Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

High School Link Is Wrong

Comment - The link to the high school in her article is wrong. She went to Lynbrook High School, but not the one in California, the one in New York, which is where she was born and raised, here's the link an editor needs to change it to: (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


  • In November 2008, she captured a conversation by Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) on video, and posted it on YouTube. In it, after prefacing his remarks by saying he had "no personal knowledge" of the matter and his statement was merely his "guess", he went on to say that Obama "didn’t have the political courage to want to make the statement of walking out" of Trinity United Church of Christ when he realized that Rev. Jeremiah Wright was "a nut" and "lunatic," because "you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district."[40] After Geller released the video, Nadler said: "I made a thoughtless comment yesterday which does not reflect the way I feel about Barack Obama".[40]

This passage seems to be more about Nadler than Geller. What's the point? What does it tell us about Geller? If it was an important scoop we should be able to find several sources referring to it.  Will Beback  talk  06:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed if there are not a couple of secondary independent reports reporting on Gellers role in this then it is likely not very noteworty and as you say the content is actually about other people and not worthy of us reporting in this life story. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Spoke too soon ... there does appear to be independent secondary coverage of it by Fox News, The Weekly Standard, JTA.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Pending RfC

Ok guys and gals. The debate above seems to have petered out, and Off2 seems content to edit war the lead despite the majority of editors calling for change. Consequently, I'm going to take the initiative to move further along the WP:DR path w/ an RfC. See here for a draft. Comments and criticisms are welcome. If you want to make minor changes, please be WP:BOLD and do so. I launch in 48 hrs, unless there is some other resolution. NickCT (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Your allegations of my edit warring are unfounded and worthless. Also the discussion has not petered out and there are not multiple editors calling for change, there is just you - no one else feels a need to label her in any way, you are the person repeatedly re adding your POV and attacking unfounded labeling of this living person and here you go again - rather than attacking other good faith contributors you should look at yourself and your actions you have become a single issue account attempting to get your POV in the lede at all costs, repeatedly and over the course of four months when other good faith contributors would have long since taken the message and moved on, but not you, oh no, you want to continue onwards with additional unnecessary wiki process because after four months you still haven't managed to get your desired attacking label hung around her neck. Off2riorob (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
re "no one else feels a need to label her in any way, you are the person repeatedly re adding your POV and attacking unfounded labeling of this living person and here you go again" - You're either not reading, or just can't accept reality. Suggest you go back over Sol, Will, Unomi's comments. Or check the archive for OhioStandard or any number of other editor's comments.
re "you should look at yourself and your actions you have become a single issue account" - Hmmm? Don't think my contrib history would support that.
Look off2.... this seems to have become oddly personal for you. Respectfully, I don't think we're going to agree here, and I'm not really interested in your repeated mis-characterizations of the debate. If you have something that isn't an ad hominem comment, I'd be happy to hear it. Otherwise, going forward I suggest cease commenting as I will certainly cease reading. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There is just you pushing for this broad brush attacking anti islam, anti muslim labeling and you have been doing it for months. Such labeling in the intro is of no benefit to the article content and of no benefit to the reader and as such of no benefit to the wikipedia and imo is an embarrassing opinionated waste of time and typing and wiki lawyering process. Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Ok then... NickCT (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Please keep your erotic fantasies to yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 23:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
LOL... I have to admit, that's actually a pretty witty retort. Kudos Off2. Of course, a little strange that that's where your mind went.... NickCT (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm really not sure what to say. There's a lot of solid sources saying that Geller's stance on Islam isn't anti-jihadist but anti-Muslim. We can work out how to put that in properly in a policy compliant manner. These personal attacks and blanket dismissal of RS are going nowhere. Sol (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • note - as it is the subject that Pamela Geller is most known for her opposition to the Park51 Muslim community center/mosque. I think it is related and relevant to note that I had to warn NickCT for edit warring at that connected article tonight, reverting to his favored position, he had 4 reverts in a short space of time. Off2riorob (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The only factual RS support I've seen is that she is anti-jihadist, etc., and not anti-Muslim as a whole. People do of course have opinions -- and even RSs have opinions -- but as far as RS support for here view -- all I see is that it is limited to her being anti-jihadist, etc., and viewing Nick's suggested "opinion" of her views, share by some others, as slander.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I think referring to Islam as "the most anti-Semitic, genocidal ideology in the world" qualifies one to be known as more than just anti-jihad. Saying that means that one is attacking an entire faith, not just its extremist adherents. I think it's pretty fair to consider Pamela Geller an Islamophobic bigot.Shabeki (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rfc - Pamela Geller - Anti-Muslim?

Consensus is clearly for option A here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the lead paragraph for Pamela Geller

Introduction - There has been an extended debate surrounding the lead paragraph of this article. The argument has centered around whether the lead paragraph should state or imply that Pamela Geller is either anti-muslim or is known primarily for her criticisms of Islam.

Here are some of the potentials for the lead

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

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.

Proposal B 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, 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.

