Jump to content

Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Religion

I know she's ethnically Jewish, but is it correct to describe her as of the Jewish religion? The fact that she identifies as an Ayn Rand follower makes me think she probably doesn't believe in God, since Objectivism is atheistic by nature. Has she stated her religious beliefs (or lack thereof) officially? Stonemason89 (talk) 00:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is appropriate (not that others in that grouping would necessarily be pleased by it).--Epeefleche (talk) 00:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing help on relation between FDI and SIOA?

Hi, all. I've always been unclear about the exact legal relationship among Geller's several organizations or organizing groups. I'd like to introduce some clarity about that into this article, and the SIOA one, too, if possible, with the help of other editors here. The New York Times says, in this article that the FDI and SIOA are the same organization, writing of Geller and Spencer, "In April [2009], they founded a nonprofit group called American Freedom Defense Initiative, which also uses the name Stop Islamization of America." Is SIOA just a "DBA" (i.e. a State-registered "fictitious name", a "doing business as" name) for the non-profit named FDI, then? Also, less importantly, does anyone knows which part of the U.S. Tax Code for non-profits that FDI was formed under? Is the organization able to fund political ads under Citizens United v. FEC, for example? I'm mostly just curious about that; my primary interest is to seek confirmation of the exact relationship between the two names "FDI" and "SIOA", and perhaps any other group names Geller has organized under.

I've never seen another source that discusses the exact relationship among these organizations, not one that does so very explicitly. Has anyone else seen seen any other source that spells out the exact legal relationship? Even primary sources would be welcome to clarify this: e.g. Secretary of State filings in the organization(s?) home state, would be helpful. I know we prefer secondary sources in our articles, of course, but I'd like to see the relationship spelled out explicitly in State legal filings or applications, if anyone has online access to that. It'd be useful to know what the secondary sources might be basing their reporting about the two organiziations or organizing names on, at least. Can anyone shed any light? Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 14:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Quote on Islam

I have re-inserted a recent quote of hers from her blog in a more appropriate place:

  • The Times never addresses or mentions that Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world

Given the nature of her work in regards to Islamicization, I feel that in context, it is very relevant to her encyclopedic page. I'm shocked that people would just revert what I did without even the slightest attempt at explaining why. Let's try to be respectful here.Shabeki (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries at times provide precisely the sort of clues that may be of interest to you, if you check them. As in that instance.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
You deleted it just for lacking an edit summary? Doesn't that defeat the whole purpose of wikipedia allowing people to bypass the edit summary? What kind of editor are you? To be honest, I would have saved it if I had remembered to, and I'd rather edit summaries be required to make changes. But that still doesn't explain your action.Shabeki (talk) 06:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Today's deletions/restorations

I stopped by to add the WorldCat id link, and then noticed quite a few deletions today. Because of various intervening edits, I had to restore the deletions manually. I believe that 'worked' and the article is where it should be with none of those intervening edits lost. If 213.229.87.2 wants to discuss the deletions here, s/he is free to do so. However, it was my impression that the material in question had been around for quite awhile and had been arrived at through consensus. Flatterworld (talk) 16:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-Islamic

I think it was covered pretty thoroughly at Talk:Pamela_Geller/Archive_1#Lead_sentence that "anti-Islamic" in the lede is supported by RS. That discussion pointed to these sources as possible references -

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

I'm going to add a couple of what are probably the more reliable ones. NickCT (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Content removed by IP as "one sided"

An IP has removed the following content as being "one sided". Are there reliable sources that present other views of the content that should be added or is the "one sided" nature due to the fact that there is only one major viewpoint of her blog? Active Banana (bananaphone 16:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any RSs that counter the these opinions. I would be for rephrasing that passage though to something more simple. Perhaps -

Thoughts? NickCT (talk) 17:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The only favorable opinions of Atlas Shrugs are likely to be the ones that come from her fellow far-right bloggers and editorialists. Outside of that niche, almost all coverage of her and Atlas Shrugs has been negative, even from quite a few conservatives. Wikipedia's FRINGE policy states that giving equal weight to both sides of an argument is not the best policy when one side of the debate is decidedly outside of the mainstream (as is the case with Geller). So the IP editor was wrong to delete the sentence just because it was "one-sided". Stonemason89 (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
"Various" is pretty much a cover for weasel words. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
@Orange - Sure. I'd agree with that, but I think it would raise BLP concerns if we said explicitly that she was far-right. So how does one say "a lot of mainstream RSs have called her far-right" without using weasel words? NickCT (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
When followed by specific citations, I am not so sure "various" = weasel. Active Banana (bananaphone 18:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"False and disparaging" image of Geller?

Hey guys & gals,

I know this is going to be a subjective question, but does anyone else feel that the current picture displays Geller in a potentially "false and disparaging light"? Could we find another image? NickCT (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Geller herself gave permission for the original photo. I dont see how MUG can apply. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Or maybe not Geller, [1]. But it would be hard to claim that she is doing something OTHER than posing for the picture, and I cannot see how cropping the image to be solely the subject of the article is placing the image in any "false or disparaging context". Active Banana (bananaphone 22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Nick, could you please explain why you think there's something wrong with the image? Does it have anything to do with Geller's facial expression in the pic? Stonemason89 (talk) 22:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
@Stonemason89 - It's really purely an aesthetic thing. I've seen multiple pictures of Geller, and this one just strikes me as particularly unflattering. As I said, this is going to a purely subjective opinion, so if no one else sees what I'm talking about I won't push the point. NickCT (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
this was brought up by someone earlier somewhere. if she presents herself as a journalist a pic with an army general may not be appropriate. the current cropped pic removes that problem. i don't think its unflattering, but then i haven't seen too many other pics of her.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Well ok then...... I just think it makes her look a little disheveled and slightly malicious. But as no one shares my concern, I'll be quiet. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
free use images of living people are RARELY airburshed studio image quality. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:25, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Well.... for the record, I wasn't really looking for "studio image quality". I was just looking for a slightly less unflattering candid photo. Like perhaps [2] or [3]. NickCT (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
the current pic is far better then the two linked above, in my opinion.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok... Whatever... As I said, I was just throwing it out there. Clearly no one agrees with me. I'm not going to press it. NickCT (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Good heavens, is that Eric Cantor in photo #2 above? Yikes! Stonemason89 (talk) 22:03, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it is..... slightly disturbing.... NickCT (talk) 16:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

anti muslim - anti islamist

I reverted this desired addition, seems a bit contentious and worthy of consensus discussion. although her defenders claim she is merely anti-Islamist. - defenders? and merely.. total weasel imo, I have no position either way but imo to claim someone is anti Muslim as in anyone that is a Muslim unless you have a stated comment that she is such from her then it is total POV and indeed a likely BLP violation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not be asserting in its own voice that Geller is or is not "anti-Islamic," which is a slur.JacobJosephFrank (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at a few of the citations it seems there is a lot of reliable support for the claim. It is pretty indisputable from what I read and it is a lot better than the weasel worded description. She co founder this anti Islamic group http://sioaonline.com/ - for me, we could remove the disputed identifier completely and allow her comments and the article content to speak for themselves - are there any self identifiers, like quotes from her saying - I am anti Muslim or I am anti Islamic? I see quotes from her saying she is against the Islamization of America but that is a different thing? Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I think the "anti-Islamic" identifier satisfies both WP:V and WP:NPOV. I realize it can raise some eyebrows asserting that someone is "antisemitic" or "anti-Islamic", but I would ask; if Geller can't be called "anti-Islamic" who could be? I think we all agree that "antisemites" and people against Islam exist, right? So, if we have a lot of RS that labels a person as such, what's wrong with identifying like that in the lead?
On another note, I'm not really sure what the difference between "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islamic" is. I guess one means "a person who is against the religion" and the other "a person who is against followers of the religion" NickCT (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nick. I am a great believer that labels are evil, people are allowed to be against islamification of their country without being accused of hating all Muslims...aren't they? Is there a cite from her saying self identifying as any of these things, I found one earlier where she was saying she is against the islamification of America. And she has said is anti jihad...aren't we all...but has she said anywhere that she is anti all muslims or anti islam in general? Off2riorob (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry about the essay. I was being flippant. I guess WP:BRD would have been a better policy to cite.
To your points; I'm generally against labels as wells. I think there are two criteria for using labels of this nature - 1) self-identification and 2) a gross preponderance of RS on the matter. I think the anti-Islamic label for Geller meets the second criteria.
As a side note, it's a little two simplistic to say that Geller is simply "against islamification" of her country. She has a whole array of positions and campaigns focused on combating various aspects of Islam.
Also as a side note - I'm sure of course you're aware that "jihad" is a commonly misunderstood word in the west.
Yet more side note - there is some discussion on this point in the archives. Reading back, it looked like there was reasonable consensus for the identifier.
Finally - I'm pretty pro-identifier. I'm willing to submit to consensus, but I want to see opinions from others first. NickCT (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

So lets see, you have used these three cites to support your addition.

The content that is containing anti .... - is copied here for discussion only

Islamophobia and anti-Islam hatred are on the rise in the U.S., especially after the events of 9/11. Even before that fateful day, Muslims were often portrayed in the media as democracy- and America-hating terrorists - a portrayal that, unfortunately, has increasingly seeped into our consciousness. In 2002, 41% of respondents in a national poll admitted to harboring anti-Muslim sentiments (even though only 7% said they understood Islam very well). In 2009, the percentage of those admitting anti-Islam attitudes reached 46%.

