Talk:Pamela Geller

Various criticisms including over reliance on primary source (her site)
Re this para: Critics say that many other claims that Geller has posted in her blog are outrageous.[73][110][111] For example, she has published articles that said black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites;[73][111][112] that argued the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed;[113] and that defended Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžic, perpetrators of the Bosnian War and genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croats, denying the existence of Serbian concentration camps and arguing that many Muslim war victims were murdered by their own people in order to bring condemnation on the Serbs.[73][114] She denies supporting Milošević but has expressed skepticism of some accounts of the camps.

Firstly critics say that many of Geller's claims are false/racist/intentionally provocative and many other, more specific, things, so describing them as 'outrageous' seems bland.

Secondly - the description of Karadžic and Milošević as "perpetrators of the Bosnian War" is strange and vague. Karadžic was found guilty of genocide iro of Srebrenica (Muslims), but was not even so charged iro Croats - though he was found guily of lesser war crimes against Croats. Milošević of course died while being tried.

Thirdly the section seems over-reliant on the primary source of her own blog - this is inherently iffy, more so given the contentious nature of the content. I am not able to access many of the 'atlas' refs, so was unable to fix. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * As there is no lack of sources discussing Geller - I agree we generally should avoid her blog.Icewhiz (talk) 07:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC: Geller's views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage in the lede

 * 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 lede cover Geller's views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

 * Oppose. Her views on these issues are not notable enough to be included in the lede. Geller is not known at all for her views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage. There are two sentences dedicated to this in the entire body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A quick search says yes, especially if we are going to describe her as "far-right." Wouldn't want to mislead anyone.Adoring nanny (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You're seriously arguing that this is a notable aspect to Geller's biography? Because one or two in-depth profiles of her have briefly mentioned her views on other issues besides Muslims, and despite the fact that only two sentences in the body of the Wikipedia article mention this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, as long as we have far-right, however I'd remove the whole 2-sentence last paragraph (so - no "far right", nor discussion on her viewpoint on abortion or same-sex marriage). Geller "is known for her anti-Islamic writings" as we currently in the second lede sentence. She is far less known for her wider political viewpoints. If we are to pigeonhole her as "far right" - then we need to discuss those wider views (which are discussed by the likes of the BBC). However, as Geller is primarily known for anti-Islam - I would advocate sticking to that in the lede, and not opening up a wider analysis on her mainly non-notable viewpoints on other political issues. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support The lead should summarize the article and there are several sources for her liberal views. See the sentence that says: She is "socially liberal" in her support of abortion legalization[1][2][22] and same-sex marriages,[16][22] but she believes drug legalization goes "too far".[18]:130 If I remember correctly, the lead singled out the BBC reference because we concluded that we didn't want to express this in Wikipedia's voice. It is however in several sources such as the BBC, New York Times and a large section of a book. By the way, you're making many changes before discussing them in the talk. Why not do that instead of edit-warring? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Geller is known for one thing and one thing only, and that's her views and activism in relation to Muslims. For the purpose of the lead section, I don't care what her views are on other subjects. Including Geller's views on these other topics is like including that Richard B. Spencer is pro-choice: a ridiculous distraction. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose These comments read like a passive aggressive argument against her description as far right. If we want to present that argument it must be clearly stated and reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion in the lead, the body text is adequate. -Roxy, the dog . wooF 08:11, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The sources provided don't support the idea that this is noteworthy enough to go in the lead; they mention these things only briefly and in passing, not as the main source of her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 11 July 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.

"$100,000 (5555h 34m)"
Not sure what this means... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure either so I have gone ahead and removed the "(5555h 34m)", if anyone disagrees they are welcome to revert me.  Grey joy talk 07:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Does this article need twelve citations following a sentence?
I mean is having the first sentence in this section be followed by like twelve reference tags really conducive to the article, and is it conducive to readability? The answer to both these questions is no.--Phil of rel (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong. When I added Geller's quote about Islam being the "most genocidal ideology in the world," I had multiple shills question the quote until I used as many factual resources to support my edit. First, people are attacking the one or two sources which provide evidence. Now, people are complaining about too many sources used to provide evidence? It looks to me like people are just looking for anything to complain about. Shabeki (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024
Change “The Morning Toast” to “The Toast, formerly “The Morning Toast”, taken in and produced by Dear Media network since 2023.” 2601:183:427E:F50:C986:4FD:FBD2:D5E6 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rusty4321  talk contribs 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)