Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Bias

The opening is biased against the subject and does not reflect the facts and quotes displayed later. The statement that: "She is known for her anti-Islamic positions and opposition to Islamic activities and causes," is contradicted by a quote of the subject later on, "Geller has said of herself that she has "no problem with Islam. I have a problem with political Islam."" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.14.202.33 (talk) 18:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

And it never occurred to you that the subject simply contradicted herself? Shabeki (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Quoting the HuffPo and the SPLC is just icing on the cake. The article is wildly biased.71.243.209.145 (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Icing on the cake? Facts are not bias. Shabeki (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

SPLC and HuffPo are not facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.157.221.156 (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Try your trolling act with someone else. Shabeki (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody would ever say that "she is known for her anti-Christian positions", because islam is a protected religion, so being anti it is "bad", whereas Christianity is not a protected religion, so it is confusing to label anyone anti-Christian. Using the label would imply that it is a bad thing, and there is a consensus that it is not a bad thing. And SPLC is a ridiculous thing simply because it exists only to propagate this kind of manufactured, politically correct consensus positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:FA:0:0:0:3400 (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you may feel that Islam is a "protected" religion (whatever that means), but in reality, Pamela Geller has not spewed any anti-Christian viewpoints, and thus would not be known for having any. Your views of the SPLC are ludicrous and proof that you are too biased to edit this article. Shabeki (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Calling her writing's "anti-Islamic" as admitting Islam is a terrorist organization. If the article fails to reconcile this contradiction (Islam is a terrorist organization that Geller is against in the lede, then it's a legitimate religion later in the article and people should be outraged at Gellers "anti-Islamic" writings), then this wiki article becomes a piece of pro-Islam propaganda. Personally, I'm good with Geller being "anti-Islamic" as long as the article fully supports the idea that Islam is an evil terrorist organization, but that's just me.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Umm, Islam is a religion, not an organization.- MrX 20:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we please ban this guy?108.131.126.108 (talk) 04:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea. Shabeki (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

"Multiple groups have described her as Islamophobic." This is like saying on MLK's page that "multiple white power organizations have described him using the N word". I mean, 'islamophobic' is nothing else than an insult posing as a diagnosis posing as a fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:FA:B508:23D9:C18D:F7F4 (talk) 15:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Your comment was a whole lot of nothing. If you see "Islamophobic" as an insult, that's your business, but Geller is anti-Islam and fosters fear of anything Islamic. The polemic does not describe the views of her inasmuch as it may describe her own views. Shabeki (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

To paraphraze, "many of her political opponents have described her as being a political opponent." Whoa, there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:470:28:FA:0:0:0:3400 (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

To paraphrase you, "Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are too fast. I would catch it." Shabeki (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Funding

The source [1] said "The Freedom Center ... is not paying for Spencer and Geller’s Sept. 11 protest or the controversial ads they placed on New York City buses." The whole section is in error and the consensus has been restored per WP:BRD. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Daughters

I'm trying to add the our names of her four daughters but they keep getting reverted. I'm new to wikipedia--is there something I'm doing wrong? I supplied sources to my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabreuse184 (talk • contribs) 04:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sabreuse184: per WP:BLPNAME, we normally keep names of children out of articles, unless they are notable in their own right, even if they are reliably sourced. I can also address the source you used[2]. We don't accept search results as reliable, or an indication of notability. We don't accept user-submitted content as sources, nor "Possible relatives", people whose relationship is not specified, or results for people who might happen to have a similar name. This is not a sufficient reference even if we had some reason to include the daughters' names. HTH. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References to Southern Poverty Law Center

This is an extremely biased source. It should be noted that the SPLC is an extreme left-wing organization which is directly funded by George Soros. Its mission is to identify groups and individuals which in the opinion of the SPLC promote "hate speech." This includes all groups and individuals who are opposed to introducing Sharia law into US Law (Sharia is Islamic law), which is incompatible with the US Constitution, and US law, and also individuals and groups who wage counter attacks against Antisemitism, as Pamela Geller does in her transit ad campaigns against the messages of HAMAS and other terrorist organizations in the US, such as CAIR one of many "unindicted co-conspirators" in the Holy Land Foundation trial, the largest terrorism funding trial in US history.