The article as I can see doesn't actually label the subject as anti Islamic. Off2riorob (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Are these vague op editorials all we have got? I am tempted to remove the comment cited to these three op eds , they don't actually support the claim at all. She herself is easily citable in strongly denying that she is either anti Islamic or anti Muslim. Off2riorob (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey Off2riorob, suggest you look over this conversation. A whole bunch of citations were proposed, I random selected several. It could be that better cites exist. NickCT (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
You randomly selected several? I am sorry but I am not even going to look there..I don't have a responsibility to cite your addition - you do. As I said, either add decent citations that actually support your addition or please remove it, this is a BLP and the subject also strongly denies your disputed labeling. Off2riorob (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
The strongest characterization of Pamela Geller as anti-Muslim probably comes from the Southern Povery Law Center. The SPLC's deputy director authored the piece that describes her as a "veteran Muslim-basher" holding "anti-Islamic views", etc. It's a blog but it seems to meet the standards for allowing blogs as RS. The SPLC also had this article in their Winter Issue which goes on in the same vein. I can't think of a more reliable source than the SPLC. Sol (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think such an opinionated source should be used to label her in such a disputed claim. In the intro lead. Its basically a strongly opinionated self published blog post. Which as you say comments - "veteran Muslim-basher" holding "anti-Islamic views" - which although amusing is not strong enough or specific enough to label her as a anti islamist in the intro of the lede especially without attribution.Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
It is opinionated to the extent that it's from an anti-hate NGO. Blogs can be RS and I think this one meets the blog RS standards; there's also the matter of the newsletter saying the same thing. The SPLC is extremely well-respected.
That aside, what about a compromise, adding "criticized as anti-Muslim, which she denies" or something along those lines in the lead? It links into the rest article per lead policy, it eliminate saying she's anti-Muslim in wikipedia's neutral voice and it covers a major criticism of Geller. Sol (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Off2, for the reasons that he has explained at length.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree: unless she is openly "anti-Muslim", we can't label her as being anti-Muslim per WP:POV, WP:LABEL, and WP:OR. What we can do, is state that she has (or better, her actions have) been perceived as anti-Islam by (state the sources), and detail her actions in a neutral manner and allow the reader to decide for themselves. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Alright. I think Off2riorob has made several good points here, including that there is a lack of RS explicitly stating that Geller is "anti-Islamic". I think, however, we could agree on the following two points, 1) Geller is widely discussed, by a variety of RS in association with activities that are described as "anti-Islamic", and 2) Geller's notability pretty much arises solely from her association with the before mentioned activities.
That being the case, we really ought to include some language in the lead which makes it clear why Geller is notable. I think Off2 was probably right in saying that explicitly stating she's "anti-Islamic" could be a WP:BLP violation; however, not mentioning something about what she is primarily known for seems sorta like an attempt to whitewash her, and hence, would probably be a WP:NPOV violation.
How's this for compromise language?
What muslim activities exactly? Muslim activities where? All over the world? Off2riorob (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
As a side note; the wrong version was apparently protected here. Previous consensus here was for the inclusion of the "anti-Islamic" identifier, and that discussion involved more editors than are currently participating. I suggest we revert to the previous consensus version, then discuss poll potential compromise language. NickCT (talk) 15:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a wrong version, and you can't yourself say .. "I think Off2 was probably right in saying that explicitly stating she's "anti-Islamic" could be a WP:BLP violation" - and then ask to have it replaced. As for this discussion, please can users not make vague statements unsupported by reliable citations - thanks. She is known for blogging and being the joint creator of the Anti Islamification of America organization, she has been accused (by who) of being against all Muslim people and against the religion of Islam itself (citation required), she totally denies these allegations.(citation required) Off2riorob (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob - 1) Her blogging is notable for being anti-Islamic. Don't believe me? Search engine test it by googling Pamela Geller blogger. Essentially everything that comes up relates to her opposition to Muslim programs.
2)The "anti-Islamic" version "could be a WP:BLP violation" but the current protected version is definitely a WP:NPOV violation.
3)So are you OK with the compromise language? Could you comment or suggest an alternative? NickCT (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
By the way, just found a mainstream source that explicity states the "anti-Muslim" thing. (see here "run by Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim blogger "). Satisfied Off2? NickCT (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's the ADL continuing in a similar vein. We can work out how exactly to phrase it, something along the lines of "Accused of anti-Muslim rhetoric" etc. Sol (talk) 18:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey Sol. Thanks for the open minded comment. Do you think you could comment on the "known primarily for her opposition to Islam and Muslim activities" language I proposed above? NickCT (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, she clearly states, she is anti jihad and against what she sees as the danger of the islamification of America - that is different than the opinionated claims that she is against all muslims and all of Islam which she denies and which will at the very least need to be cited from notable people and sourced to the highest quality wikipedia reliable sources. Off2riorob (talk) 23:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Off2, I can't think of higher quality sources than the ADL and the SPLC. In the ADL's words, her group "promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda under the guise of fighting radical Islam"; even this idea of "the danger of islamification of America" looks like the recycling of the canard against Jewish/Catholic/black/Irish/German-ification of America. The sources are here and they are solid; please work with us on reaching some kind of agreement. Sol (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}}

The whole section "Alleged connection to Universal Auto World car scheme" is a violation of WP:BLP / WP:UNDUE / WP:COATRACK and needs to be removed. There is no suggestion that Pamela Geller was in any way involved in any possible criminal activity. Particularly when the only source cited is NY Post tabloid. The issues has been previously discussed on this talk page and I dont know how it got back into the article. Active Banana (bananaphone 20:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

This section doesn't seemed well sourced, and the source doesn't really focus on Geller. I'd support its removal. NickCT (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Support as per Active Banana's removal request. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Done Dabomb87 (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Slander concerns

Clippings

  • "Stop the Islamization of America (SIOA), created in 2009, promotes a conspiratorial anti-Muslim agenda.... Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer, who took over the group's leadership in April 2010, view SIOA as protecting against a powerful and dangerous "Islamic machine""
    • Backgrounder: Stop the Islamization of America, Anti-defimation league
  • "Earlier this year, Geller — who also has questioned whether President Obama was born in America — bought anti-Muslim ads that were displayed on New York City buses for a month. She warned that Muslims will “turn to further intimidation, murder and terrorism”"
    • Southern Poverty Law Center, Geller, Jones Amp Up Anti-Muslim Hate Rhetoric
  • Geller has become a prominent voice in the debate despite the fact that she once promoted the view that Obama is Malcolm X's love child. She frequently warns that Muslims are trying to impose repressive sharia law on the United States, refers to the president's holiday message to Muslims as "Obama Ramadamadingdong" and promotes a Web site, Religion of Peace, that claims to tally the number of people killed around the world by Muslim extremists.
    • In flap over mosque near Ground Zero, conservative bloggers gaining influence, Washington Post, Michelle Boorstein August 19, 2010
  • Where can you find U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor, novelist Nicole Krauss, and off-the-charts-anti-Islam blogger Pamela Geller on the same list?
    • GOP rising star Eric Cantor rates No. 2 on Jewish list, By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
  • One group, called Stop Islamization of America, is run by Pamela Geller, an anti-Muslim blogger who has been one of the most vocal opponents of a proposed Islamic community center near ground zero in lower Manhattan.
    • Anti-Israel Bus Ads in Seattle Cause International Stir - AOL News - Dec 22, 2010
  • Pamela Geller, who has gained notoriety through her widely read anti-Muslim site called Atlas Shrugs, is calling for a boycott of some 15 soups made by the Canadian subsidiary of New Jersey-based Campbell Soup Co.
    • Bloggers call for boycott of Campbell's halal soups Barbara Ferguson. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Oct 19, 2010.
  • The English Defence League, a far-right grouping aimed at combating the "Islamification" of British cities, has developed strong links with the American Tea Party movement. [..] The league has also developed links with Pamela Geller, who was influential in the protests against plans to build an Islamic cultural centre near Ground Zero. Geller, darling of the Tea Party's growing anti-Islamic wing, is advocating an alliance with the EDL. The executive director of the Stop Islamisation of America organisation, she recently met EDL leaders in New York and has defended the group's actions, despite a recent violent march in Bradford. Geller, who denies being anti-Muslim, said in one of her blogs: "I share the EDL's goals. . . We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the west."
    • Far-right protesters forge links with key American Tea Party activists: An Observer investigation has uncovered details of the English Defence League's contacts with anti-Muslim activists in the United States. Their joint mission: a self-styled 'war on Islamification' Mark Townsend. The Observer. London (UK): Oct 10, 2010. pg. 14
  • [Imam Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society] and other African-American Muslim leaders say the recent verbal and physical attacks against Muslims because of their faith are painful reminders of past discrimination felt by blacks because of their skin color. Threats to burn Qurans recall the bombings of black churches, they say, and anti-Muslim activist Pamela Geller's crusade against the proposed Park51 Islamic cultural center near Ground Zero summons memories of Bull Connor's orders to aim fire hoses at civil rights marchers in Alabama.
    • Muslim backlash reminds some of segregation Adelle M Banks. Press - Telegram. Long Beach, Calif.: Sep 10, 2010.
  • It was conspiracy-mongering blogger Pamela Geller, who is violently anti-Muslim, the right-wing New York Post and the xenophobic Tea Party which together pushed the prospective Park 51 Project from Lower Manhattan to where once the World Trade Centre stood.
    • Text of article by Farooq Sulehria headlined "The Manhattan mosque row" published by Pakistani newspaper The News website on 24 August
    • Pakistan article says building mosque at Ground Zero "basic right" of Muslims Anonymous. BBC Monitoring South Asia. London: Aug 25, 2010.
  • The questions on the ads aren't subtle: Leaving Islam? Fatwa on your head? Is your family threatening you? A conservative activist and the organizations she leads have paid several thousand dollars for the ads to run on at least 30 city buses for a month. The ads point to a website called RefugefromIslam.com, which offers information to those wishing to leave Islam, but some Muslims are calling the ads a smoke screen for an anti-Muslim agenda. Pamela Geller, who leads an organization called Stop Islamization of America, said the ads were meant to help provide resources for Muslims who are fearful of leaving the faith.
    • Across the nation Anonymous. Corpus Christi Caller - Times. Corpus Christi: May 27, 2010. pg. A.6
  • About the same time, Pamela Geller, author of the controversial U.S.-based AtlasShrugs.com blog, got involved and was later joined by Robert Spencer of the Jihad Watch blog. Readers of Geller's blog, which has an anti-Muslim tone, contributed more than $5,000 for a gravestone with Parvez's name.
    • Small town remembers 'forgotten' slain teen; But Muslim group says memorial's inscription may not reflect circumstances of death Bob Mitchell. Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jan 6, 2010. pg. GT.1
  • "The Tea Party needs to decide whether it is a legitimate national political movement or just a safe haven for bigots and extremists," said CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad. "We ask that convention organizers not legitimize Geller's extremist anti-Muslim rhetoric by offering her an official platform."
    • CAIR Asks Tenn. Tea Party to Drop Anti-Islam Speaker Anonymous. U.S. Newswire. Washington: May 20, 2010.