Please read above to review the debate that has been brewing. Here are the chief points that have been raised.

Against any change to lead

  • 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
  • All the detail is already in the lede without any disputable accusatory POV labeling. Wikipedia shouldn't support such labeling of living people


  • Virtually all the sources available that discuss this individual discuss her in the context of being critical of Islam (see above for a list of sources). Some of those sources explicitly call her "anti-muslim". Failing to mention what makes this person notable in the lead seems like censorship.

If we could get some editors to take a look at it with fresh eyes, we'd be happy for the input.

To get some sense on whether consensus is developing, if editors could phrase their responses in the following format

  • Support Current Lead - This is obviously the only choice that makes sense. Joe Blow, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Change to A - This is obviously the better choice. Joe Smoe, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Change to A or B - The middle road is always best. Confustious Says, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015
  • Support Current Lead or B - I could swing both ways. Androgewnus, 11:61 EST Sept 20, 2015

Thanks in advance for everyone's input! NickCT (talk) 22:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Support Change to A - I've commented pretty extensively in the debates above, so I'll simply say here that if you erased all of the news articles written about this woman in the context of criticisms of Islam, there would be no articles about her remaining and she would no longer be notable; hence, it seems both due and verifiable that we mention her "anti-Islamic" positions early in the lead. NickCT (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A It best addresses my concerns per the above conversation. It avoids the "anti-Muslim" language while noting what gets her press coverage. Sol (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A pretty much echo'ing Sol's comments Midlakewinter (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment The lead should be a summary of the article as a whole. Get the article sorted and then summarise it to get the lead. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree. Neither proposal of nom here does that.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A - From a neutral standpoint, I don't see anything wrong with mentioning her anti-Islamic positioning so long as it is verifiable and in-line cited. Proposal A also skirts the "anti-Muslim" word, which isn't really necessary in the summary when "criticizes Islam" works better. Is it somewhat a broad brush? Yes, I think it is, but the whole idea of a summary line is to use a broad brush.MrCrackers (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
The problem is we have verifiable in-line cited refs indicating that she says such a statement is slander, and that while she is against jihadism and certain other approaches that stem from elements of the Islamic community, she is not anti-Islam. And that such an expansion of her views is slander, and an effort to smear her. As she is a BLP, that raises an important problem with both of nom's suggestions, which simply repeat what she indicates is slander -- in wikipedia's voice.
  • Support Change to A. Straightforward and accurate, without being inflamatory or POV. Good work NickCT.  – OhioStandard (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Straighforward, certainly. As straightforward as the language that Geller clearly says is slander, and an inaccurate representation of her views, which she has clarified.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment Can’t support either A or B. I have a concern with two phrases that occur in each of these options: 1) “known primarily for her criticisms of Islam” casts Geller as an opponent of the Islamic religion. In fact, it seems she opposes the actions of high-profile members of the Islamic religion, not the religion itself. 2) The phrase, “and (known primarily for her criticisms of) opposition to Muslim activities and causes” implies that she is opposed to Muslim activities and causes in general. But this is not obvious from the refs. Could it be that she is opposed to certain high-profile Muslim activities and causes? I think you have to more careful about phrasing in a BLP. And I support Martin H’s suggestion that the lead summarize the main content of the article, when the article becomes a bit better organized. Early morning person (talk) 21:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Comment: Well, she's said the only Muslims who aren't jihadists are secular Muslims. You can probably find the ref by searching her blog. And she posted a drawing (since deleted) on her blog of Muhammad (any such drawing is in itself offensive to Muslims) with an image of a pig's face (pigs are unclean to Muslims) in place of his own. Makes it hard to give her points for religious tolerance, don't you think? Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Early Morning hit it on the head. This RfC is like an old election in a dictatorship -- no viable alternative is offered, despite them having been discussed in the above discussions. Nom has limited the "choices" to "Geller is critical of Islam and opposes Muslim activities" -- this in the wake of the entire discussion above which highlighted that she said such accusations are both untrue and slander. How nom missed that, and did not offer an alternative encompassing the view of those who disagree with him (which in fact prompted this RfC in the first place), escapes me.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A. This is the only way I've ever heard her described. Scrapbkn (talk) 21:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Then perhaps read the refs reflected in the article, which present a contrary view.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A. Ohiostandard said it better than I could. Flatterworld (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Change to A with one modification: either remove the word "primarily" or source it impeccably. Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
