regard RT is an RS Source. Nsaa (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have seen in my life photos which ended up being other than what they were said to be - it is better for me to assert no knowledge as to "truth" than to err one way or another. Thus my position on opinions. Collect (talk) 23:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See [9] The US state department has dismissed as “preposterous” Russian TV reports that a Ukrainian fighter jet shot down Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, while the images used to back up the claim have been described as crude fakes. The photo released on Friday by Russia’s Channel One and Rossiya TV stations purportedly shows a Ukrainian fighter plane firing an air-to-air missile in the direction of flight MH17. The channels said they got the photo from a Moscow-based organisation, which had received it via email from a man who identified himself as an aviation expert. Collect (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

anti-islam all throughout article/hate group

This page is proving the often repeated adage that wikipedia should never be used as a legit source. In the 2nd sentence, Geller is immediately referred to as having "anti-islamic" viewpoints. Despite the fact that further down the paragraph it says she claims she is not and that she is merely anti-political islam. The paragraph also says she considers secular islam fine...hardly anti-islam. The source for her being anti-islamic? The far left website alternet...the article linked to is headlined "Jewish Federation Puts Kibosh On Extreme Islamophobe Pamela Geller." This is, in the eyes of the wiki police here, a legit reference to defame someone by referring to them as anti-islamic despite the actual person in question denying that's what she believes? Is she not the best person to tell us what's in her brain? That alternet article also includes a statement from CAIR (a group listed as a terrorist org by the UAE with close ties to hamas). The alternet author then praises CAIRs description of Geller as an anti-muslim who runs a hate group. Yes, this is, no doubt, a fair article and legit source for calling someone anti-islamic.

The claim is used throughout the page, and it's absurd, given Geller's statements that she has no problem with secular islam and is out to battle violent islamic or political islam. Furthermore, you cannot rationally just refer to her viewpoints and describe them in a way that her attackers would describe them, especially when she says just the opposite. I could refer to you as having views that are "racist and misogynistic," but it certainly wouldn't be fair to write about you and say, "Bob, is known for her racist and misogynistic views."

It's also silly to, throughout the article, refer to her group as a hate group based on what the southern poverty law center says. They refer to anyone who opposes gay marriage as a hate group basically, and no one takes them seriously. Just go their webpage to check out the "hate groups." They list worldnet daily as a hate group for heaven's sake! Other hate groups? The American Family Association (crime? calling homosexuality a sin), Family Research Council (crime? opposing gay marriage), the Traditional Values Coalition (crime? opposing gay marriage.) So, basically, the source for calling Geller's group a hate site is a left wing organization that would, if they consistently followed their own logic, call President Obama, who until 3 years ago opposed gay marriage, a hate group. Seems legit to me. Sounds very much like what an encyclopedia would do!

I get that an army of wiki armed forces will come down on this and nothing will change, but when professors and others keep saying never use wikipedia as a legit source, don't blame them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.30.155.95 (talk) 03:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

So, basically, we are all exaggerating and saying that Geller hates all Islam, when in fact, she just hates radical Islam? OK. What do other people think of this? Should we rephrase this article to say that she hates only radical Islam? Epic Genius (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

She is self described as Islamophobic and anti-muslim. She is also characterized as anti-muslim by reliable sources which appears to be the consensus among major media outlets. Even the British government characterized her as part of a hate group. I think we should have no major changes to the article as it accurately describes her viewpoint that is found in reliable sources. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the reliable sources here, I suppose that it's reasonable to leave the part about her being universally Islamophobic. (BTW, I was being sarcastic up there.) Epic Genius (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't catch that, sarcasm travels poorly through text. Winner 42 Talk to me! 13:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. That is what NPOV is all about: we report significant viewpoints on subjects as expressed by reliable sources. This also include WP:SELFPUB material, within some very specific constraints. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Any objections to collapsing this section? I don't see any discussion relating to specific content changes. NickCT (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed sarcasm is unhelpful because it requires other editors to determine what one really meant. The SPLC analysis was accepted by the Court of Appeal of England and Wales while Geller's position was rejected, which is an indication that their analysis is widely accepted. TFD (talk) 14:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Not being sarcastic here, but does this mean that the IP editor's point is moot, then? Epic Genius (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Alternet blog ref