  • Just last Sunday in the October 10, 2010 New York Times, two very lengthy features appeared on the rancid Ann Coulter and the blogger Pamela Geller--a grotesque anti-Semite against Arabs who flaunts her sweeping bigotry as a badge of pride. Geller even called herself a 'racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot'. One veteran reporter called the sprawling two page feature, with all of twenty color photos "an advertisement."
    • Mainstreaming the Extreme Rightwing Ralph Nader Palestine Chronicle. Mountlake Terrace, Wash.: Oct 18, 2010.
  • In conversation, Ms. Geller habitually refers to herself as a "racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot" -- all one word in her pronunciation -- which hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona. She wields a similarly broad brush against opponents, using terms like "diabolical" and "stealth jihadist" even for people like the journalist Christiane Amanpour and the Republican operative Grover Norquist. [..] She inspires laughs at sites like Loonwatch, but critics say her influence is serious: a spreading fear of Islam and a dehumanization of Muslims comparable to the sometimes-violent anti-Semitism and anti-Catholicism of earlier eras. Even some of her former right-wing allies say she has gone too far.
    • ANNE BARNARD and ALAN FEUER. New York Times (Late Edition (East Coast)). New York, N.Y.: Oct 10, 2010. p. MB.1
  • Also being sued is a blogger from elsewhere, Pamela Oshry, who writes under the name Pamela Geller at the website Atlas Shrugged and penned scathing anti-Muslim posts after Rifqa ran away from home in July 2009, saying she was afraid her Muslim parents would kill her for converting to Christianity.
    • One attorney in Rifqa case sues another, Orlando's John Stemberger Rene Stutzman. McClatchy - Tribune Business News. Washington: Sep 7, 2010.
  • Salon offered a detailed analysis, specifying that it all began with Pamela Geller, 'a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch's New York Post.'
    • Mislabeled mosque spins fears Television by Joanne Ostrow. Denver Post. Denver, Colo.: Aug 22, 2010. pg. E.1
  • But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals. Geller says that after the September 11 attacks she "began to immerse herself in gaining a full understanding of geopolitics, Islam, jihad, terror, foreign affairs and the imminent threats to our freedoms that the mainstream media and the government wouldn't cover or discuss". Civil rights groups have accused Geller of "hate speech" for her repeated warnings of a looming threat of "Islamic domination", including a claim that Muslim groups in America are working to impose sharia law on the entire population, and her assertions that the 9/11 attackers were practicing "pure Islam". Geller has also compared the proposed mosque to a building a Ku Klux Klan shrine next to a black church in Alabama. But she vigorously denies she is hostile to Muslims. "I'm not anti-Muslim. That's a slanderous slur and it's unfair," Geller said this week. "Secondly, I'm not leading the charge [against the Islamic centre near Ground Zero]. The majority of Americans - 70% - find this deeply insulting, offensive. To call it anti-Muslim is a gross misrepresentation and to say that I'm responsible for all this emotion, again a gross misrepresentation."
    • International: New York Islamic centre: The US blogger on a mission to halt 'Islamic takeover': Outspoken campaigner with links to English Defence League is a key force in the campaign to stop Islamic centre near Ground Zero Chris McGreal. The Guardian. London (UK): Aug 21, 2010. pg. 20
  • Interestingly, when the plan for the center was proposed eight months ago, it attracted little interest and virtually no opposition. Then a right-wing, anti-Muslim blogger named Pamela Geller wrote a column with the measured headline, "Monster Mosque Pushes Ahead in Shadow of World Trade Center Islamic Death and Destruction," and the mainstream media was off to the religious races.
    • Feelings about mosque reign over reason Dianne Williamson. Telegram & Gazette. Worcester, Mass.: Aug 19, 2010. pg. B.1

Discussion

Concerns that Wikipedia can be charged with slander are high on the sensitivities of the project. Here, Geller denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that it is "a slanderous slur and it's unfair". I think we have to be extremely sensitive, consequently, to the possibility of being charged with slander if we "get this wrong".

What she has said (in part), and what we can therefore state without concern, is that she felt that what she terms "Islamic supremacists", whom she distinguishes from Muslims in general, have engaged in some behavior that she views as outrageous and deeply offensive, and viewed interfaith dialogue, mutual respect, and mutual understanding as a one-way street in a manner that she feels victimizes Muslims even more than non-Muslims. That is all appropriate to reflect, and should IMHO be reflected. As it is now in the body.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns about being "charged with slander" are nonsense. Our real concern is whether the article as written reflects our standards on biographies of living persons, reliable sources, etc.; not about whether somebody somewhere is hinting that we could be sued (if there are in fact such hints going on somewhere I don't know about). --Orange Mike | Talk 23:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your facts.
It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. This is true of all unsourced information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons. This is a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations, established by Jimmy Wales and endorsed by the Foundation as necessary for the operation of the sites under its jurisdiction.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
We should include all significant, verifiable views. A quick search shows that the subject has been called "anti-Muslim" and has denied it. We can include both.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Who has called her anti muslim? Please present the most notable people in the most reliable citations as per BLP for such contentious claims. thanksOff2riorob (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Will. That's what we already do in the article body -- it reflects what she has been called, that she denies it (and views such assertions as slanderous), and her clarification as to what it is that she is "anti".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition to the excerpted press release, CAIR has issued several more that refer to "Anti-Muslim Activist Geller" in passing. Also, these are just the stories that include "Geller" within three words of "anti-Muslim". There are yet more which have the terms separated by more words, yet still refer to Geller. If folks want more I can post those too.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks, looks like spam, but thanks anyway, have you got a guality reliable external??? opinionated groups like CAIR - anyway, if you have a notable person calling her something in a reliable cite that I can access and read was what would help me, as I have seen these vague claims look like all these so and so call her something is what has created this problem, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "spam" - i think of that as something in a can or my email inbox. You're welcome to do your own research too. I don't think that "McClatchy - Tribune Business News" or The Observer are opinionated groups. As I mentioned this is just a portion of the "hits" to be found. If I add more would it be discounted as "spam" as well?   Will Beback  talk  00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia's definition of spam GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I have misused the term, spam to me is a whole load of things like you posted that I am unable to verify. I don't want to label her as this contentious claim or that contentious name, I am defending her as regards to BLP, if you have someone notable offering reasons and explanations that we at wikipedia should label her as such contentious labels then please provide them, I am not myself searching the internet in an attempt to label he as anything at all, I despise opinionated labeling of living people. Grifter has said it well below. I see you have organized your additions, have you got any external links to your claims so I can assess them better and see them in the actual context of who said them and to who? Your posting of such a too long didn't read load of vague comments is how falsehoods get added to the lede claimed to be everyone says she is anti this, but when users take the time to investigate the vague claims it is all opinionated and from opponents of the subject. Off2riorob (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I never said that she should be "labeled". I said that we need to report all significant views. The view that she is anti-Muslim is significant because it's asserted by a variety of people in numerous mainstream media articles. I'd suggest something along the lines of "she has been called X by Y and Z but has denied it".
As for sources, if you'd like more context for any particular ones I'd be happy to add more text, short of making them copyright violations.   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
As Epeefleche said, I think that is mostly already covered in the body of the article. Thanks for you posting but, they are vague and valueless imo, so I hardly want anymore. One I looked at was some Muslim activist ranting about his general hatred of anyone that doesn't support the islamification of America. Off2riorob (talk) 00:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Everyone can have an opinion. If you think that major newspapers in the US and UK are valueless partisans then you're entitled to that belief. If you think Ralph Nader is a pro-Islamic activist then you're welcome to that POV too. However I don't think your views are consistent with Wikipedia community standards.   Will Beback  talk  01:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ralph nadler, I never mentioned him, can you link to the external concerning him and his comments about Geller please for me to investigate, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Here it is in the Palestine chronicle http://palestinechronicle.com/view_article_details.php?id=16343 - bit opinionated and attacking isn't it, he wildly throws his accusatory rhetoric around in a titillating manner and supports them with nothing. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
He supports his assertion by quoting the New York Times.   Will Beback  talk  01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Which assertion? Have you got a link? Nadler also attacks Ann Coulter - its just an opinionated attack editorial for a Muslim readership. Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Read the New York Times article[4] and accompanying interview.[5] As for Nader, he's a notable person and is not a Muslim.   Will Beback  talk  01:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I will look tomorrow, I think I have seen the NYT, is there something specific you want me to see there, some specific comment? Off2riorob (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nader is quoting the NYT. You say he is writing without anything to support his views. Not that it would matter - we don't require that our sources provide their sources, and Nader is a noteworthy commentator in his own right.   Will Beback  talk  05:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) What's important here is that having looked at the sources, I don't think anyone is denying that multiple notable media outlets have described either her or her actions as anti-Islamic; however, that doesn't mean we can do so. We do not apply labels, regardless of whether other media sources believe those labels are deserved. She has firmly denied that she is anti-Islamic, and since she does not self-identify as such, we cannot make such claims as doing so would be POV (even if it is also the POV of notable sources). What we should do, is state, with reliable sources, that certain notable groups have described her as anti-Islamic, and her responses to the allegations. It's been stated above that the article already does so; I haven't read the entire article so I have no comment as to whether it does so adequately. However it's a very firm no way to the article applying a label to the individual simply because it is reliably established that some groups hold that opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Everyone remember the ADL? Outstanding defenders of Jewish and minority rights, sterling reputation, etc, etc.? Here's their statement on Geller
SPLC anyone? I think everyone's probably familiar with these folks. Their intelligence reports, the ones that have been coming out for the past 30 years reporting on hate groups etc., picked Mrs. Geller as the leading issue for the Winter 2010 edition.
If those aren't enough, nothing is enough. The idea that we can't state the opinions of the two most respected anti-discrimination NGOs in the US because of possible slander concerns is absurd. We can argue on the policy, that's great, but don't jump into WP:LEGAL right off the bat. Sol (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As I've explained above Sol, I see absolutely no reason their views should not be mentioned in their article if it's backed by reliable sources; indeed, for the sake of neutrality and fair coverage, such statements in mainstream sources should be included. But we report their opinions, we don't make it our own, and we don't use contentious POV labels because sources express that POV. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the NYT article, it says that BLP vio removed GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC) based on this interview.[6] It's not clear whether she really embraces that term or is just using it ironically.   Will Beback  talk  01:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not clear? Will, it's very clear from her statement that its use is ironic. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
In fact frankly that was a BLP violation and I've removed it; the source does not at all support your claim. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It is certainly not a BLP violation to quote a subject speaking of herself. It is not noted as ironic by any of the sources which have discussed the NYT article that I've seen. The Catholic magazine Commonweal is not an Islamic apologist, yet it blogs about "Pamela Geller: self-described `racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot’".   Will Beback  talk  01:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Will Beback this is an unreliable attacking blog and you shouldn't have posted it and a comment from it to the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 02:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Hold up, the Commonweal is an attack blog? How is a Catholic opinion magazine's blog an attack blog? It even meets WP's RS standards for blogs and is written by a Brooklyn College professor of journalism. That seems pretty solid. Sol (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You didn't provide a quote, you provided a blatant misrepresentation of what she said; that's a BLP violation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Commonweal and the New York Times have misrepresented Geller? That's certainly possible. But I was just repeating what they've said. Has Geller repudiated the interview?   Will Beback  talk  01:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It is clearly said satirically in reference to opinionated labeling such as we are discussing here, some people have presented it out of context. Off2riorob (talk) 01:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
You think you know better than the sources. I often feel that way myself, but nonetheless we need to follow what reliable sources say. This phrase appears prominently in a major newspaper profile of the subject, and has been commented on by such notable personages as Ralph Nader. Whatever else we do with this material we should include that quote.   Will Beback  talk  01:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Here is Geller's response to the NYT article and interview, posted on her blog: The New York Times: Outraged, Outrageous and Unhinged.   Will Beback  talk  01:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Its quite clear to me that it is satirical, I don't know better than anything but I have editorial judgment, open a edit request for your desired addition, go on. go for it Will Beback.. add your edit request .....Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC).