As this is a BLP, and she has said that the language proposed (in both A and B) is slander, perhaps impeccable sourcing would be appropriate even with the removal of that word, and balance might be something to consider introducing. As the refs in the article reflect, Geller herself says this is a misrepresentation of her view. Why non-POV editors would seek to censor that escapes me.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Current Lead or B. " This is the only way I've ever heard her described" may tell us more about you than about her. Is she really "against Islam" in the sense of that guy in Florida who wanted to burn Korans - that is, is she "against" Islam because it's a false religion or for political reasons? If its the latter, I'd be inclined to believe her if she says she's only against some leaders. Who would know whast she believes better than she herself? Herostratus (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
So I guess you don't buy the WP:V argument? If 20 reliable sources say John Doe is a conservative, but John says he's a liberal, we take John at his word? NickCT (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No I don't, and you make a good point - we can't and don't take people at their word about these things. However: A) how a person describes themselves is a data point, and B) all things being equal we prefer to call people what they themselves like to be called - we say someone is Iranian rather than Persian because the Iranians asked us to do that, and so forth. But, granted, as far as ideologies go, all things often aren't equal - many people prefer to be called by nicer names than what they actually are. So, basically, you are correct.
However, people do have an axe to grind here. None of the people describing her as "Anti-Islamic" are Fair Witnesses capable of truly and dispassionately deciding what labels a given person should bear (or should be "widely described" as bearing, which - innuendo and inference being what it is - amounts to the same thing). In extreme cases it's obvious. We can probably say (in the lead) "Whoever-he-is, the leader of Aryan Stormfront, is a racist leader..." notwithstanding that he might prefer "genetic improvement advocate" or whatever. Because its slam-dunk obvious. But in most cases we can't do that. We wouldn't say (in the lead) "Rush Limbaugh is a popular radio commentator who is widely described as a racist..." because its arguable and he wouldn't agree.
As far as being "Anti-Muslim", I would think that there are two ways to achieve this. First, theologically, if you believe that Islam is a false religion (and some other religion isn't). This doesn't apply here (Geller may believe this, but AFAIK she hasn't said so). Second, ideologically, if you believe that Islam inherently predisposes its adherents to criminality or whatever. If Geller believes the latter, one would expect her to take the position that mosques and Islamic schools should not allowed to operate, Muslims should only be allowed to live in certain designated areas, Muslims should be required to wear identifying insignia, the Koran should not be allowed to be published, that sort of thing. Does Geller say things like this? If she does, she may be described in the lead as Anti-Islamic (or "widely described as..."). If she doesn't, she probably shouldn't be.
Being against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (but not all mosques in general) does not make one Anti-Islamic. It does make one a hysterical idiot and/or a cynical manipulator, but that's different. All the stuff about what she says, quotes from and about her, do belong in the article. But not in the lead. Herostratus (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
re "themselves is a data point" - Granted. But in this case we have many other data points.
re "all things being equal ..... themselves like to be called" - I too value "self-identification" quite highly, especially when semi-abstract concepts are involved (i.e. relgion, sexual preference, ethnicity, political persuasion etc). But as you say "many people prefer to be called by nicer names", and it strike me that this is pretty obviously true in Geller's case.
re "Fair Witnesses capable " - Not really sure I understand your meaning here. Many of the sources we've pointed to are fairly mainstream sources...
re "Rush Limbaugh" - I think analogies to Limbaugh are unfair. For every 10 sources that call Limbaugh a racist, I could give 10 calling him a "conservative wack-job", or 10 calling him a "hardcore conservate commentator" or even 10 calling him "America's greatest hope at redemption". Focusing on the 10 sources calling Limbaugh racist would probably violate WP:NPOV & WP:DUE. Geller is different. Almost all the sources available for her discuss her in the context of being critical of Islam.
re "as being "Anti-Muslim"" - Note that in proposal A, we're not actually explicitly calling her "anti-muslim".
re "Being against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque ... one Anti-Islamic" - Of course; but this is only one small part of Geller's history of being against Muslim projects/activities.
As a side note, just want to mention that I appreciate the points your making. Though I obviously disagree with them, it's refreshing to get some reasoned debate, rather than inflexible rhetoric. NickCT (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Well your points are also good. So I don't know the answer. I do know that Wikipedia is populated mostly by liberal types, and we should be on the watch against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. Herostratus (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Is this a lib-con conflict? Or a Christian Muslim conflict? Or an Israel Palestine conflict? Honestly I think it's some of all of those. I'll tell you what though, however much you think liberals are over represented on english wikipedia, muslims are more under represented. I'd suggest that's probably Wikipedia:Systemic bias we should be more concerned about.... NickCT (talk) 14:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"If 20 reliable sources say OJ killed his girlfriend, but he says he did not, we do not with Wikipedia's voice say "OJ is known for killing his girlfriend". Unless we have a POV to push. Which never happens.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah but Epee, 20 reliable sources don't say OJ killed his girlfriend (specifically b/c it would be libelous), so the point is sorta moot. Additionally, OJ is sorta known for a lot of things outside allegedly killing his girlfriend. NickCT (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A - per NY Times which states plainly: "An article last Sunday about Pamela Geller, a blogger who attacks Islam, ..." and the ADL profile on her. unmi 23:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support modified B I would prefer something like: 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, which she describes as being anti-jihadist. Then place the rest of her reasoning/defense within the article proper. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A, as that seems most neutral.VR talk 05:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