The Southern Poverty Law Center is not a credible source.--WilliamNOtis (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems more like you're just too biased to credibly edit this article.Shabeki (talk) 23:33, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I do not think that a far-left anti-Semitic organization like SPLC should be referenced in an article about a patriotic Jewish individual. This article is an obvious attack piece. But I am not surprised, for Wikipedia is itself a left-wing extremist anti-Israel mouthpiece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.11.212.127 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Counter-Jihad activist

@MrX: "Critics of Islam" is a parent category of "Counter-Jihad activists". I will add support for the counter-jihad claim. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I should have been more careful reverting. I'm fine with your edits.- MrX 14:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

There are several questions. There is certainly support for Geller being part of the counter-jihadi movement in America. (1) First, it should be in the body of the article. (2) Second, the lead should summarize the main thrust of the article. Of the over 100 references only 1 or 2 talk about counter-jihadi. We should use the terms that are generally used. (3) I still don't see that quote in Goodwin. The Goodwin article is about the counter-jihadi in the UK, specifically the EDL. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Except that you are the one breaking WP:BRD, making changes against a version that has been stable for around one month. Therefore, the policy you are referencing is against you. Goodwin does mention Geller and you've been told that numerous times. I added a quote in the citation itself here for further confirmation, yet you chose to revert that, which you shows your lack of faith in resolving this conflict. Not to mention you dismissing the other Benjamin Lee reference that counts Pamela Geller among the counter-jihadists. She is a counter-jihadist according to numerous academic references on the subject and that is the thing that made her popular. There is no need to cover up that (this is one badge that she will wear with honor and use it to sell to her gullible masses, who feel good believing that a white American woman understands Islam better than Arab Muslims themselves). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

First of all you violated the WP:3RR. You were warned here. Please self-revert to be in compliance with the 3RR. Jason from nyc (talk)

As usual you ignore most of my points. You accuse me of trying to cover up her being part of the counter-jihadi when it is I who put this information in the body of the article. As per MOS:INTRO "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Why do you keep removing this info from the body of the article? Jason from nyc (talk)

Where in the Lee article is that quote that you put in the footnotes. I don't see it in the article. What paragraph is it? We need to discuss the article. You've put a sentence in the lead that is reference by nothing in the body but uses two citations both which are behind paywalls. This takes time to vet and there is no time limit to the insertion of a "bold edit" before it is challenged. Jason from nyc (talk)

Finally there is a question of WP:UNDUE but we'll come back to that after we deal with the above. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The quote is from Goodwin, not Lee. Both Lee and Goodwin assert that Pamela Geller is a prominent activist for the counter-jihad movement in the USA. I can reproduce countless other sources that support this claim, not mention Geller's own website where she brags about it: http://pamelageller.com/2007/10/one-for-the-age-2.html/.

As far as I know, there is no policy that requires a lede claim have a section in the body of the article discussing the claim. It is unfortunate that you can't access the articles, but public access is not a requirement for inclusion either. But if you are interested, I can share the content with you via email. Finally, for the claim that 100 sources do not mention counter-jihad vs only 2, I don't think UNDUE can be inferred from this fact. Instead, I believe it is something that must be demonstrated with sources that counter the claim or dismiss the label, including ones from her own of course. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I meant where in the Goodwin article is the quote? I've now found a public up-loaded version here: [3]. I don't see the quote. Jason from nyc (talk)

I posted the rules from MOS:INTRO that says the lead should summarize the body. Why are you arguing about my inserting this information into the body? Jason from nyc (talk)

I haven't yet discussed UNDUE. It's a question of weight and emphasis. Let's examine the sources. The Goodwin article is about the English Defence League not Geller. I don't see the passing reference and does it matter? It's not about her. I agree that sources (and original research) put her in the counter-jihadi category and this should be in the body of the article. Over 100 citations refer to her in other terms, clearly one or two should override that. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Finally, you've done 3 reverts ... please undue the last while we discuss this. You are in violation of the WP:3RR. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

For Goodwin, check the "Political Studies"journal per the citation. Lead should summarize the body does not imply that each claim in the lede must have a section in the body, which is what you have used as grounds for removal. Goodwin's topic being about EDL is irrelevant. EDL, Geller and others all belong to the same crap and Goodwin is an expert in that field and his views are cited by a high quality reliable source, in agreement with numerous other sources that call Geller a counter-jihad activist. The UNDUE argument is weak. You are inferring UNDUE from the silence of 100 sources on the usage of counter-jihad. But their silence is not a proof of opposition to this claim, therefore the comparison of 100 against 2 is not right. For Undue, you need sources that are explicitly opposed to the counter-jihad label. And even then, you need to present both views for balance. Also, I can now add 30 references for the counter-jihad claim, and you'd still say it's 100 vs 30 and that it is UNDUE. Where does it end? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I have a link to the Goodwin article above and here it is again: [4]. In what paragraph is that quote. The vast majority of the 100 citations use other terms to describe Geller, they should take precedence over the occasion one or two that mentions her in passing. Many of these articles are specifically about Geller. They are definitive.