Hey all. Jumping back into this conversation; several points. 1) I don't think we have to be as worried about WP:BLP concerns on article talk pages. If Will was quoting out of context, it would have probably been sufficient just to say so. Please don't edit other users talk page comments. 2) It seems like a number of people have taken a look at this now, and ironically I think Off2riorob and myself who initiated this debate probably agree at this point on compromise language. I suggest we either start considering compromise wording or start up an RfC. Anyone like either of those solutions? NickCT (talk) 02:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could you repeat the proposed compromise language?   Will Beback  talk  05:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Well.... I initially suggested "Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator, known primarily for her opposition to Islam and Muslim activities". This wording avoids explicitly stating that she is anti-Islamic, while acknowledging that a majority of RS cite her as engaged in anti-Islamic activities. NickCT (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that's a fair summary for the lead. More details can be included in the text of the article. Any objections?   Will Beback  talk  12:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I think it'd be more appropriate to constrain that description slightly: which activities in particular? Not be to nit-pick, but she doesn't oppose all Islamic and Muslim activities, so it makes better sense to rephrase as something like "...her opposition to Islamic and Muslim movements in the United States" and/or give examples such as the proposal to build a mosque on the World Trade Center site. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche - To be clear, do you disagree that Geller's activism/blogging opposes Islam related issues, or do you disagree that she is primarily known for her activism/blogging? NickCT (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, you have changed the discussion from "opposition to Islam and Muslim activities" to "Islam-related". That's a big change.
Geller is known for her opposition to, to use her words, what she terms "Islamic supremacists", whom she distinguishes from Muslims in general. She is of the view that they have engaged in some behavior that she views as outrageous and deeply offensive, and viewed interfaith dialogue, mutual respect, and mutual understanding as a one-way street in a manner that she feels victimizes Muslims even more than non-Muslims. She has said that she views it as slanderous to label her as anti-Muslim. I have no issue of course with her being indicated as being known for her activism/blogging. It is this difference in describing her as being anti-Muslim or anti-certain-Muslims that is at issue.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, Islam related blogging would be better, and I don't think she is active in other countries as regards muslims there is she, the notable blogging and activism is American based, not global. - How about - "Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator, known primarily for her opposition to Islamic supremacists and is vocal in defiance of Muslim terrorism and jihadists and is a defender of the traditional American way of life and a vocal resistor to what she refers to as "the creeping islamification of America." Off2riorob (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I like it, but I think that we should also throw in "true patriot" and "righteous", otherwise I think that the wording proposed by o2rr runs the risk of not being fawning enough. un☯mi 14:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche
How many "islam/muslim related" topics (e.g. mosques) do you have to be against before you can justifiably be called, "anti-islamic"?
I'm sure Geller has some creative ways to describe the POVs she espouses. That's great, and perhaps we can put that into the article. The fact remains though that the large majority of RS on this woman describe her in the context of "anti-islamic" activism or opposition of "Islam/muslim" related topics. Thus I think the compromise language meets both WP:NPOV and WP:V.
What Geller has stated about what is or is not slanderous is largely irrelevant. Mel Gibson might say it's slanderous to say he was born in New York. Wikipedia is not censored. We can say whatever we like on BLPs as long it meets WP:V and WP:NPOV standards.
Epee, do you have any alternative suggestions or are you just responding with the typical f intransigent "no". NickCT (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob
I presume your suggestion is a joke right? I don't think I've seen any RS describing her using the terms you've selected. That pretty much seems to be Geller self-description, and using it would of course be a violation of WP:AUTOBIO. NickCT (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, its not a joke, thats what she is and is citable as if you look at it from a non attacking neutral position. Off2riorob (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick: regarding your reply to Epeefleche: the answer is infinity. We cannot justify calling her anti-Islamic based on her opposition to "related topics", unless it is a self-styled term. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Nick - She was co founder of an anti jihadist movement and co founder of an stop the islamification of America movement and she is easily citable as supporting the traditional way of American life and easily citable as against Islamic supremacists, that is what she is, her opponents call her other things, we can add that as well and attribute who accuses her of it and why. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Nick -- Stick to the facts. RSs are RSs for facts, such as "Mel Gibson was born in X". They are not RSs for state of mind of a person, such as "Nick is anti-Z (even though he says he is just anti-Zs that are terrorists ... because we, the RSs, know his state of mind better than he does).--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Sanity check: Are we talking about the same Pamela Geller that the NYTimes wrote of: "[she] wages a form of holy war through Atlas Shrugs, a Web site that attacks Islam with a rhetoric venomous enough that PayPal at one point branded it a hate site. Working here — often in fuzzy slippers — she has called for the removal of the Dome of the Rock from atop the Temple Mount in Jerusalem; posted doctored pictures of Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court justice, in a Nazi helmet; suggested the State Department was run by “Islamic supremacists”; and referred to health care reform as an act of national rape."
  • Even subsequent corrections to the article emphasizes: "An article last Sunday about Pamela Geller, a blogger who attacks Islam ..". Just checking. un☯mi 14:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Re u - You're absolutely right. This debate occurs on the fringes of sanity. Alas, so many of these kinds of debates do. NickCT (talk) 14:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