  • RFC needs to be re-done properly. This is a flawed RfC. Nom, despite copious conversation, failed completely to offer an alternative that encompassed the views of those who disagreed with him. It is clear from the above conversation that those whose views nom disagreed with supported a lead with the statement that mirrored Geller's statement -- she is against jidahists and certain Muslims -- while avoiding what she has clearly stated is an untrue statement as to what she thinks. Nom stacked the deck with alternatives that do not encompass the views of the very editors he disagreed with, giving us an alternative of "When did you stop beating your wife" and "When did you stop beating your wife". His entire RfC is therefore completely flawed.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
It took four weeks to realize that? Or is that merely how long it took to realize the way the preponderance of comments were heading, so desperate measures such as challenging the original validity of the month-old RFC were necessary? Of course, the "it's totally invalid" argument is totally specious, since the RFC provides three choices, not two, one of the three being the "current lead" option. Fat&Happy (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Others have made the same objection since the RfC started. Fat -- you are not really basing your argument on the weak view of the timing of an editor stating his objection, are you? That seems rather a bit of a red herring, for a timely comment at an RfC.
And, of course, the current lead was not reflected above by nom. Nom for some reason reflected only a portion of it; and not even all of the relevant portion of the lede. Thanks for bringing attention to yet another flaw in this nomination. Part of the lede bearing on the subject of the article and Islam, that was omitted in the nom's reflection of what the lede says (disturbingly, if we are having an honest informed discussion here), was "She has been cited as one of the most visible opponents of the Park51 community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan.[6] Her weblog, "Atlas Shrugs", has been criticized by progressive Media Matters for America,[7][8] and called "right-wing" by Doug Chandler of The Jewish Week[2] and "extreme" by Chris McGreal of The Guardian.[9] Caroline Glick has praised the blog's coverage of Muslim "honor killings".[10]" We can't very well have people make a decision based on a misrepresentation (through dramatic omission) of what the lede says on the subject that is reflected in the name of this RfC. This is a complete abortion.
Finally, the present lede can be improved, as those who have disagreed with nom -- to whom he responded with this RfC, have pointed out above. This is a BLP, where the subject of the article says that she is against "X", and that accusations against her that she believes "Y" are inaccurate slander. That is precisely what we should reflect in the lede.
Part (thought not all) of what she has said on the subject, as stated quite clearly in the body of the article but not reflected in nom's "alternatives", is:
Geller denies accusations of being anti-Muslim, saying that it is "a slanderous slur and it's unfair".[9][18][19] She said:
the ground zero mosque ... To me it was an outrage, to me it was deeply offensive, to me it was indicative that interfaith dialogue and mutual respect and mutual understanding is a one-way street with Islamic supremacists, not Muslims. I believe that Muslims are more victimized by Islamic supremacists than even non-Muslims.[20]
This is what should be reflected first in the lede, and contrary views as to what her views are (by people other than Geller) should be provided following the living person's statement, with a reflection of why they think Geller's beliefs are not what Geller says they are.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Part (though not all) of what she has said on the subject, only some in the body of the article and not reflected in nom's "alternatives", is:
  • "I will say that the Muslim terrorists were practicing pure Islam, original Islam"[1]
  • "What is a moderate Muslim? A secular Muslim."[2]
  • "Oh, I absolutely [...] Oh, I believe in the idea of a moderate Muslim. I do not believe in the idea of a moderate Islam. … I think a moderate Muslim is a secular Muslim."[3]
So she doesn't go quite as far as General Sheridan did when commenting about Indians... to her, the only good Muslim is a non-practicing Muslim. Or at least one who practices an "impure" (revisionist) version of Islam. Sort of like saying "I have nothing against Jews as long as they're members of Jews for Jesus." Fat&Happy (talk) 01:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Further, those reading skills really need to be honed a bit. The RFC is clearly identified as pertaining to content of the lead paragraph, not the full lead section. The current content of that paragraph, offered as one of the three alternatives submitted for comment, is accurately portrayed.Fat&Happy (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Note the two paragraphs directly above were inserted after the comment by OhioStandard below and were not part of the agreement in the first sentence thereof.
This is actually pretty simple. 1) Reflect what she says her thoughts are. With RS support. 2) Reflect, as notable, others' belief as to what she her thoughts are. With RS support. While doing so, where the RSs reflect that her belief is contrary to what she explicitly says her belief is, reflect the basis for the RS's view as to her beliefs.
By comparison, if we were to discuss Fat and Happy, it would go like this:

"Fat and Happy says he is happy, and that anyone who says he is not happy is stating an untruth. Scientific American, however, opines that in its view Fat and Happy is actually unhappy, and the magazine bases its view on the fact that ...."

--Epeefleche (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire discussion of her "beliefs" is a bit of a diversion. Nowhere in the proposed paragraph (I'm looking at A), does it refer to anti-Muslim beliefs or anti-Islam(ic) beliefs. This is a case of "by their works shall ye know them". She has opposed Muslim activities; she has criticized Islam. That is well-known and well-documented. And that is what she is most known for. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Spot-on in your analysis, F&H, and well-said. But I agree with Epee that "she is against jidahists and certain Muslims". Geller has even made it perfectly clear for us who these "certain Muslims" are that she's against: She's against the religious ones. She's said very explicitly and clearly that the only Muslims she is not against are the secular ones, the ones who have, in fact, rejected Islam. Why? All Muslims who practice Islam as their personal religion are jihadists, she tells us. Jihadists are bad. Practicing Muslims are jihadists. Therefore, practicing Muslims are bad. Major premise, minor premise, conclusion; there's not much to argue about here, Epee. I actually think your argument comes down to no argument at all, but is rather just an example of WP:ILIKEIT. It's your perfect right to "like it", to like Geller's PR-friendly blather that she's not against Islam, only against certain of its adherents. But it's disingenuous to leave out the part of that which discloses that those "certain" adherents are the ones who believe in and practice it as their religion. Anyone who stated that they were "only" against religious Jews, or only against practicing Christians would rightfully be called anti-Semitic or anti-Christian. Anyone who states that she's "only" against religious Muslims is likewise rightfully called anti-Muslim, regardless of her denial of the description: It's my impression that very few bigots and racists get all warm and fuzzy feeling at being accurately described for what they are.  – OhioStandard (talk) 00:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
@F&H: Thanks for your care re continuity of the thread, F&H, but the disclaimer wasn't necessary in this case. You're still spot on in your analysis. Couldn't be more so. And thanks for digging up those refs, too.  – OhioStandard (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Ok. A number of points here.
@Epeefleche - re "RFC needs to be re-done properly. This is a flawed RfC" - You're sorta complaining in the 11th hour here. I'm not sure I have much sympathy with your viewpoint.
re "(nominator) failed completely to offer an alternative " - Epee. I asked you a number of times to participate and offer alternatives that could have been included in the RfC. You did not. I tried my best to form what little you did offer into somekind of cogent proposal.
re "Nom for some reason reflected only a portion of it" - 1) WP:AGF, 2) if you'd mentioned it earlier, I would have fixed it. You shouldn't be complaining about it now.
Look Epee, to be frank, I think consensus has pretty clearly come down against your position. As I see it, you can 1) make constructive suggestions towards a possible compromise, in which case I'd love to hear from you and would be happy to discuss, or, alternatively you can 2) obstruct and game-the-system, in which case, I for one will be ignoring you.
@F&H - re "entire discussion of her "beliefs" is a bit of a diversion." - Absolutely. Frankly, I'm guessing Epee will want to divert like crazy to try and avoid a change he simply does not like.
@Ohio - re "Therefore, practicing Muslims are bad. " - I can't really make much of this argument either. As far as I'm aware, "Muslim" is a religous classification. If someone isn't practicing Islam, they aren't a Muslim, no? NickCT (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A. Simpler, clearer, less argumentative. Jonathanwallace (talk) 04:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Support A - as it is both a fuller and an accurate (if unflattering) description of words and acts, rather than beliefs, than the current lead. The lead should be a full and accurate synopsis. For BLP articles, we need to source any controversial statement fully. The truth is a defense to defamation. Alternately, I would agree to suggestions by Epeefleche. Bearian (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The standard month long time period for this RfC has expired
Here's a quick break down of the results
Supporting current lead - 1, possibly 2 editors
Supporting proposal A - 12 editors
Supporting proposal B - 2 editors
(other propsals raised during RfC)
Supporting better orgranization of the article followed by summarizing - 2 editors
Supporting redoing the RfC "properly" - 1 editor
Result - Apparent consensus for proposal A.
Suggested course of action - We could possibly request that this RfC be formerly closed by an uninvolved admin, or we could simply accept that consensus is for proposal A and make the lead change immediately. Anyone got any thoughts? NickCT (talk) 16:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
The first option seems safer. Rivertorch (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah but the second would be so much more satisfying..... alas, you're probably right. I put a notice on the admin's noticeboard. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

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

If I had participated, I would have picked "current lead", but since I'm evaluating the actual discussion that took place over the past month, I'll have to go with A. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be interested in hearing your rationale for picking "current lead". Have you considered all the sources which would support A? NickCT (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
You mean, all the ones that support the rest of the article, of which this is supposed to be just a summary?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I see. So perhaps you are with the two editors who were "Supporting better orgranization of the article followed by summarizing"?? I'd certainly agree the article requires work. I think I was taking a "lead first" approach to fixing the article. Perhaps your point has merit, and a "body first" approach would have been more advisable.
If I can get my act together, I'll work on the body..... NickCT (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Questionable article

I noticed this in a contribs list. A quick look at the article text suggests that it's poorly conceived: the choppiness is enough to discredit it. Do we really give someone who's just a blogger this much oxygen? Tony (talk) 07:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't agree with you more, Tony. Geller has made herself the poster-girl for vehement anti-Muslim sentiment in America, though: that's her only claim to fame. And the poor quality and choppiness you rightly deprecate in the article is due to the unfortunate necessity to exercise dogged patience for long intervals to bring even the tiniest of improvements to it. If you stick around for a while you'll see what I mean. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 09:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, not much interested in getting involved in the politics of it all: whether she's left/right/anti/pro up or down, the article doesn't (yet) do much for any world view ... nor for WP's reputation for professionalism. Good luck! Tony (talk) 09:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Correction Needed as July 31, 2011