You are still in violation of the WP:3RR rule. Al-Andalusi, you do some excellent work in Panegyrists, Medieval Islamic culture, etc. I value your contributions. But on this one we have to work together to reach a consensus. We have to follow the rules. C'mon. Work with me. Jason from nyc (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not the same. Look up the article on DOI.org and it will take you to the article's page here. This is the version I'm using. You are the one who violated BRD and claimed that I did. Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Same title, same authors, same abstract! If they left out Geller in the public version [5] it was because the article wasn't about her. Dozens of editors have review over 100 articles, many full studies of Geller, and you want to ignore a carefully crafted consensus for the lead because of a passing reference to Geller's counter-jihadi activities. This bold, indeed, arrogant edit has to be been defended, until then the long-standing consensus still holds. You've violated the WP:3RR and it doesn't matter what the reason. You are edit warring. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Different versions? That's not my problem. It is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that the version I used is unreliable or unworthy of being cited. Also, stop referring to Wiki policies. Anyone who understands BRD is not going to side with you. The consensus established over a month ago has kept the counter-jihad affiliation in the lede. You are now opposed to its inclusion, so get a consensus fist for removal. Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Let me ignore your nonsense about consensus building and applaud you for find some solid references. Joel Busher's book has extensive first-hand research with much material to show Geller's role in the counter-jihadi movement. Stephen Bronner also argues the point by actually referring to her work. These are solid references. The other references have one gratuitous insertion in passing with no citations.

Here's what I propose. First we need text in the body of the article on her role in the counter-jihadi movement. We put the solid citations there. And we summarize her association in the lead. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not up to you to decide what is a "solid" reference and what is not. All sources I used are considered reliable and solid academic references, whether you like it or not.

"First we need text in the body of the article". No we don't "need" anything to include the counter-jihad claim. Stop making up policies. And for the record, you are violating BRD. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I posted the rules from MOS:INTRO that says the lead should summarize the body. Stop ignoring the rules.

Give your revert you obviously don't want to work towards a consensus. You can't just edit and play "King of the Mountain". Your edit was challenged, you provided more references, I agreed with some. That's how people work together to form a consensus. You don't get to decide unilaterally if references are relevant to the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

You are not being consistent at all. Over the course of the last edits, you came up with a million different excuses to remove counter-jihad, claiming lead formatting claims, sourcing issues, access issues as well as claims of me breaking an existing consensus, all while demonstrating a complete ignorance of the topic you were fighting for. Not one attempt was made to validate the claim in Google Books or somewhere else, or bring in new sources. This is not consensus building, this has been nothing but a waste of time with an arrogant editor. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry you misunderstood me. After your recent crop of references, I agreed with the counter-jihadi claim. It's in the lead and I left it in the lead. If being open to new evidence is being inconsistent, I can only echo Keynes who said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" Let move forward. We also need it in the body. I still don't understand why you object to that. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

September 29 revert

@NickCT:, link to RfC? Al-Andalusi (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - Here. You can find this pretty easily by typing "RfC" into the Archive Search above. NickCT (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: I fail to see the problem here:

1. The RfC makes no reference to the counter-jihad movement at all, so I'm not sure citing this RfC is giving any support to your reverts.
2. The RfC was a vote among the editors, whereas the claim for "counter-jihad activist" comes from 8 academic citations from relevant experts in the field, all published in quality reliable sources. They are all in agreement with the "counter-jihad" description and are more recent than the 5-year old Rfc.
3. That said, the current lead already states "her blogging and campaigns in the United States are against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country.", which is preceisly the definition of the counter-jihad movement. So it seems there is a lack of understanding on your side on the counter-jihad movement.
4. In light of the new academic sources and the recent discussion on the talk page, an agreement was established with regards to including the "counter-jihad" in the lead back in August.
5. Your reverts on Sept 29 to the 2 months longstanding version of the article were reverted and you continue to do so with no justifiable reason, possibly violating WP:BRD.

The onus is now on YOU to explain to the community the removal of content cited by reliable quality academic sources. Once you you do that and gain consensus (which you won't and I promise you that, as no editor will see your obliteration of academic sources as justifiable in any way), you can then revert the change. Thanks. Al-Andalusi (talk) 16:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: your proposed edit adds 8 sources midsentence to the first sentence of the article. That seems editorially unfavorable to me. Even if the wording is determined to be better, most of those sources should be used in the body of the article, not the lede that summarizes the body (if the label is contentious, per WP:BLP a single source might still be merited in the lede). I agree with NickCT that a RfC is merited before this change is incorporated into the article, and would add that proposed changes to the body to support this change to the summary should also be incorporated into the RfC query. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - Before changing wording agreed to in an RfC, please make another RfC to demonstrate that consensus has changed. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC

@VQuakr: Having too many citations is not grounds deleting the entire content. Besides, 8 different academic sources stating the exact same thing is the "consensus" you are looking for, certainly NOT the silly "editorially unfavorable" claim you make. The fact that chose to delete the counter-jihad claim along with all the citations, instead of moving them to the body of the article makes me question your intentions. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: There is no policy that requires "another RfC" to change content. Per the link you cited: "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing". There has been a stable version for 2 months before you "woke up", reverted the change citing a completely irrelevant RfC that does not even mention counter-jihad (as mentioned above). Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - The consensus version was changed. I reverted. Now we discuss (see WP:BRD). I'm happy to see the content change, provided we demonstrate that consensus has changed. Is there a reason you don't want to generate an WP:RfC? I can help you. NickCT (talk) 18:03, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: I don't see the need for an RfC at this point. I think I made my case clear that the claim for counter-jihad activism is backed by numerous academic sources. What is your dispute with that? Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - I think I have two issues; 1) The first RfC was the subject of a lot of contention, and before arbitrarily changing the language that we arrived at in the RfC we should make sure everyone is on board. 2) "Counter-jihad" is language used by a lot of apologists for islamophobia. I'm not saying that it can't be used as a legitimate term, but we ought to make sure that if we do use it, the sourcing is really good. Especially for someone like Geller. NickCT (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: The sources are all right there in front of you, and you still have not come up with an argument against them. Right now, you are Wikilawyering and doing nothing but wasting our time with the constant referral to an outdated RfC. Btw, Geller herself brags about "counter-jihad" on her own website.Do you see how pathetic you now look like when you say that "apologist" defense? Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - Do RfC's become out-dated? I didn't know that. What policy is that in?

re "when you say that "apologist" defense" - I suspect you may not know what the word "apologist" means. NickCT (talk) 20:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: Yet another post from you with no substance. I suggest you stop pinging and wasting other editors' time if you've got nothing to say about those academic sources for "counter-jihad". Al-Andalusi (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - Tad curious why you think I need to address the sources here. I'm maintaining wording for which a consensus has been generated. It's up to you to provide a rationale for changing the consensus wording. NickCT (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: I don't think you understand. You are the one who reverted a long standing version on September 29, therefore it is you who needs to justify the removal of cited content. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - The long-standing version does not trump the consensus version. NickCT (talk) 19:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@NickCT: So far you have refused to have a discussion of any kind. When asked what the dispute is exactly about, your response was "Counter-jihad" is language used by a lot of apologists for islamophobia". Let me know when you grow up and ready to talk. Al-Andalusi (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dude. Re-read what I said. I said you needed good sourcing if you wanted to used apologist language like that for someone like Geller. NickCT (talk) 01:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

"Good sourcing" is already there. Are you blind? Al-Andalusi (talk) 06:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The overwhelming number of sources, use terms like anti-Islam, anti-Muslim, etc. "Counter-jihad" tends to be the preferred categorization among mostly European writers. Nick raises a good question since counter-jihad is less harsh than anti-Islam and certainly anti-Muslim are we changing the lead in a subtle but definite manner? He also raises the question, that this self-descriptor is contrary to the spirit of the previous consensus which rejected a lead based on Geller's own terminology. On the other hand, we do have additional qualifications of anti-Islamic and Islamophobic. It appears that the lead has category overload and a new consensus should be sought. Perhaps it's time for a new RfC. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

re "a new consensus should be sought. Perhaps it's time for a new RfC" - Yes. Good.

I don't mind what wording we arrive at here as long as it's consensus driven. This is obviously a controversial subject with language nuances as Jason from nyc notes. We ought to move carefully in adapting the wording. On WP, "moving careful" means getting buy-in from multiple editors. NickCT (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jason from nyc: "Nick raises a good question...He also raises the question". No he didn't, and there is no need to make up arguments in his defense when the talk page clearly shows he did nothing other than being disruptive, repeatedly revering edits and refusing to even address the problem with "sourcing". The fact that this editor insists on removing content from the body of the article (not subject to his RfC) demonstrates beyond doubt how much of a lie this whole RfC excuse is all about. Finally, it should be mentioned that the old wording of the RfC ("known for her anti-Islamic writings") remained unchanged in the recent edits. Nick is opposed to the addition of counter-jihad in the lede AND body. Further, he insists that an RfC is required for any changes, which is not true. He thinks he now owns the article because of his stupid RfC and is taking everything personally. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

You and NickCT did not reach a consensus yet you just reintroduced this edit again. How about working towards a consensus? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see any possible bilateral resolution at this point. Follow WP:DR and use an WP:RfC or some other mechanism to reach consensus please. NickCT (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

NPOV board inquiry

@NickCT and Jason from nyc:, this is to let you know that I sent an inquiry to the NPOV board regarding the inclusion of the statement "prominent activist for the counter-jihad movement" in the lead: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Pamela Geller and the counter-jihad movement. Al-Andalusi (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Al-Andalusi: - Think you're sorta beating a dead horse here, but thanks anyway. NickCT (talk) 13:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Additions by Volunteer Marek

I checked all sources of the paragraph ( ) and I didn't find the number 12/twelve regarding the number of times Geller is cited in Breivik's manifesto. They only say she was mentioned. I think everybody with a little bit of NPOV sense will agree that this guilt by association is nonsense and the source is not reliable at all (she doesn't "justify" killings based on skin color). Finally, the same user who says "Restore well sourced text" is removing text well-supported by sources for no valid reason according to Wiki policy.--181.110.211.210 (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The specific number, 12, is in the second source. That's actually not that important. We can substitute "numerous" in for that. Which is what other sources use. Also, some of this text that you're removing was there before, so I'm not the one added. As for my removals, I've explained'em - this article has too many quotes as it is, which makes it non-encyclopedic and tries to turn this article into a platform for her views.