There is/was a ref to an alternet blog. Alternet itself is not well received at WP:RSN. This ref is to a crowd sourced/SPS blog at Alternet. This is not a suitable ref (particularly in a BLP) and is unnecessary given the many RS refs already at the article. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree and would support taking this out. I may have inadvertently reverted the edit removing it as I was trying to preserve the lead as it was. Agtx (talk) 23:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

re the inadvertant revert, No problems. I agree with your edit otherwise. The lede is fine. Capitalismojo (talk)

Repetitive and NPOV linking in header

The first paragraph has both:

[[Islamophobia|anti-Islamic positions]] 
[[Islamophobia|Islamophobic]]

Issues:

1. It seems unnecessarily repetitive to have a link to the same wikipedia article in two sentences right next to each other.
2. anti-Islamic is close to NPOV, whereas Islamophobic is clearly a slur. It seems dishonest to click on something that looks NPOV and get to a negative page.

I think the correct way to deal with this would be to change the first text/link, anti-Islamic positions, to instead in toto be Criticism of Islamism, while leaving as-is Islamophobia in the next sentence; that would balance what her detractors say with what she and her promoters say. --Djbclark (talk) 17:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Djbclark: - The problem I think is that "Criticism of Islamism" implies she's making a rationale and level headed argument against something, while "Islamophobia" implies she's just being prejudice. Without commenting on whether I personally feel Ms. Geller's viewpoints are rational or just prejudiced, I think it's fair to say that there are going to be different POV's on that question.

Whatever the wording is, we should probably take pains to make sure that we, in our narrative voice, not adding any credibility or incredibility to Ms. Geller's stances.

Perhaps just delete the initial wikilink so that we aren't implying Ms. Geller's positions are either Islamophobic or legitimate criticisms? NickCT (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - Using that rational we should also remove the wikilink to Islamophobia. I agree that there is disagreement. People who feel she is prejudiced choose to use the word "Islamophobic" to describe her views. People who feel she is not would use something like "Criticism of Islamism." People trying to be neutral might say "anti-Islamic positions." The problems I see with your suggestion is that we'd leave an unlinked neutral description and still have a linked negative description. Unfortunately there isn't a rigorously NPOV "anti-Islamic positions" page that covers that controversy. Could you tell me the problem you see with having a positive wikilink followed immediately by a negative wikilink? That way thinks become more neutral, and also people can easily go to both pages to form their own "anti-Islamic positions" "Islamophobia vs. Criticism of Islamism" Wikipedia page in their heads :-)

@Djbclark: - I agree we should have the positive and negative wikilinked. I think the first mention should be as neutral as possible though (i.e. it should be an unwikilinked "anti-islamic" adjective).

Maybe something like "She is known for her anti-Islamic(no wikilink) positions ....... Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic(wikilink islamophobia)....... She describes herself as being against radical islam (wikilink Critism of Islamism)"

Seem reasonable? NickCT (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@NickCT: - Good idea, sounds like the right thing to do. --Djbclark (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok. I gave it a quick shot. It might still need tweaking. NickCT (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

You can't not have a point of view, but I agree, this sounds like the least weighted alternative (though I think that anti-Islamic should be linked at the first possible mention). Epic Genius (talk) 02:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Trim article of minor historical items

As Geller has gone beyond her initial anonymity of a blogger to become an author and public figure of some controversy, I have removed some one-off items from among her 10,000 blog entries that haven't become a repetitive theme of her work. Some she has dropped or repudiated and are no longer relevant to her notability. Some are original research done by those reading her original blog. The article has become long and rambling especially the "blog" section. She is noted for her view on Islam and Muslims, suggesting that this is what is noteworthy and it is the subject in all the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It's fair to say that the section needs to be trimmed down, but I'd rather see a consensus on what needs to removed and what's relevant to keep. With her views on the 2011 Norway attacks, I haven't seen her repudiate what she originally wrote. The problem is that given her controversial nature, she's expressed quite a bit of opinions on well, almost everything. I agree that not all of them can simply be put on a wikipedia page, so I think that the article should focus mainly on her view of Islam and Muslims. The problem is even that has been making sections heavily bloated.Shabeki (talk) 14:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is her blog/website Original Research?

Many statements from her blog and website have been removed as Original Research (OR). Wikipedia policy says (quoted from WP:BLPSELFPUB):

Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

The statemetns meet those criteria, and some statements are supported by other sources (see below). Therefore I am adding the statements back into the article.