Under the Atlas Shrugs Blog section, it falsely claims that her blog get about "a million" unique visitor/month. This isn't true, the NYT article cited cuts that by over 75%, stating "...of but her involvement can hardly be ignored. Atlas Shrugs, which gets about 200,000 unique visitors a month.....". This could have been done by mistake because the original article attributed the million but was later corrected. Ignoringaids (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

The article points out that Geller says her blog is based on Ayn Rand's philosophy. That is what she claims. It could be pointed out that the so-called "Ayn Rand Institute" makes the same claim for itself, and that both it and Geller move in the same circles.  See:
Birds of a Feather  . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexus001 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Any actual reliable sources claiming a relationship there and pointing out why it is relevant? Fat&Happy (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Minor overkill in lead after RFC?

With the modification of the first paragraph following an RFC, do we still need "She has been cited as one of the most visible opponents of the Park51 community center and mosque in Lower Manhattan." in the second paragraph? (IMO, losing the ref that is currently attached to that sentence would not be a concern, since it's still used several other places in the article.) Fat&Happy (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Trimmed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Sarek, I don't want to sound racist or speciesist, or whatever. But have you noticed Geller's ears? I mean, you're aware of our COI policies, I'm sure. Is there anything you need to disclose about your relationship to our subject?  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
LOL.... NickCT (talk) 14:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Anders Behring Breivik and the 2011 Norway attacks

In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer in the 2011 Norway attacks, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller and cited her "Atlas Shrugs" blog. The truth of this can be found here: Ms. Geller responded to media accounts here: This fact was removed from this entry because "one nut-caseadmirer has nothing to do with her biography." But the fact that Charles Manson and his murderous followers were motivated by a misinterpretation of a Beatles song is included in the entry for Helter Skelter. In addition, Jody Foster's Wikipedia entry notes that John Hinckley, Jr. became obsessed with Foster after repeatedly watching the film Taxi Driver and that Hinckley attempted to assassinate President Reagan to impress her. Is it not equally significant and noteworthy that the man who detonated a bomb in the capital of Norway and killed scores of people specifically cited Ms. Geller's blog in the manifesto that he published to explain his actions?  Mr JM  21:32, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He also claims to be a Christian, so we should add that fact to the lead of the Christianity article? Islamist terrorists routinely cite the Quran as justification for their actions. Perhaps we need to include that in the Quran article. If Geller indicates support for Breivik, that should be included in her BLP; not the other way around. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
So you wouldn't object to it somewhere other than in the lead of the article?  Mr JM  23:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
(And does Jody Foster's article indicate that she supports John Hinckley?)  Mr JM  23:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Why is there censorship between her connection to Breivik? Doesn't that go against the spirit of Wikipedia?? Robhurtz (talk) 22:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree, accusations of inspiring right-wing Christian terrorism made by news sources should be included in the article, preferably under "Controversies" or "Criticism" but not in the lead. Her response, if any, should also be cited. Al-Andalusi (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Definitely doesn't belong in the lede right now. Belongs elsewhere in the article only if discussed widely by multiple reliable sources over the course of more than a couple of days. This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Rivertorch (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Consider the LIRR gunman Colin Ferguson massacre, to ponder approaches to this matter. I would note that the quote: "[Fergusons] notes indicated Ferguson planned to wait to start the killings until after he was beyond the New York City limits out of respect for outgoing New York City Mayor David Dinkins and New York City Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly.[10]" appears on the Ferguson Wikipedia page, but not on the Dinkins Wikipedia page. Given the substantial significance of the LIRR massacre, and the fact that the killer deliberately waited till the train crossed the county line (by his own admission) because he admired David Dinkins, this belonged, if anywhere, on the Ferguson page, not the Dinkins page. Similarly here, Gellers mention in the Norway shooter's manifesto, belongs only on the Norway shooters page if his mention of her is a significant and a main part of that document. The Norway shooters "mention" of Geller's blog certainly does not belong on Gellar's Wikipedia page though. It's not like she was his girlfriend or mentor or something! Geller's political oponents clearly want such a link on Geller's wikipedia page. But last I checked, we don't do advocacy here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Was Jody Foster the girlfriend or mentor of John Hinckley?  Mr JM  01:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The Geller-Breivik connection is much stronger than the Hinckley-Foster connection because in the former case, the two actually have an ideological bond. John Hinckley was just a basket case with a crush on an apolitical movie star, while Geller is a political polemicist whose writings were quoted approvingly by Breivik. Difluoroethene (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at this. She got an e-mail (which she called "devastating in its matter-of-factness") from Norway showing concern about muslims which included the line "We are stockpiling and caching weapons, ammunition and equipment. This is going to happen fast." She edited the post after the Norway attacks to remove that line. It sounds a lot like that email was from Breivik. (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
She's was forced to admit doing it on her blog. She tried to hide that line secretly. She didn't realize that by the time she edited it after the Norway terror attacks, other bloggers had already saved the page, so it didn't matter, she was exposed anyway. Now she says it was only removed because it was "insensitive". We need to put this on her page.Ignoringaids (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I knew the Breivik stuff would be censored before I even checked on this page. That's just how Wikipedia is. People's supporters go around scrubbing their heroes' pages of uncomfortable facts and make excuses based on Wikipedia guidelines. It's been that way for years. Also Wikipedia seems to value NPOV over truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