random break

  • As far as proposals go, how about: "While Geller is anti-jihadist and is also against what she refers to as "Islamic supremacists" (whom she distinguishes from Muslims in general), Geller denies accusations that she is anti-Muslim, calling such charges an unfair "slanderous slur".[--Epeefleche (talk) 14:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@ GiftigerWunsch - If you'll read the compromise language I proposed, I'm not seeking to call Geller "anti-Islamic".
@Off2riorob - Apologies but you seem to be stunningly insensitive to the vast vast majority of RS regarding Geller. I ask you again to Google news search "Pamela Geller blogger", and look at how the majority of hits that pop up describe her.
@Epee- 1) You are accepting Geller at her word when she says she is only "anti-Z" that are terrorists. A slew of RS would seem to contradict that. 2) Granted birth place may be more objective than a political opinion. But the compromise language I've proposed doesn't state what Geller's political opinion is, only she has been noted for standing in opposition of many Islamic causes. 3) Trying to build off your proposal, how about "Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator, known primarily for her opposition to Islam and Muslim activities. Geller has described her campaings as against what she refers to as "Islamic supremacists" (whom she distinguishes from Muslims in general), Geller denies accusations that she is anti-Muslim, calling such charges an unfair "slanderous slur"" NickCT (talk) 14:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not accepting Geller at her word. I'm reporting her statement as to her state of mind. While mentioning as well others accusations as to her state of mind. Why in the world would I give precedence to someone else's statement as to her state of mind? Her statements are all we have to go on -- she is not engaging in any other form of activities that I am aware of.
Your language is akin to "OJ is known for killing his wife ..." (And saying ... "I didn't say he killed here ... just that he is known for killing her".) As others have stated repeatedly, with Geller saying it is slanderous and untrue to say that she is anti-Muslim, we shouldn't be saying "she is known for being anti-Muslim". In fact, she is known for her opposition to certain elements of the Islamic/Muslim community. The U.S., similarly, is accused in some quarters of being engaged in a war on Islam -- but even though it is true that such accusations are made, it would not be appropriate to say in a wp article: "the U.S., known for its war on Islam ...".--Epeefleche (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epee- Your analogy doesn't hold. What I'm saying is akin to "OJ is known for being tried for the murder of his wife" which is true and neutral. Geller has stood in opposition of a whole range of Islamic programs/organizations/political movements. That is fact.
Again, I understand the distinction you are trying to make, but unfortunately RSs simply don't make the same distinction and don't seem willing to offer Geller the same benefit of the doubt you are offering.
(after EC) To say america was "at war with Islam" would be a little dicey. To say it was warring against many groups and entities which identify as islamic would be accurate. NickCT (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, I read your suggestion above a while ago; please see my reply. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, there are a few thousand articles of people accusing the U.S./West/Bush of a "war on Islam" and a "war against Islam". And they are talking about acts -- not a state of mind. The U.S./Bush/the West deny it, and say that they are only at war with certain groups that identify as Islamic (who are doing acts in the name of Islam). Still, we have all those thousands of articles to go on ... and the phrase used is not "war against certain groups who identify with Islam". Again -- the problem with your proposal is that instead of focusing on what Geller says she is against, you conflate it to what others say she is against -- i.e., jihadist and what she calls "supremicist" Muslims vs. all Muslims. An important difference, and one she views as slanderous.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epee - Re "the problem with your proposal is that instead of focusing on what Geller says she is against, you conflate it to what others say she is against" - Isn't that what WP:AUTOBIO would dictate?
Re - "thousand articles of people accusing the U.S./West/Bush of a "war on Islam" and a "war against Islam" - Sure. But I imagine an equal proportion of articles exist calling Bush's actions a "war on terrorism" or using more nuanced phrases like "war against certain groups who identify with Islam". NickCT (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Salon.com has a number of pieces on her[7][8][9]. The Atlantic carries the following interview bits from her[10]:
which is taken from the interview here which also has:
So, uhh, there are apparently no moderate Muslims. un☯mi 15:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
No, I don't read that, she appears to be saying ... that she sees devout followers of Islam as not politically moderate. we can add that also. Off2riorob (talk) 16:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@ GiftigerWunsch - Ok. Reread. How about "Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator, known primarily for her opposition to Islamic and Muslim movements. Geller has described her campaings as against what she refers to as "Islamic supremacists" (whom she distinguishes from Muslims in general), Geller denies accusations that she is anti-Muslim, calling such charges an unfair "slanderous slur""? NickCT (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
This vague attacking claim seems to have little support. - known primarily for her opposition to Islamic and Muslim movements. - which movements? and where? Globally? - forget the vague unsupported accusatory slurs - let her words speak for themselves - Off2riorob (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Off2Rob- Please quit the shenanigans and read the slew of sources that have been provided for you. It's quite clear that Geller has been a combatant against a range of Muslim activities/programs/initiatives (e.g. Park51). We don't let peoples' "words speak for themselves" on WP because we don't let people write their on biographies. It doesn't matter how Geller describes her actions. What matters is how RSs describe her actions. NickCT (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but we no longer attack them and label living people as hate figures labeled by their opponents either. She is against park51, so are many people and that is already in the lede. Which other muslim programs is she against?Off2riorob (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Well you've made your position and your intransigence pretty clear. We'll try and work around you. Thanks, NickCT (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I am here as a neutral to defend as per BLP this living person from users that would like to add unsupported defamatory accusations to the lede, you won't be able to work around that and yes, that position is intransigent. Off2riorob (talk) 16:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Describing "known primarily for her opposition to Islamic and Muslim movements." as an "unsupported defamatory accusation" is way way off-base. But regardless, thanks for clearly stating your opinion. NickCT (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I have a simple word which will (imo) settle the dispute: certain.
...known primarily for her opposition to certain Islamic and Muslim movements
This emphasises that she's known for being opposed to particular movements, the unifying feature of these movements being that they're related to muslims, while no longer giving the impression that she is summarily against all Islamic and Muslim movements. That can then be continued with "such as..." (examples, sources). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly seem to go a long way towards addressing the issue at hand. Which, of course, makes me focus on the words Islamic, Muslim, and movements. Query whether "Islamic and Muslim" isn't redundant. Also, whether there might not be a better phrase than "movements" ... though off-hand I can't come up with it.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm also unclear on why "Islamic" and "Muslim" don't both describe the same thing, but I assumed there was some subtle distinction since no one had pointed it out. Either way I think potential redundancy in two terms is a non-issue by comparison; focussing on satisfying the primary POV and BLP concerns and surrounding dispute is the main task here; a tweak to remove redundancy (if they are indeed redundant) is non-contentious and can be handled once we've reached consensus on the main issue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd be against the word "certain", b/c Geller has essentially been critical of every aspect of Islam she has ever been quoted on. If it were the case the case that Geller had said "Gee... I don't like Hal al practices or prayers over loud speakers, but everything else about Islam is honky dory", then "certain" might be appropriate. But the fact is, every single quote (and I mean every single quote) you get from Geller in regards to Islam is critical; hence, "certain" strikes me a prime example of a weasel word. NickCT (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
How do you read the quote I refer to above as critical of all of Islam? It appears to state quite the opposite. It's this sort of conflation that this discussion is trying to avoid, but you seem to be slipping back into it.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Then apparently you need to read up on what constitutes a weasel word... GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Anyone want to go to the David Duke page and argue that he's not an anti-Semite, he's just fighting to preserve white culture? And Stormfront says they are just a website celebrating white heiritage and aren't neo-Nazis. Beyond a certain point, opposition to certain elements along a racial/cultural/ethnic divide blend so well with opposition to the group that the rhetoric is identical. Geller's crossed the line according to the ADL, SPLC, NYT, PayPal; there are enough RS saying she's just straight up opposed to Islam that it doesn't need "certain" as a qualifier in the lead. She may say she's only opposed to certain elements in Islam but RS say she's making no distinctions along those lines. And I agree that "Muslim and Islamic" seems redundant, isn't one ok? Sol (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Godwin violation here. Saying that Pamela Geller is like the Nazi David Duke means that the debate is resolved: Wikipedia will not in its own voice state that Pamela Geller is "anti-Islamic."MosesPorges (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. No one bats an eye at that appraisal of David Duke (for good reason) even though his position is "I am not a National Socialist; I am not a nazi." Are you convinced? Most sources aren't, I'm not, yet that's what we are being asked to do here. No one says "I am a racist/ethnic discriminator", it's all veiled as a response to a 'threat'. If you'd like to go explain why the David Duke article can't call him a white nationalist because he denies the charge then go for it. Welcome back! Sol (talk) 18:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

ἁ== Lede proposal ==

As a slight adjustment of the proposal I made in the above section, I'm indicating a proposal for the lede section here.

Proposal is to change the following in the lede section:

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator.

to the following:

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator known primarily for her opposition to movements related to Islam in the United States, which she terms the country's "Islamification". Such movements include the proposal to build a mosque on the former site of the World Trade Center.

Suggestions and constructive criticism welcome. The proposal attempts to emphasise what her primary claim to notability, which from the sources appears to be the claim of "islamification" of the US and her opposition to the Islamic movements she feels to be involved in that. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator known for her opposition to Islamic jihadism and movements related to Islam in the United States, which she terms the country's "Islamification". Such movements include the proposal to build a mosque on the former site of the World Trade Center.
@GiftigerWunsch
Thanks for being productive and actually offering some potential wording.
That said, I'm going to oppose because I think the wording is a little verbose. I would mention the "Islamification" thing in a seperate sentence (if at all). Additionally, I'm not sure Park51 has to be brought up as an example.
I counter propose "Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator known primarily for her opposition to Islamic movements and her critisms of Islam." NickCT (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Change "and movements related to Islam in the United States, which she terms the country's "Islamification". Such movements...." to "and all movements related to Islam in the United States, which she terms the country's "Islamification", including the proposal....." The problem is that she claims not to be against Muslims and Islam, yet I'm not aware of anything Islamic which she supports. Which implies.... Perhaps Epeefleche has a list, but I doubt it. If you see what I'm getting at here. Flatterworld (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
She has not said she is against all. She has said that assertion is false. And slander. She has said she is against discrete elements and issues. She has delineated them. If X says he is against Nazis, and white supremicism, we do not say he is ipso facto against all Germans, and all whites. This should be simple stuff, especially when looked at through the BLP prism, and Jimbo's statements on libel/slander issues--which the subject has raised as to precisely this assertion. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of "Islamic jihadism" use jihadism" since Islam and Jihadism are not the same, but all jihadists are by definition Islamic so the adjective "Islamic" is redundant. MosesPorges (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