You can contest the reliability of particular sources over at WP:RSN. In the meantime, please stop edit warring over this. Volunteer Marek  03:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

This is a BLPCRIME violation. You are alleging her involvement in a massacre for which she was not charged.Icewhiz (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. No one is suggesting she fired at a bunch of kids. The suggestion is, based on reliable sources, that Breivik cited her in his manifesto. AusLondonder (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Suggesting she incited Breivik is a suggestion she committed a crime. Inciting terror/murder is a crime. BLPCRIME applies to all living persons - in particular when authorities haven't even suggested they were involved in a criminal act. Beyond this, Breivik's opinion is WP:UNDUE - we don't generally cite his opinions on other matters.Icewhiz (talk) 07:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a question of WP:UNDUE. Breivik cites John Stewart Mill. As this article [6] in The Atlantic asks "What Won't Anders Breivik Blame?" Here he also says "We want to create a European version of al-Qaeda" and others too note that he admires what he sees as Islamic supremacism. The initial reports were guilt by association. One would want an analysis with greater depth rather than give undue weight to mere numerical coincidences. This was newsy at the time but hasn't led anywhere. Jason from nyc (talk) 10:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Along this thread, we do not mention Mark David Chapman [7] on J. D. Salinger. Geller might belong on Breivik's entry, not the other way around.Icewhiz (talk) 11:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How is think progress RS for such contentious statements of fact? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:10, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Icewhiz: Sorry, who said she "incited" Breivik? That seems to be your own original research. AusLondonder (talk) 09:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

• A plain English reading of diff is that this is a suggestion she incited Breivik. This is not my OR - but rather the OR of whomever decided to include this, yourself included. Breivik opinion of Geller is also UNDUE.Icewhiz (talk) 09:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I am confused. The wording is clear. It said Geller was "cited 12 times and praised" by Breivik. How is that an implication of "incitement of murder"? AusLondonder (talk) 10:07, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I will not repeat a BLPCRIME violation in talk, however suggesting she posted something online prior to the attack suggests causation (this was removed in an IP edit - [8] - not by you). Further the current text in which she rejects responsibility for the attack without any grounded responsibility for the attack is akin to posting "I did not beat my wife" on a BLP. Mentioning inclusion in Breivik's manifesto is, of course, UNDUE, as Breivik, while a notable mass murderer, is not noted for his political discourse.Icewhiz (talk) 10:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted the additions until this discussion reavhs a consensus Darkness Shines (talk) 20:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

How about we retain my version until the discussion reaches a consensus? The edit summary justifications are vague. Also, if you think TP is not sufficient, then remove that part and leave the other changes alone. However, it's not like she denies making the tweet. Volunteer Marek  20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Had not realized BRD worked like that, there are a few issues raised by the IP, not just the sources not being great, personnaly I think the IP edu is an improvement Darkness Shines (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not we mention that someone had an influence on someone else depends on the attention paid in reliable sources. It seems to meet the threshold for inclusion. TFD (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

References

Pamela Geller called for Israel to nuke Europe in 2010, this should be added here

I think this is significant enough fact about her ideology that it should be added to this page. I cannot edit since it is semi protected.

In 2010, Pamela Geller said, "I pray dearly that in the ungodly event that Tehran or its jihadi proxies (Hez'ballah, Hamas etc) target Israel with a nuke, that she retaliate with everything she has at Tehran, Mecca, and Medina. Not to mention Europe." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.166.165.108 (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Biased article

"Critics believe she crosses the line from ...". Yet another biased article. The Wikipedia is a left wing propaganda organisation. "Opponents ...". On and on ... it's just a long condemnation, propaganda attack. Nothing about the millions of supporters. Nothing about the people that support her, the writers that agree with her. Just quotes from writers who oppose her. The whole article is politically motivated against her. Nothing to do with an encyclopaedia.213.205.241.129 (talk) 04:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

What we need on Wikipedia is sources - WP:RS. Do you have sources backing up the assertions you are making above?Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You don't have sources on discussions of articles. A discussion is its own source. It's me doing it. The point I've stated is in clear English.213.205.241.129 (talk) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

I understood your point. And lets say for the sake of argument I agree - what are you specifically suggesting to change in the article? What should be removed (and why)? What should be added (based on what sources)?Icewhiz (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Several IPs, including this one, blocked for a month for block evasion. Doug Weller talk 18:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

grooming of Anders Behring Breivik on Pamela`s website

The article should clearly note the relationship Geller had with Breivik (Anders Behring Breivik), in the lead-up to his mass-murderous attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.209.13.212 (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

All I can find is that he was a fan, which isn't surprising - she obviously had an influence on her but I can't find a personal relationship. We can't make a claim like that about a WP:BLP without excellent sources meeting WP:RS.Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 12:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You would need to show that the information is reported in articles about Geller, not just that she is mentioned in articles about Breivik. TFD (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

You cannot seem to find it because she "pulled it" from her page. Other sources should be out there. Anyway, the technical people did her IT for her, kinda like hyping pop-music search results or the Russia social media thingee. Will keep an eye out.