re - I'm not sure that's true you know. I think there are just a lot of people who take WP:BLP very seriously, and get quite touchy when controversial information about a person gets posted. The main argument against adding the Breivik stuff here, is that doing so is "guilt by association". That's not an argument I agree with, but I do at least grant that it has some merit..
If you really think this information should get posted, try looking at WP:DR for guidance on how to proceed. NickCT (talk) 04:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
It's absolutely true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
IP 98.114, that's pure bullshit. We do, as Nick said, take BLPs very seriously; and we take NPOV very seriously; if we didn't, we'd be no better than the censors and spin-doctors of the world. --~~

At this point, although I've supported removing this material due to the "guilt by association" issue and Niven's 16th Law: There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it, the fact of Geller tidying up her blog to cover up what she was once willing to have on it, has forced me to conclude that it does belong here, properly sourced. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think an RfC on this issue might be appropriate. NickCT (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC
Hi Nick - wiki process should be kept as low as possible - this is at the discussion stage. Please allow someone to post their desired addition so that we can have a good look at it and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Hey Off2 - Appreciate your desire to monopolize the conversation. Unfortunately, I think "discussion" has sorta failed on this topic. You're obviously familiar with the similar conversation at Robert Spencer article. It seems this discussion has gone on ad infinitum with little clear consensus emerging. Sometimes reams and reams of "discussion" can be avoided with a simple RfC.
As I mentioned early Off2, I don't entirely disagree with your "guilt by association" argument (though I'm not usually persuaded by your hyper-vigilant observance of WP:BLP). I would however like a clear-cut measure of consensus, and I think an RfC might just achieve that. Remember, it's worked in the past on this very article! NickCT (talk) 18:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I am not in the business of monopolization and I sometimes add content users see as BLP violations - hyper-vigilant observance of WP:BLP is a bit undue...and I I don't see much discussion here as yet , and only a violating addition, what is it the someone (who? ) wants to add - I see a couple of IP users and a blocked user. Lets see the desired addition before we raise the thirty day RFC. Nick says "You're obviously familiar with the similar conversation at Robert Spencer article" - imo each BLP will require individual discussion and Spencer's situation is not involved here. Questios that are worthy of asking are such as, have any of Geller's comments about the mass murderer been reported in independent WP:rs? - Off2riorob (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
"Spencer's situation is not involved here" - Seriously? Off2, if you're really saying you don't see how these two situations are linked then you are either dishonest or not as smart as I have given you credit for.
Regardless, I'd agree that an important test here is to ask, "has an independent RS whose primary subject is Geller mentioned her in relation to Brevik?". The answer seems to be no, so again, I'm pretty neutral in my position. But let me counter your point by saying that Geller is not a particularly notable figure to begin with. I'd imagine if you search engine tested, you'd find a large portion of the RS's mentioning her do so in relation to Breivik. If you'd accept that that's true for a moment, would you not accept that Brevik is now a significant part of what makes Geller notable? And if so, does he not deserve mention in her article? NickCT (talk) 03:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Spencer seems to me to be irrelevant here - that discussion is for his talkpage. I don't accept this position at all, "Brevik is now a significant part of what makes Geller notable" - I have not done any search engine return checking as I don't support them being of much true value - I support the presentation of individual wikipedia RS and have no interest in numbers of imo meaningless numbers of google search return results.. I do kind of agree that this subject is in terms of reliable reporting is not very notable, well, notable but in a minor way really - a controversial blogger.. What I want to know here is what someone wants to add to this BLP and who wants to add it? Off2riorob (talk) 19:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
re "Spencer seems to me to be irrelevant here" - Really? Reaaaallly? So let's review. Spencer's primary notability is being an anti-muslim/muslim critical/whatever-you-want-to-call-it writer. Geller's primary notability is being a muslim-critical writer. Brevik is notable for acting violently on strong anti-muslim beliefs.
The debate on Spencer's page is about whether Brevik's citations of Spencer should be mentioned.
The pending debate here is about whether Brevik should be mentioned in relation to Geller.
You don't see a link between these two debates? Are you trying to be funny? Am I missing something? It seems pretty self-evident to me.
re "search engine return checking as I don't support them being of much true value" - I'd agree absolutely that search engine returns must be taken with a grain of salt; however, when trying to determine notability or how much two subjects are related, you generally have two options - 1) Search engine tests, or 2) Aimless speculation. I prefer the former.
re "What I want to know here is what someone wants to add to this BLP and who wants to add it?"- Well, let's work together to craft an RfC which lays out some potential wordings. If you look at the history for Geller, you'll note a few people have already tried to add some Brevik material. We could use those edits as a starting point. NickCT (talk) 15:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't care about Spencer on this talkpage at all - Spencer is of no interest to me at all here. Off2riorob (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok... I take it you're simply not interested in understanding the POV. Please just let me know that ahead of time, so I don't bother explaining myself. NickCT (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What POV? If you are attempting to set a precedent for multiple articles I am not in support of that at all. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Gee.... I sorta thought setting precedent was a good thing. NickCT (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - If you want to add some content present it, what others have done is also irrelevant to me. You are boring me already. What RFC to craft a wording either post what you want to add for discussion or stop blabbing about this nothing and that nothing RFC twaddle. - excuse my lack of extended patience but I am busy for such waffle. Off2riorob (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright. Well as I said, I don't sense much interest in sharing responsibility for a resolution here. My best, NickCT (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • If anyone wants to add this disputed content please present it here for discussion with the citations you want to support it with, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