We use the terms the reliable sources use. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epee - Who cares what she says about her assertions. How secondary sources characterize her assertions is what is relevant. Putting her words into the article unattributed is WP:AUTOBIO. Please cease this whole "she has said" X or Y about herself, b/c it doesn't matter how she has characterized herself. NickCT (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I also don't support your desired addition. We shouldn't label her with unsupportable labels, such as anti islamic. Such points as flatterworld claims that she must be against all muslims because he can't see any she is for is part of the exact issue here, please stop trying to hang defamatory labels on her in the lede, there is no need at all. Personally I prefer mine as its a NPOV non accusatory statement but I also prefer Grifters version to your suggestion. Your suggestion that she is critical of islam is all encompassing accusatory, like she just goes around criticizing Islam randomly is patently false. - Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
@Nick. I care. The woman has said she is against certain aspects of Islam, and not against Islam in general. Some. Not all. You appear intent to ignore what she says as to her own beliefs. And state that she is against all of Islam. This has nothing to do with wp:autobio. It has to do with reflecting the beliefs of the person. For that, we look at their statements.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Epee... It is WP:AUTOBIO b/c you are basically saying that Geller should be allowed to characterize her own comments.
Imagine this; I make a statement on my blog that says "black people are poor parents and eat too much fried chicken".
The New York Times and Washington Post run pieces saying "NickCT makes racist comments on his blogs".
But I say "My comments aren't racist. That's libelous. In fact, I'm just criticizing black peoples' parenting skills, and their eating habits".
My Wikipedia BLP should absolutely not reflect my own opinion that my comments aren't racist. We have reliable mainstream sources saying they are, and so wikipedia says they are.
Epee... Again I feel like you are running a slightly ridiculous double standard here. You know you wouldn't be as sympathetic with this women if it was your race she was "criticizing". NickCT (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator known primarily for her opposition to jihadism and movements related to Islam in the United States, which she terms the creeping "Islamification" of the country. Such movements include the proposal to build a mosque on the former site of the World Trade Center.

What sources are we using to support the assert that her primary notability comes from opposition to jihadism, and to "movements"? I don't see any secondary sources that discuss her opposition to jihadism. Is the mosque proposal a movement?   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Each proposal seems to get more and more verbose. I dislike the offering above simply because it seems ridiculously contorted to me. NickCT (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it'd be easier to split the sentence. "Geller is a blogger, etc. She campaigns against.... She has been called..., but denies that charge."   Will Beback  talk  01:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah perhaps.

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator. She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms the creeping "Islamification" of the country.

How bout? NickCT (talk) 16:40, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That works. The "jihadism" version doesn't address the fact that a lot of her rhetoric is directed at non-"jihadist" Muslims. Sol (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems fine; the only concern I have is if we can establish this as what she's primarily known for; I suspect we have sufficient notable sources to consider this the primary interest though. Secondly though, is "creeping" also part of the quote? It should either be quoted as "creeping Islamification", or just as "Islamification" and drop the creeping. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually I'm not certain about "activities and causes", particularly "causes". Perhaps a better word could be chosen... I'm pondering it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

@GiftigerWunsch re "she's primarily known for" - I think this is a pretty safe statement. Just go to google news and search "Pamela Geller". Essentially everything that pops up is something about her and Islam. re "creeping Islamification" - I think you're right. Surrounding creeping with quotes is probably the right thing to do. re "activities and causes" - Yeah. I'm not 100% on this wording either. If you can think up something more appropriate, I'd be happy to hear it. NickCT (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

That looks fine to me.   Will Beback  talk  19:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - I think what she is claimed to be primarily known for is one of the labeling problems, she is notable for blogging and for co founding of the anti jihad movement and and her opposition to what she sees as the creeping Islamicization of America. As said previously, the lede is fine as it is without any contentious labeling and no edit is required at all. All the details about her main activities are already present in the lede now. Off2riorob (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Oddly Off2 I think you've expressed this opinion before. It's an interesting point-of-view but I don't think it's getting much traction. Now, either you haven't bothered Googling "Pamela Geller blogger" or you've completely ignored the results. You may wish to give some thought to your position before you restate it. NickCT (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
What's our source for describing the Freedom Defense Initiative as "anti jihadist"?   Will Beback  talk  21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
'Nick, please don't direct me to the mass crap that is a google search result and attempt to convince me that we should add some kind of contentious disputed identifier to the first sentence of a wikipedia BLP because of it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Uh, O2rr, stating that someone is primarily known for a particular reason is not a labelling problem. Stating she's anti-Islamic would be applying a WP:LABEL, stating that she's primarily known for her opposition to ... etc. is simply pointing out her claim of notability. It's no different than saying "known primarily for her music" if she was a musician. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
She is notable for blogging and for co founding of the anti jihad movement and and her opposition to what she sees as the creeping Islamicization of America. - that is what she is primarily known for and it is already in the lede. This vague defamatory claim from Nicks desired edit is false representation - "for her criticisms of Islam" Off2riorob (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
So you've basically just agreed that this is what she's primarily notable for, correct? I'm not sure what the issue is then; you appear to be agreeing with the wording but also claiming that it's a labelling issue. WP:LABEL only refers to phrases which apply a contentious label, however. Suggesting a claim of notability isn't even remotely related. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Off2 - My point in telling you to Google "Pamela Geller blogger" is because "search engine tests" are a good way of determining why someone/something is notable. Every article that comes up when you Google "Pamela Geller blogger" refers to her and Islam; hence she is primarily notable in relation to Islam. Please don't refer to this as "mass crap" simply b/c it contradicts your POV. NickCT (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
to Gifter - Yes - she is not primarily known for some false claim supported by google mania but what she is known for are already in the lede, there is no reason to attempt to claim what single thing she is primarily known for and the claim is totally disputable and actually as a content addition and as a opinionated label goes - its worthless. Off2riorob (talk) 21:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
to nick - google smoogle - present me decent reliable detail or I don't even look at it and actually I have no POV about her apart from I see no reason to support attacking unnecessary labeling. Off2riorob (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2) Uh, o2rr, it's not a false claim: that she opposes islamic events such as the building of a mosque at the former site of the world trade centre, etc., appears to be well-referenced. And I state again: "primarily known for" is not a label. You even said yourself just now, that that's what she's notable for. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok Off2riorob - If not google, what do you think is a good way for determining why someone is notable? NickCT (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Mention in reliable sources, as with everything else. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:57, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What's our source for describing the Freedom Defense Initiative as "anti jihadist"?   Will Beback  talk  21:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Lets look for this, it was in the lede when I arrived but thats all know about it. Have you had a look here, Robert_Spencer_(author) - the co founder seems to be quite focused on anti jihadism you will likely find a cite there. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
to Nick, we already know why she is notable, its already in the lede. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Well that's a productive stance Off2. Let me know when you need some help digging your head out of the sand. I've got a shovel..... NickCT (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
How about moving "She has been cited as one of the most visible opponents of the Park51 community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan.[6]" from the second paragraph to be the second sentence in the lead paragraph. That is the event for which she jumped onto the radar for most people. Active Banana (bananaphone 22:07, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It looks like "anti jihadist" was added by Off2riorob on January 2.[11] Was there a source for it then?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I add it, looks like I may have, I don't really remember but I imagine I saw the name and attempted to add an internal and saw a redlink Freedom Defense Initiative and then investigated and searched and looked at the other creators article Robert_Spencer_(author) and from that investigation it appeared it was clearly anti jihad and that and added it, if this is disputed then I am happy to have it removed again. I found on the self explanatory about the group things like FDI acts against the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials, the mainstream media, and others in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, the ever-encroaching and unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people. - if its disputed I am happy to have it removed and I will investigate further. Off2riorob (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it's disputed. When article protection is lifted we should remove it if we can't find a source. We should also describe what it is, if we can find a source for it. Remember, we're not here to repeat what Geller says about herself and her projects. We're here to provide a neutral summary of all significant points of view about her. So we should avoid overuse of her websites and blogs as sources for this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You are welcome to add a edit request now, but I don't think the subjects would dispute the claim Jihad watch is the co - founders blog/website. Of course, you can add and cite a couple of the more notable opponents of Geller and other peoples attributed opinions and comments in a section of the article but we don't label our living subjects with accusatory opinions unattributed in the lede into.Off2riorob (talk) 00:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Jihad watch is a blog run by a third party, and should not be used as a source for this article. I suggest we use reliable secondary sources instead. Is that a problem?   Will Beback  talk  00:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to present any WP:RS you like for discussion regarding any desired content additions you might have. Off2riorob (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Likewise.   Will Beback  talk  00:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We can't use the subject's blog as a source for her assertions about third parties. If her postings are controversial then we should be able to find secondary sources which mention them.   Will Beback  talk  01:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

unlocked

Ah, time flies when your enjoying yourself, looks good to me now Will Beback has tweaked the content. Personally if you guys are interested in the article then forget the labels and the primarily known as and develop and expand her life details - by explaining the issue through content and cites in the body of the article, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, well.... We have 4 editors supporting the last proposal. Off2 seems to be the only person objecting. We can probably assume Epee will object if he rejoins the conversation.
Off2 - Are you will to accept we have a majority here and accept the rewrite or should we move further into WP:DR? NickCT (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have what you desire to add and you feel it will be disputed and is possibly contentious (we know will be...so ..) I suggest you perhaps add the exact addition here and give a day to see who supports it. Personally I really like the simple clean lede that we have now, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 01:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Off2 - I don't deny that the lede might currently be clean, but the simple fact is, this woman is overwhelmingly associated with her criticisms of Islam/Muslims. The current lede in my mind masks or possibly censors that fact. I will do as you say though and post the exact wording in a bit. Best NickCT (talk) 14:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So this is the proposed wording -

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator. She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms the "creeping Islamification" of the country.