Islamophobia

Are there any reliable sources that actually deny that many of Pamella Geller's statements are Islamophobic? If not, we don't need to qualify that and can state it as fact. Because there is certainly a long list of sources that agree that many of her statements are Islamophobic.VR _talk 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You can't have it stated as a fact as there's no such thing as islamophobia. She's not phobic of them, she opposes their actions.213.205.241.129 (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That statement makes no sense and is based on strawman logic. Unless a reliable source denies that her statements are Islamophobic, then they can be stated as fact. Shabeki (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Bizarre lede sentence

This sentence is bizarre:

• Multiple media outlets have called her "far right", while others, such as the BBC, contrast her right-wing support for small government with her culturally liberal positions on abortion and same sex marriage.

One, there is nothing notable about her views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage. Two, the text seems intended to dispute the widely used term "far-right" for her. Third, there's no need to attribute "far-right" to "media outlets". There's also no need to put far-right in quotes.

I fixed the sentence but my edit was reverted by a blatant sockpuppet account[9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC sources cited [10] doesn't say far-right. It does say - In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other.. Would would be a mixture of right-wing and left-wing politics in the US (on marriage & reproduction vs. the rest). You can not place "far right" unqualified in the lead here - all you have is some polemic sources uses this label - and other more mainstream sources refraining from it.Icewhiz (talk) 12:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

It's bizarre because the bit in the middle about the SPLC keeps getting removed by people who don't like that the SPLC rightly called her a right wing extremist. It's reliably sourced and due though so it boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT Simonm223 (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The paragraph says "right" three times when two would do. There's no consensus for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. That's a red-herring claim. Jason from nyc (talk)

The SPLC position on her is definitely due in the lede. There's no clear consensus to keep it out, it's reliably sourced and your removal is plain and simple WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I suggest you self-revert and put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

First of all you are dismissing my points as subjective ("I don't like it") without considering them. This is not conducive to a discussion seeking consensus. Try again. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The SPLC quote is not duplicated in the lede. Your point is without merit and your conduct borders on WP:TEND. There's no demonstration of consensus; it's you who keeps reverting this statement out, to the detriment of the flow of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

We already have the SPLC calling her Islamophobic on the first paragraph in the lede - we don't need to reiterate the SPLC's position again. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"right-wing extremist"

We usually attribute the SPLC. Furthermore, it would seem that most secondary sources covering Geller do not use this particular label (while they do use several other labels) - e.g. this BBC profile does not use this language). When attaching contentious labels to BLPs we generally follow labelling used in a wide spectrum of sources. There are several secondary RSes covering Geller over the years - which other sources have used this label? Icewhiz (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I will further note that my reading of the cited SPLC source does not support "right-wing extremist" - I do not see that language there. The SPLC does use the extremist label as well as anti-Muslim - but not right-wing - please provide a quote supporting this.Icewhiz (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Youll note that? But you didnt note that it says Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam. But sure, one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right. nableezy - 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Independent is possibly usable for American extreme-right. The SPLC does not support the specific assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 06:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Right now, you have an epithet at the beginning of the 1st para., supported by an SPLC cit., and then at the end you have another, different epithet, supported by the same SPLC cit. It's as if Wikipedia has decided the ultimate arbiter of human thought is the SPLC. Sad. Anyway, the SPLC clearly says Geller is Islamophobic, but nowhere does it say she's a "right-wing extremist." XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, SPLC doesnt support it, despite this already being quoted on this page

Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam.

And also on this page there being another source that explicitly supports what you removed. I dont believe we put in quotes "right-wing extremist", making the argument that the SPLC does not say "right-wing extremist" a straw man. SPLC very clearly supports that, but regardless, when protection is lifted, Ill add the Independent source. nableezy - 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The page is in a category called extremist files it has the word extremist on the left margin. The text of the article uses the word extremist an additional 12 times. The source quite clearly supports the statement and the argument against looks a lot like a POV motivatged WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It just doesn't support "right wing extremist". It supports extremist. It supports anti-Muslim. It support spreading conspiracy theories. Nowhere does the SPLC say Geller herself is right-wing - and they probably are careful since she actually isn't that easy to pigeonhole on the US spectrum (e.g. given her abortion stance).Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the first paragraph we have " The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Geller as "Islamophobic". - which we could modify to "anti-Muslim extremist". Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

is also a contributor to the far-right Breitbart News. Right there in the source. Which calls her an extremist over and over again. As I said, your argument against the characterization of the source is the definition of WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sticking to what the SPLC actually says - which is extremist and anti-Muslim. Icewhiz (talk) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing justification for adding such a strong value judgement into the first sentence of the article, in WP's voice, in a BLP. I think we'd be better off getting SPLC back into the last paragraph by improving the wording of the content that was edit-warred out here. VQuakr (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I think what is important is explaining what she is known for, which is her views on Islam. She may be a right wing extremist and it may be possible to source that, but it does not really help readers. Her perceived extremism mostly relates to her views on Islam. So anti-Islamist or similar wording is more descriptive. TFD (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It isnt just possible to source, it already has been sourced. one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right. nableezy - 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