If Jason from nyc wants to come to an agreement about undue weight -- which I think has some merit but doesn't warrant all these removals -- I suggest starting another topic (to avoid the mess of two discussions in one thread) guanxi (talk) 21:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I restored them and then did a major revision of the Atlas Shrugged which removed some of them again. guanxi (talk) 23:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry I wasn't around to participate. I'd argue if a statement is gotten solely from digging it up from her blog, it is original research. If it is to bring nuance to statements from reliable source, it helps us avoid slandering the person as per BLP guidelines. Thus, we avoid #5, the reliance on her writings, but use the author's statements to supplement what is said in reliable sources. Since the work has been done my arguments and input no longer seem needed. I believe the final product, is a vast improvement. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

And Jason just deleted quotes from her own blog on the 2011 Norway attacks claiming that's original research. I understand that the section is becoming a little bloated now, but "original research" is not a valid reason to delete portions. of it. Shabeki (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The reliance on secondary source, WP:SECONDARY, is a main pillar of Wikipedia. While limited use of primary sources is allowed, that isn't a loophole to do what no secondary source has done. I'm not sure how you'd allow some primary source material without allowing all primary sources. Geller has blogged for ten years with about 10 posts per day giving us 36500 posts to review. If we allow any usage of her blog, we'd be reading for months much worthless material. And we'd have different people cherry picking different articles with no end in sight. Reading all the secondary sourced articles and books is a task that few of us have done for a subject that has been given another 15 minutes of fame yet again. Binksternet has reverted the same edit on the same grounds; and he and I respectfully (I hope) disagree 90% of the time. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Right you are. If we pick and choose primary sources we can make Geller into an angel or a demon, depending on the selected quotes. So to settle things down a bit, we have a longstanding agreement on this talk page to refrain from using primary sources and instead to use WP:SECONDARY sources which at the very least demonstrate that the media was paying attention to Geller's communiqués. Binksternet (talk) 22:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Her blog can and should be referenced when we cite secondary sources that react to her posts, but the only use of the blog by itself should be as a source of uncontested, uncontroversial information (ie what city she lives in). VQuakr (talk) 18:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Statements cited to self-publshed sources

(EDIT: I forgot one. It's now at #2, and the ones after that are renumbered. Sorry.)

There probably are many other instances of self-published cites in the article, but I happen to know about these:

• #1 (removed here); note this has another

She also published false claims that Obama's mother was involved in pornography, that his "spiritual father" was a child rapist, and that Obama "was involved with a crack whore in his youth". , She also published a doctored photo showing President Obama urinating on an American flag.

• #2 (removed in same revision as #1)

Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan in a mock-up photograph in a Nazi uniform, and a video suggesting that some Muslims have sex with goats. In other posts she said that black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites, and that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed because it was built on the same site as Judaism's former First and Second Temples.

• #3 (removed here)

Geller has defended the Serbian perpetrators of the Bosnian War and genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croats. She defended Radovan Karadžic, on trial for genocide and crimes against humanity, publishing articles arguing that the Muslim victims were murdered by their own people in order to bring condemnation on the Serbs..

• #4 (self-published, but overlooked and not yet removed)

She denies supporting Milošević but has expressed skepticism of some accounts of the camps.

References

All these have to be restored, as it expresses her own views and this is her bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2015

She is described as a critic of radical Islam[9] and self-described as opposing political Islam. She says her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country.[1]Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic[7] or Islamophobic.[1][8] 50.244.10.230 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:18, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Islam in Lede

Calling her Islamiphobic in the lede is biased. In her own words, she says calling anyone that tells the truth about Islam an "islamophobe" is the Left's method of enforcing the blasphemy laws in the USJonny Quick (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the entire article? The inclusion of the sentence "Her viewpoints have been described as anti-Islamic or Islamophobic" is not a statement of fact. Shabeki (talk) 05:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Trim Curtis Culwell Center attack section

