Talk:Pamela Geller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Counter-Jihad activist[edit]

@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:
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: [1]. 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: [2]. 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 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 [3] 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[edit]

@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[edit]

@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)

References to Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

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 (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


The source [4] 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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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[5]. 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)


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)