By the expression "while it may be possible," I am saying that it is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Except in that it demonstrates and example of how extreme right groups have used islamophobia as cover for normalizing their views. Geller is complicit in that process, and by refusing to characterize her as a right-wing extremist Wikipedia would be too. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, I didnt realize source were irrelevant on Wikipedia. Silly me. nableezy - 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence

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 descriptor "right-wing extremist" be added to the first sentence of the article as proposed here and discussed in the talk page section above?

Previous RfCs relevant to the descriptor of "right wing" and/or the wording of the first sentences of the article include:

• Rfc - Pamela Geller - Anti-Muslim?
• RfC: inclusion of "right wing"
• Request for comment

05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• No. As a source for "right-wing extremist" has not been presented (we do have the SPLC calling her an anti-Muslim extremist, and some sources calling her right-wing, while others such as the BBC note she's been denounced as bigoted, but frame her political stance as - "In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other." - mixed). Geller is mainly known for her anti-Muslim advocacy (and not for her general political opinions) - and that's what we should be stressing. We do already quote the SPLC at the end of the first paragraph - it may be possible to tweak language there somewhat, or include a bit more of what the SPLC says. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a dishonest claim, given your comment here that the Independent source that says one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right is acceptable for "American extreme right". nableezy - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. The Independent supports extreme right - not extremist. As for right/left - other sources disagree (or paint a more complex picture) - e.g. the BBC. What all sources agree on (and what this subject is notable for) - is anti-Muslim. Icewhiz (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Lol, sure, theres a personal attack in quoting you. Do you know what the word "extremist" means? It means somebody on the extreme. This pedantry has reached new levels. nableezy - 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Holding extreme positions and being an extremist are not the same. The former is required for the latter, however the latter implies active advocacy and promotion of the former often via resorting to extreme actions as well. You did more than merely quote me - you alleged dishonesty, which you should strike. I will note that in English the connotation of nouns, verbs, and adjectives often varies - as an example if a RS says "X terrorized her co-workers, instilling an atmosphere of terror in the office" it would not be sufficient sourcing for us to say that "X is a terrorist".Icewhiz (talk) 04:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Independent does not say she holds extreme positions. It says member of the extreme right. Note whatever you wish, but Ill note your argument is both pedantic and in direct conflict to arguments you make regarding people whose politics you are less aligned with. nableezy - 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

People living in glasss houses shouldn't throw stones... Please do not imply I am aligned with Geller in any way. Regardless, the Independent (which is but one source) does not use "extremist".Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a level of basic competence required here. A member of the extreme is definitionally an extremist. Again, pedantry, pedantry not in use when the subject is somebody whose politics you are opposed to. nableezy - 18:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Competence is indeed required, and extends to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I am sympathetic to some of your editorial arguments here, but several of the comments you've made both above and below, implying hidden agendas, dishonesty, and a lack of integrity or intelligence are completely unacceptable--on this project, you are expected to keep your comments confined to the substance of another editor's argument and well clear of speculation regarding your take on their motivations, personal qualities, and general capabilities. From answering random RfC bot notices this last week, I note you are sparring with Icewhiz across multiple spaces right now, and while I will not presume to make the assumption that is all one-sided--obviously both of you have strong (and in some respects, diametrically opposed) beliefs which intersect with the subject matter of the types of articles you both are inclined to edit--I must tell you that, based on the above alone, Icewhiz could easily take you to WP:ANI and you would have a difficult time accounting for your conduct such as to avoid a sanction. Lucky for you, my limited experience of Icewhiz suggests he is quite thick skinned--so much so that I've seen him argue against sanction at ANI for editors who were there for making inappropriate comments to him. But I wouldn't push your luck, because others aren't likely to be so forgiving. Again, argue the point, not the other editor's supposed qualities or intentions as you suspect them to be. An inability to internalize and conform to this principle is likely to get your editing privileges curtailed from certain areas or removed entirely. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, the SPLC supports it, but even if one were to make the pedantic argument that it does not say both "extreme" and "right wing" in the same sentence, the Independent very clearly explicitly supports right wing extremist. nableezy - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