Four editors have suggested it's ok above. I and another editor are a little unsure about "activities and causes" wording, and are open to suggestions for a replacement

It might be worth noting that there are now over a dozen references (op-eds and otherwise) above under "clippings" that specifically use the term "anti-muslim". How many of these do we have to supply before WP:LABEL isn't cited? NickCT (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose - POV labeling with a weak opinionated claim of what she is primarily known for. A position which is a WP:BLP violation allegedly supported by vague Google search result claims and opinionated editorials. There is absolutely no need or benefit to the reader at all, all the details of her notability are already speaking for themselves in the lede without any need to add opinionated contentious primarily known for vague statements such as this desired broad brush stroke addition - She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes Off2riorob (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support in principle
Nit-picks:
  • Can we substitute "opposing" for "being against"? Just seems to scan a bit better.
  • I didn't read all the articles under "Clippings", but a few quick Google searches yield references to "creeping Sharia", but nothing for Geller and "creeping Islamification"; or for that matter "Islamification" alone. (In fact, most of the hits for the exact phrase "creeping Islamification" referred to Europe, primarily the UK.) If we're going to put something in quotes, at least one ref to her use of the word/phrase would be nice.
If she is not known "primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes", then what is she primarily known for? Blogging? There are thousands of bloggers out there who don't have the notability for an article in Wikipedia. What makes hers worthy? Examining the article history shows that by strange coincidence, it was added on August 21, 2010, at the height of the Park 51 controversy. Wonder why that was. Or, to put it another way, how many reliable sources center on anything about her other than her radical anti-Islamism? Fat&Happy (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
You know it was Off2 I think who proposed the "creeping Islamification". Off2, can you reference that? NickCT (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I am no longer searching or referencing anything related to this person. I support what is currently in the lede, if you want to change it, you need to cite your desired addition that is up to you. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Geez Off2 - Standdoffish much? OK. Well I don't know where Off2 got "creeping Islamification" and apparently Off2 doesn't either. I therefore propose switch "creeping Islamification" of the country. to "creeping Sharia" in the country.
  • - Just a note - if users have made edits in support of projects this subject is campaigning against, such as Park51 related and such like or opponents of this living person would they please declare it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not really clear on what this means. Could you explain? NickCT (talk) 20:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) clarified, thanks Off2riorob (talk) 20:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah. Of course, we should also ask people if they have ever made edits against projects this subject is campaigning against, right???..... (silent pause to let the ridiculousness of the request sink in).... come on Off2, you know that's not how things work. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Not having an exhaustive, up-to-date list of everything this living person may support or oppose, I will simply say I have made a number of neutral, NPOV edits on a variety of topics, details of which may be found here. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. That seems clear and neutral. I don't see any "labeling", beyond calling her a blogger, etc. There's no assertion that her notability comes from anything but her campaigns regarding Muslims and mosques.   Will Beback  talk  23:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
    Is "creeping Islamisation/Islamification/Islamism" an actual quote? if so it should be cited. I see frequent mentions of "creeping Sharia",[12] but that may be too obscure for the intro.   Will Beback  talk  00:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. It looks good. It doesn't assign any potentially contentious labels to her but talks about her activities and uses her own words (assuming that is a quote). The information is well-supported and the opposing editor has yet to explain why the ADL and the SPLC are not good sources. Sol (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, except for the couple of points I made in the section above ("causes" for example). But I'm happy to stick with the proposed version for the moment and if I come up with a better word or words I'll either swap it out or discuss it here (depending on how controversial it's likely to be). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm tempted to call this and add in the proposed text, but since this is obviously a controversial edit and I'm involved, can we ask an uninvolved (and preferrably experienced) editor to determine if there's sufficient consensus here? I notice that myself, Nick, Sol, and Will are now all supporting a single proposal now, so that seems to suggest we've reached a decent compromise. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:14, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need to rush to a declaration of consensus. It's only been a formal proposal for about six hours. And I would venture a guess that if Epeefleche and MosesPorges return, they would Oppose. Why don't we give it at least a day to simmer before attempting a close? The idea of a neutral third party seems good, but how would one be recruited unless by opening a formal RFC? Fat&Happy (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to see a citation for She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms the "creeping Islamification" of the country. I can't find that quote on the Internet. If we can't verify it I suggest we post the rest and continue to draft that sentence based on sourced material in the article.   Will Beback  talk  09:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
@Will Beback - Please read my comment above that begins "Geez Off2 - Standdoffish much?" NickCT (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - There has been a week of discussion over this desired best known for, Google search result, broad brush stroke labeling and still it's unclear, anyways, I still don't see any need for it as all the details are already in the lede. If you are changing and proposing another addition, please post it again clearly so as to see who supports it, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Agree with Off2. I think what we have already addresses the issue largely. I have no problem moving up more material, though Off2 may well be right that it is a bit much, along the lines indicated -- that would not raise libel issues. To overstate what she has said as some have suggested above is a problem, for reasons stated already. That goes as well for "branding" her, as some seem keen to do. Just state the facts. That's my view.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator. She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms the "creeping Sharia" in the country.

At Off2's request I'm reposting. Off2, I feel I've made a lot of attempts to reach out to you. It would nice if you could perhaps acknowledge that Geller's criticism of Islam has a large part to do with what makes her notable. NickCT (talk) 22:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Same problems. Nick continues to conflate her criticisms of certain aspects and followers of Islam, to make it into her criticisms of all of Islam and all of Muslim activities and causes. That is precisely what she has stated is a misrepresentation of her, and slanderous. Let's, first of all, not exaggerate. Let's second of all simply state what it is that she has said she is against -- e.g., jihad, "Islamic supremacy", etc. Says what she is against -- don't characterize and exaggerate it.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Do you have an RS that supports Geller's claim that the huge slew of reliable sources offered above are "misrepresenting" her? NickCT (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
You have it backwards. We are talking of a representation of what her view is. She has stated clearly what her view is. And what it is not. She has stated clearly what she criticizes. And what she does not. She has said it is slander to misrepresent her. At wp, we not only have a high bar with BLPs, we have an especially high one where a person says "it is X to say I believe Z, because I do not believe Z". Jimbo himself has spoken to this issue clearly. We have a clear policy. This really is not a close issue. Simply reflect what she says -- that is what she is being criticized for. Why exaggerate it?--Epeefleche (talk) 22:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
re "We are talking of a representation of what her view is." - And we look at RSs for that representation as dictated by WP:V.
re "Jimbo himself has spoken to this issue clearly."[citation needed] NickCT (talk) 22:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
All uninvolved experienced contributors would say the same thing, allow the content to speak itself, don't contentiously label living people, especially when it is disputed by good faith experienced contributors.. don't attempt to add your idea and opinion as to this or that vague claim. You NickCT are the one pushing this contentious labeling, you are the one wanting to add it, you are the one taking a representation of what her view is, according to you and google vague dot com. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
re "All uninvolved experienced contributors" - Really? A few here seem to disagree.
re "don't attempt to add your idea and opinion as to this or that vague claim" - Not my idea. Take a second to read the vast swathe of RS from which this idea comes.
re "you are the one wanting to add it," - That seems a little accusatory. A majority of the editors who have looked at this have agreed with me Off2. Please don't paint this as some kind of personal mission. NickCT (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

New proposal

Proposed language for the second through fourth sentences of the lede (this may lead to deleting or moving down some material later in the lede).

Geller maintains a blog that she describes as anti-jihadist. She denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that they are "a slanderous slur", and distinguishes between what she terms "Islamic supremacists", whom she is against, and other Muslims, whom she believes are themselves victimized by Islamic supremacists". She has also been an outspoken critic of the location of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.

--Epeefleche (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we can work on this to get some compromise language?

She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, though she describes both her blog and campaigns as anti-jihadist. She denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that they are "a slanderous slur", and distinguishes between what she terms "Islamic supremacists", whom she is against, and other Muslims, whom she says are "themselves victimized by Islamic supremacists". She has been noted as one of the initial critics of the location of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center.

Any good? NickCT (talk) 23:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

What? this has become a joke, the lede is presently fine, I suggest moving along. Its getting like talking to sANTA about his sack. 23:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Discussion seems to have tapered off. As far as I can tell, consensus is still for a change.

Proposal A - Pamela Geller (born 1958), also known while married as Pamela Oshry, is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator. She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as the proposed construction of an Islamic community center near the former site of the World Trade Center. She has described her blogging and campaigns in the United States as being against what she terms "creeping Sharia" in the country.