I believe we should trim the Curtis Culwell Center attack section to the main facts and leave the details, including editorials, to the Curtis Culwell Center attack article. We seem to be cherry picking two opinions of prominent conservatives (according to whom?) from among a large number of views in the Curtis article. Rather than write a mini-article here, let's just state the facts of the event and leave the commentary to the main article. I'd remove Trump, O'Reilly, and Choudary sentences. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:24, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, including more than two sentences about the attack in this article is classic WP:RECENTISM. VQuakr (talk) 19:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't find the section to be overly long given the significance of the event and shooting. I think we would do our readers a disservice by omitting the general reactions of notable commentors. Recentism is a fairly weak argument, given that we're an online encyclopedia and routinely include notable content as soon as it appears in sources (plane crashes, sports stats, presidential campaigns, and so on). That said, I wouldn't object to removing the last sentence, and I wouldn't freak out if we changed "Prominent conservatives, including Bill O'Reilly and Donald Trump, criticized Geller for organizing the provocative event." to "Prominent conservatives criticized Geller for organizing the provocative event.", but leaving the sources intact.- MrX 20:51, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, then let's summarize all the reactions in the "Curtis" article. If we are going to include Trump as a prominent conservative surely we should include Victor Davis Hanson. Hanson trumps Trump. Why not Alan Dershowitz? I took a stab at a summary of the reactions in the Curtis article. Hopefully I'm not cherry picking. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not 100% comfortable with the latest revision. Let's at least use real sources, which Newsmax is not. Is Deshowitcz cited somewhere reliable? Also, the passage is not clear as to whether the reaction is to the draw the prophet content or the shooting.- MrX 00:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

How about we keep the reactions in the actual article about the attack, where sufficient coverage to provide the necessary nuance is possible without violating WP:UNDUE? VQuakr (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That leaves readers scratching their heads, wondering why this happened without any reaction. Jason from nyc was on the right track by summarizing the range of reactions. It just needs a little more context (as I mention in my previous post). Also, the reactions should be cited in reliable (secondary) sources. The MLK comparison should be omitted.- MrX 00:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

On one hand this should be "adjudicated" in the "Curtis" article. I merely summarized and "plagiarized" the citations from that article. Perhaps VQuakr is right that it's best to leave the relations to the "Curtis" article--at least for now until it settles down. But I'm willing to try to do a better summary if that's what the consensus demands. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. Maybe we'll hear from a couple more editors so we can determine a consensus.- MrX 01:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@MrX: "That leaves readers scratching their heads"... I disagree; readers interested in reading more about reactions to the shooting can read the prominently-linked article about the shooting. This is consistent with the guideline of summary style; the complexity of the reactions to the cartoon event and the shooting just helps provide a line of demarcation between the articles. VQuakr (talk) 03:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOLD I tried simplifying the last sentence. Feel free to restore the one word unquoted quotes if someone finds them important, but please consider retaining the grammar fix in the first half of the sentence. VQuakr (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd suggest an even more simple description. "The decision to hold the cartoon contest received both criticism and support.", with the relevant, currently-in-place refs added after 'criticism' and 'support' respectively. Says the same thing, except in 12 words rather than 14 and avoids the (in my opinion) slightly awkward "Reactions to the decision to" wording. Beyond the mildly awkward wording, I have no issues with the way you put it, though, so I'm posting it here to see what others think first. AddWittyNameHere (talk) 04:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, glad to hear so! MrX, VQuakr, what do you two think? (Pinging both of you because you were the other editors active in this discussion so far) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Since the consensus seems to be headed toward less is more, I can live with that (or the current version) provided that we link "received both criticism and support" ← like that.- MrX 15:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

That might be a bit tricky. We'd have to break that linking up to combine it with the refs, some of which would have to be inserted halfway the section you want wikilinked. Alternatively, we could do as you say as far as the linking goes and simply add all the refs—both those for the criticism and those for the support—at the end of the sentence. (Would become "[...]received both criticism and support.-refs here-".) AddWittyNameHere (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The refs at the end of the sentence would be fine, and easier to read anyway.- MrX 15:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like we have a plan. VQuakr (talk) 15:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup.  Done AddWittyNameHere (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Category:Conspiracy theorists??

Does anybody know why or whether this article belongs in Category:Conspiracy theorists? I looked thru it twice and was unable to find anything that would support inclusion in that category. Holding extreme views on various subjects doesn't in and of itself equate to being a "conspiracy theorist". It occurs to me, however, that there may have been material in the article at some point that dealt with this issue, but was subsequently removed from the article. Cgingold (talk) 03:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article does belong in the category, as Geller has consistently advocated conspiracy theories such as Eurabia AusLondonder (talk) 05:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, AusLondonder. That gets me part way there... but given the range and sheer number of topics that she has talked & written about, I guess the question is how much time and emphasis has she put on promoting this (or any other conspiracy theories). The point being that we don't categorize people merely for having expressed support for certain ideas or views. I'd really like to know if other editors with an informed opinion agree with your assessment.`At any rate, some text summarizing the info on this issue of espousing conspiracy theories needs to be added to the article. Even if we come to agree that it doesn't quite rise to the level of supporting inclusion in Category:Conspiracy theorists, it seems to me that it is still worth noting in the article. Cgingold (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S. - I read the article about Eurabia, and curiously, it wasn't listed in any of the conspiracy theory categories -- so I added a couple. Cgingold (talk) 08:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Geller spread the following conspiracy theories:

• Osama bin Laden's death was not ordered by President Obama but by a coup inside the White House.[10]
• The Boston Marathon bombing was a grand conspiracy (Geller followed Glenn Beck's lead on this one.)[11][12]
• The Paris Hebdo massacre was a larger conspiracy by Jews who wanted to frame Muslims.[13]
• The Park51 Islamic Center was a conspiracy to increase the power and influence of right-wing Islamic fundamentalists.[14]
• President Obama's true birthplace is being kept from the public.[15]

She has been described many times as a conspiracy theorist. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet: I've checked some of your links, and they appear to be blogs and/or the equivalent of op ed pieces, which is not ideal citations for Wikipedia. Plus, your third point about the Paris Hebdo massacre misrepresents the conspiracy theory as one spread by Geller, rather than one which is indeed held by a large number of Muslims (along the same lines, alas, as the belief that 9/11 was an Israeli conspiracy to get America to attack Muslim lands). As an experienced editor that you are, I'm surprised that you appear to be be so careless in amassing evidence in this case. Alfietucker (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the category goes against BLP and LABEL generally. Her notability anyway is as an anti-Muslim activist. TFD (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• My thanks to everyone who has commented. After immersing myself in Pamela Geller lore for a couple of days, I now have an informed opinion on the subject. On the basis of what I have read, I am persuaded that her article does indeed belong in Category:Conspiracy theorists. She is widely regarded as a promoter of conspiracy theories, not only by innumerable liberal commentators, but also by a fair number of mainstream journalists, and even by some sources that one might expect to be sympathetic to her pro-Zionist views (e.g. this piece in the strongly pro-Zionist blog, Little Green Footballs).

In this recent article, the US bureau chief of the Sydney Morning Herald says of Geller, "Vile and preposterous conspiracy theories are her currency." He then goes on to quote the following passages from the (Jewish & pro-Zionist) Anti-Defamation League, which says that her organization is dedicated to "promoting a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam" and "seeking to rouse public fears by consistently vilifying the Islamic faith and asserting the existence of an Islamic conspiracy to destroy 'American' values." I don't think it could be summarized more clearly. Cgingold (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

The ADL quote comes from [16], a report which we make good use of in our article. This "vast Islamic conspiracy to destroy American values," as the ADL puts it, consists of "Shariah related conspiracy theories" to make Shariah law recognizable by American law. It's not clear that this is little more than emphatic ADL rhetoric. Is there such a recognizable "conspiracy theory"? I don't see it listed here at Wikipedia's List of conspiracy theories. If we are going to classify her categorically as a conspiracy theorist (and not merely paranoid) one would like to see several authors note that she constantly advocates something that can be recognized as a "conspiracy theory" by most of our sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Once again, far right?

RThompson82, User: 2600:1006:b16a:2868:ddf:6999:a965:b6f62600, others: We've talked about the right wing and far right labels over the years. You might want to check the archive: [17]. Last year, a request for comment resulted in a rejection of the label: [18]. After a long multi-year discussion we arrived at the consensus version where we describe her place on the political spectrum in the third paragraph of the lead. You may want to review the arguments and if you think we missed a point, feel free to enlighten us. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The prevailing view was that Geller's organization, while having connections with far right groups such as the EDL and JDL, also had connections with U.S. conservative groups and therefore could not be grouped in either category. Furthermore, usually categories such as far right are applied to groups rather than individuals. The article on Obama for example does not say he is a liberal. TFD (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

If there is a person that is far-right (or fringe), is the subject of this article. But you may be right that it is best to provide context as already done at end of lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Any way to at least force this cellular/tablet user to create a screen name? --RThompson82 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Removal of "anti Islamic"

A zealous IP editor has repeatedly [19] [20] [21] removed any reference to Geller being described as anti-islamic, a fact which is very well established in sources and has been exhaustively discussed on this talk page. These edits need to be justified by the editor and a new consensus reached, otherwise the edits should be reverted back.- MrX 03:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pamela Geller. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/11/new-york-times-con-job-daisy-khan-had-never-seen-so-many-jews-in-her-life.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)