No it does not. You are drawing your own conclusions. The SPLC does not say anywhere (that has been presented here) that Geller is «right-wing extremist». Not to mention Wikipedia is exposed to liability by defaming people based on one particular, highly biased entity's assessment. Bring a prevalence of WP:RS, and we'll be OK. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Genius, the Independent calls her a member of the extreme right. nableezy - 01:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Genius is hardly an RS for calling someone a right wing extremist. One source that goes out of its way to not have the two in the same sentence is not good enough either. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• No, We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The lead would say "right" three times when two would do. There's no need for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. I agree with the consensus that describing her as anti-Islamic (or equivalent) is more specific, exacting, and sums up the criticism in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• No The lead should emphasize the descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 13:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• Yes Multiple reliable sources exist for Geller's right-wing extremism. No compelling reason has been presented to whitewash this person's political stance. Let's call this thing that quacks a duck and call it a day, shall we? Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have an essay about the quack test that explicitly reminds us that we don't use it on article content. Especially BLPs. Regardless of whether the label is verifiable without invoking waterfoul, this is a discussion about whether the label is appropriate in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

• No I think the earlier RFCs got it right: we shouldn't be making contentious characterizations of a living person in Wikipedia's voice, and the proposed characterization is overkill for the first sentence. Proposed syntheses that use similar but imprecise paraphrases from what is stated in RS's are also non-starters. VQuakr (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
• No The cite is shaky at best and using Wikipedia's voice in this way seems misleading and counter to NPOV. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• No Absurd label and BLP violation. Besides, opinion columns are not reliable sources for statements of fact; see WP:NEWSORG.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• No At best the Independent comes close, but doesn't even label or support "right-wing extremist" as proposed. For a label as inflammatory and POV as this, should have several RSs to support it. But hey, if this flies, then I guess so will "Palestinian extremists". The Kingfisher (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• No - against BLP and LABEL, seems not dominant position nor self-proclaimed, and not enough in article to merit LEAD position. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
• No (summoned by bot) - The WP:RS doesn't support this label even the SPLC doesn't support it(and we used it attributed anyhow).Moreover we should be really careful in WP:BLP and say exactly what source saying --Shrike (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• No In a case like this, "extremist" is a value judgement, not enclyclopedic information. Also wp:BLP sets a high bar for such things, and this nowhere near meets it. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
• No - Summoned by bot. Violates WP:BLP and is far from neutral. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• No. Not easy enough from these sources to slap this particular label on a living person. Plus, one wonders if labels really do justice to this lady's particular particularities. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
• No. It's not the most cut and dry call, but I don't think there's sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to justify this exact phrase in the very first sentence of the lead. As to the rest of the article, there's more than enough opportunity to leverage coverage in the sourcing regarding her extremism (ideally mostly through direct attribution, although some more generalized statements are also probably acceptable in this instance). But as regards the lead sentence, the phrase "right wing extremist" is not only problematic as a WP:DUE matter, it's also problematic for its lack of precision/lack of clinical encyclopedic tone; it gives an emotive effect without really telling the reader much of substance. The question of the subject's extremism can and should be discussed in the article at large, but in proper context. I understand the impulse to call a spade for a spade, but with regard to encyclopedic writing, the demand for specificity and context with regard to particular labels is paramount. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• "Right-wing" should be okay, since it's accurate about Geller's position on that political axis; but "extremist" is just WP:POV labeling, not encyclopedic wording.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
• Right-wing, but not extreme. Several sources support her political position on the right to left wing axis, but "extreme" isn't really encyclopedic. Especially when the sources used to back up "extreme" are shaky and likely not neutral themselves (they may have something to gain by describing her as "extreme" right wing. Calling someone "extreme" makes for a good click-baity title). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
• 'Right wing only - Extremist is a bit much however various sources state "right-wing"[11] so I don't see a reason not' to include this. –Davey2010^Talk 12:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot)the sources don't support "extremist" and it is a bit meaningless as a label. Better to focus on her (dubious), notabilities which are primarily anti-Muslim, anti-Obama and fairly rabid rhetoric against anyone questioning support for Israel (her positions on Obama and Israel, in part being manifestations of anti-Muslim beliefs). Right-wing is justified, "extremist" isn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) given that I can't seem to find many news sources (sample size of 10 random articles about the subject) that describe the subject as being "extreme right-wing". Hickland (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
• Absolutely not: that's just POV editorialising, only a step up from WP:TERRORIST. SITH (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
• No "extremist" connotes extreme views and direct action, stuff like shouting down speakers, sit-ins, workplace occupations, disrupting meetings, blocking intersections, hacktivism - stuff the NYPD runs you in for doing it. As far as I can tell, Geller talks. She talks a lot. She says some pretty extreme anti-Muslim stuff. But it's not legally defined as incitement. It is not activity. It's just talk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. I can only find reliable sources supporting "right-wing", "far-right", "alt-right", "not moderately right", "anti-Muslim", "possibly not far-right", "Islamophobe". I found sources for "provocateur" (and "agitator"), but that's WP:LABEL (and typical of the mysoginist media). The closest to the proposed wording (which is only supported by The Independent and Chemi Shalev [12]) I could find is for "anti-Muslim extremist" [13] [14] (or the PC version "anti-Islam extremist"). Also note that Robert Spencer says that calling Geller an "extremist" is a smear [15], making me less comfortable supporting it. Finally, I only searched for "Pamela Geller", and not "Pam Geller". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:32, 21 February 2019 (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.