Are there any new arguments? NickCT (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
The discussion hasn't tapered off, there is no reason to edit the lede, all the details are there already. I object to any attempt to vaguely define the subject with the phrase "primarily known for" - Off2riorob (talk) 13:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Again, any new arguments? NickCT (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I could support Proposal A, the NYTimes piece on her clearly supports the description of what she is primarily known for, the NYTimes piece is as near as I can tell one of the larger pieces on her available. ADL's profile of her also supports the description and perhaps we should include an attributed quote from them on her. un☯mi 14:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob continues to revert the language above. He and Epeefleche seem to be the only editors objecting to the proposed language. @Off2riorob - Would you like to see if we can work on some kind of compromise or shall we take the next step in WP:DR? NickCT (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
  • As Nick indicates, I object to Nick's addition of language that introduces to the article the very "tagging" of the subject of the article that she has indicated she believes is defamation of her. I suggest we bring in fresh eyes, or raise the level of review, under the circumstances.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't want to misrepresent opinions, but I believe the contention is over the "She is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities". One group of editors contends this is basically WP:BLP violation (Eppe and Off2), while another group contends it is well supported by a huge morass of RSs. NickCT (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't care so much about what WP editors object to, as we can discuss that and come to a compromise or consensus. It's what the subject has verifiably said that she objects to which we should get clear so we can handle the material properly. Just because she objects doesn't mean we can't say whatever it is, assuming we have solid sources, etc, but it will point us to the areas where we need to be particularly careful.   Will Beback  talk  21:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Geller denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that it is "a slanderous slur and it's unfair". She delineates which aspects and adherents of Islam she is against, and says that she is not against all Islam and all Islamic activities. Nick would like to conflate that--to state exactly what she has identified as slander. We should reflect what she has said, or what she says she believes, not what others may say she believes (how would they know, after all, other than by her statements). For obvious reasons, we have to be quite careful about stating in the article what the subject of the article has said is slander as to her beliefs. My "new proposal" above adds to the language that we already have in the lede about her beliefs -- likely as Off2 says in a manner that is not necessary, but that should be more than enough to address the felt need of some to add further focus to her views with regard to certain aspects of Islam and certain adherents of Islam.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why not use that particular quote and then balance it with the ADL's description of her activities? Regardless of who Geller claims she's opposing, its clear that many have taken her actions and statements as being straight up anti-Muslim. Sol (talk) 22:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
@Epeefleche - re "We should reflect what she has said, or what she says she believes, not what others may say she believes" - This statement strikes me as a little wrong minded and blatantly contrary to multiple WP policies. Espeicially when the "others" you refer to is a huge morass of mainstream RSs. NickCT (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Thats just a list of valueless opinionated externals, some reliable some not, that you are attempting to use as weight to label this person unnecessarily with a big broad accusatory brush. I am always astounded how small minded and obsessive wikipedia can be, on and on for weeks over a worthless labeling, that adds nothing of any value to articles at all. Its just POV labeling - most known for , yea right.Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Ummmm... "valueless opinionated externals"..... what? Is that what you call RSs that don't share your POV? NickCT (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
When they were posted I called them spam and when I investigated some of them I found them opinionated and attacking type opponents of the subject of this article - Park 51 has many supporters, all of them like to hang anti Islam derogatory labels on their opponents. All the detail is already in the lede without any disputable accusatory POV labeling and I don't think wikipedia should support such labeling of living people, it is completely unnecessary and adds nothing at all to the value of the content. It is simply tedious, I don't suppose you are going to give up.you have been attempting to add the broad brush POV statement that she is anti Islamic since august last year. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Nick, perhaps add the ADL and SPLC links. These are two of the most established anti-hate watchdogs and very difficult for editors to dismiss. Sol (talk) 23:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Epeefleche, I agree that it's best to avoid saying, flat out, "Geller is anti-Muslim". However she is best known for her opposition to Muslim activities in the US. That's true whether she likes it or not. Can you suggest language which would do a better job than NickCT's proposal at describing the nature of her advocacy?   Will Beback  talk  23:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback - Exactly my point, thank you.
@Sol - Added your sources to the list. NickCT (talk) 23:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
If opinionated sources call her this or that, add it and attribute it to the body of the article where it can be rebutted. Anti hate watchdogs - now they are neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Well, I suppose they aren't neutral exactly, as they do seem opposed to hate speech/groups. If you would like to balance their views with well-respected pro-hate watchdogs, go for it. Sol (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
By their very nature anti hate groups are just the opposite of the hate group, together they make a complete circle, two sides of the same coin, both as bad and opinionated and hateful as the other. Off2riorob (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
That's a very skewed way of looking at the world. However this discussion is getting far away from the topic at hand. Let's stick to discussing this article.   Will Beback  talk  00:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
NickCT, I see that Epeefleche posted a draft at the head of this thread, and you offered variations but I don't see where you objected to any of the proposal. Could you say specifically what you object to in E's proposal?   Will Beback  talk  00:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I could support Epeefleche's proposal as it makes no attempt to label and seems to present her from an uninvolved position. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Speaking personally, I think a problem with it is that it says "that she describes as ...", "She denies accusations...", "...whom she believes are..." This should be a complete summary of what all significant points of view about her are. That includes her own self-descriptions, but it needs to also include other views as well. Could Epeefleche prepare a draft that is so self-referential?   Will Beback  talk  01:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Your comments seems unclear but I think you mean that his version is unduly the subjects version of events. I also don't want that either although I see it as preferable to the version of her opponents. As I have said more than once, I do not see any reason to alter the lede from what is there now or any detail missing in the lede now. - Its all there right now - she is a vocal opponant of park 51, she has been critised and called right wing and extreme and that she co founded the stop islamification of America - I support the version that exists as I have since the first time I looked into the issue. It is not anti Islam to want to stop your country being taken over by Muslims and it is allowed to oppose a mosque on ground zero without being labeled as anti islam. We just state her issues and that is that. - no broad brush label is required, add some comments to the body of the article - such like - Muslim and Jihad supporters and Park 51 supporters have claimed she is Anti Islam although she denies it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, my objection would be to simply reporting what she says about herself. Readers can go to her blogs for that information. Your comment that "It is not anti Islam to..." is off-topic, since we aren't here to judge what is or isn't anti Islam. We're here to verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view, giving weight according to prominence. If 100 reliable sources say she is anti-Buddhism then we should report that even if we disagree personally, and even if the subject denies being anti-Buddhism. Let's state her issues, but do so in a neutral manner with all points of view included. The present intro doesn't do that which is why we have this thread. I'm trying to get Nick and Epee to work towards a common draft. Let's keep focused on that.   Will Beback  talk  02:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Para three says that. The third para in the body that discusses the issue discusses that. And what I have proposed at the top, in working towards a common draft that goes beyond even those two references (what could verge on wp:undue), discusses that. It is not accurate to say that those "simply report what she says about herself". Far from it. Each discusses what others have said.
What they don't do, and what Nick wishes to do (in the Wiki voice), is state that what she thinks is something greater than what she says she thinks.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree there completely. Will, what is it that you want to add to the lede? Off2riorob (talk) 03:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  • - Since August last year NickCT has repeatedly added, presented as if fact in the wiki voice in the opening of the lede - Pamela Geller is an anti lslamic blogger.
one, two. three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten times, and now he has finally after four months and in the face of a degree of opposition that hasn't got bored and gone away has moved a tad to .. is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam and opposition to Muslim activities and causes, such as .. still broad brush labeling but slightly better than his previous ten additions - this latest one was followed by an edit removing the known primarily for.. claim .. from an account with the edit summary of says who - quite a good point from a newish user. (NickCT then made a sockpuppet report in regard to that user which was closed as unlikely) - also - there is nobody else at all adding or insisting on pushing this accusatory disputed labeling this into the article but NickCT. IMO if it wasn't for this single users extended insistence in adding this disputed label we wouldn't be here wasting all this time and the article would be absolutely fine, stable and informative. Off2riorob (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
@Off2riorob - Thanks for the ad hominen arguments. Note on that SPI, if you read the details those two users are editing from the different IPs in the same location. I think I was pretty justified in suspecting a sock (as confirmed by the clerk).
Additionally Off2, this is getting a touch to personal for me. I'm not on a crusade against this woman. Please don't be on a crusade against me.
@talk - re "Could you say specifically what you object to in E's proposal?" - I will take any lead that acknowledges in the first couple lines that the huge majority of reliable sources that talk about this woman, do so in the context of her being critical of Islam.
On another note, I think it's time to move further with WP:DR, would anyone object to moving onto more formal measures? NickCT (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Here's the third paragraph:

I don't think Epeefleche is correct that this paragraph summarizes the views of the subject by outside sources. It barely mentions her focus on Islam, and then it only mentions praise from a Jerusalem Post columnist. To say that her blog has been criticized, but not to mention the nature of the criticism, tells the readers very little. "Right wing" does not seem like the most important commentary on the subject either. Perhaps we should stop focusing on the first paragraph and try to fix the third one instead.   Will Beback  talk  06:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

@Will Beback - re "don't think Epeefleche is correct that this paragraph summarizes the views of the subject by outside sources" agree
re "first paragraph and try to fix the third one instead." - The problem I have is that all bio's usually mention within the first couple of lines, why a person is notable. I P. Geller wasn't noted for her strong opinions on Islam, she wouldn't be notable at all. Don't believe me? Find me an RS that talks about her in a context other than anti-Islam sentiment. Given that's the case, I think it's WP:DUE and consistent with WP:LEAD that we mention her positions on Islam early in the lead. NickCT (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Fair point by Will as to what is currently in the lede. The other two bits that I mention do address her focus on certain aspects of Islam, and reaction to it. Suggest that the part that Will points to be augmented by the second or third bits.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Manya A. Brachear (August 23, 2010). "Opponent of mosque takes anti-Islam campaign to Chicago". Chicago Breaking News. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  2. ^ Justin Elliott (MONDAY, AUG 16). "How the "ground zero mosque" fear mongering began". Salon.com. Retrieved 12 December 2010. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ Joe Conason. "Anti-Muslim agitator and Obama agree on mosque". Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  4. ^ Joyce Dubensky (June 19, 2010). "Anti-Muslim hate rides the bus: 'Leaving Islam' ads are prejudice disguised as assistance". New York Daily News. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  5. ^ Michelle Boorstein (June 14, 2010). "How influential will anti-Muslim groups become?". Washington Post. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  6. ^ "Fox opens its airwaves to anti-Muslim activist Geller". Media Matters. July 28, 2010. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  7. ^ Jaweed Kaleem (April 24, 2010). "Controversial anti-Muslim ads to be reinstalled on Miami-Dade buses". Miami Herald. Retrieved 12 December 2010.
  8. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference nytimes1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ a b c "Memo to media: Pamela Geller does not belong on national television". July 14, 2010. Retrieved August 24, 2010.
  10. ^ a b c "Attention TV networks: Pam Geller is lying to your viewers". August 19, 2010. Retrieved August 24, 2010.
  11. ^ a b c Doug Chandler (September 1, 2010). "The Passions (And Perils) Of Pamela Geller". The Jewish Week. Retrieved September 14, 2010.
  12. ^ a b c McGreal, Chris (August 20, 2010). "The US blogger on a mission to halt 'Islamic takeover'". The Guardian. Retrieved August 21, 2010.
  13. ^ Our World: The feminist deception Jerusalem Post. 12/14/2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pamela_Geller/Archive_2&oldid=1144285602"