desired addition and citations for discussion

please add your desired addition here, please only present acceptable WP:RS to support your desired additions, as a suggestion - desired additions should focus on the subject of the article and not the mass murderer - thanks - Off2riorob (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The relevant discussion on the BLP noticeboard has now been archived, but I note that Adam Serwer has published an article in the Washington Post describes the reaction of individuals like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller to the Breivik shooting and his quotations of them in his manifesto. In Spencer's case, he has conducted at least given four separate interviews: On the BBC (starting at the 8-minute mark), On Michael Coren's show, and with Alan Colmes, and on the Frank Wuco show on Fox News. Geller has also conducted interviews: she is extensively quoted in the Daily Caller, the Janet Mefferd Show, and also conducted a full interview in a Solid Principles podcast. As an aside, I might add add this article published in the NY Times that examines- and essentially defends- Geller and Spencer from the Association fallacy being promoted, though I would concede that it may be more appropriate to include it in the article about Breivik himself. While mention of Breivik's in BLP entries on Geller and Spencer would be an Association fallacy, the moment that they start commenting on the incident, especially when done repeatedly, and in a high-profile manner, deserves mention. I would suggest that such an entry be very brief, mention the incident, and provide a brief quote from one of the responses, and include the citation for all of them.

In this case, I think that the passage regarding the Gabrielle Giffords shooting [and Palin's subsequent denunciation] in the entry on Sarah Palin, may serve as a good model to use here. Also, a similar passage can be found in the entry on Jodie Foster contains a similar passage referring to [John F. Hinckley Jr's assassination attempt on President Reagan]. A cursory search of the archives reveals that there was a similarly contentious debate over mention of the Gifford's shooting in Palin's entry on both the discussion page and the WP:BLP noticeboard, and a consensus was clearly obtained regarding the current wording (though I don't think the poll figures added to the Palin article are relevant here). I think this provides an acceptable model, and would ask dissenters to specifically describe how the wording that is under discussion violates WP:BLP standards, when similar passages are found in other WP:BLP articles. I think that the WP:BLP guide should develop more stringent guidelines about BLP entries concerning a controversial incident, as it happens a lot these days...Jemiljan (talk) 23:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Jemiljan has made a thoughtful and measured argument for some mention of the Breivik shooting in this article.  Mr JM  01:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And yet the information is still not there-- what does that tell you? Tells me Geller's spin doctors on Wikipedia are hard at work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd never heard of this person until an hour ago, but some googling yields this NYT Op-Ed piece by Jostein Gaarder and Thomas Hylland Eriksen, two Norwegian writers, and this from Jeffrey Goldberg, of The Atlantic. (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Which belatedly reminds me; Geller was featured heavily in this Channel 4 documentary. (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Other Views section

The assertion that Pamela Geller supports South African white supremacist Eugene Terreblanche is preposterous. The citation refers to the views posited by Jeffery Goldberg. As substantiation for this claim, Jeffery Goldberg refers to an article on the Atlas Shrugs blog in which Pamela Geller reports on Eugene Terreblanche's murder. Pamela Geller never indicates support for him, but only reports on the brutality of his murder and the growing number of murders of white farmers in South Africa. Suggesting removal of this claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banausbal (talkcontribs) 08:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The report is clearly sourced, and we merely report what has been written. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
The "clearly sourced" report links to Geller's blog entry, which only says she deplores the fellow's murder. The outrageous charge wasn't supported by Goldberg's link. I question the journalistic ethics of unsubstantiated charges, i.e. libel. Editorial wisdom would suggest not repeating charges that are clearly not supported by the evidence provided. The reader of Wikipedia will now have to go to the Goldberg article and the Geller article to judge this claim. We should be doing to work for the reader and not making the reader do the work. I propose we delete the whole paragraph. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Pamela Geller has clearly rebutted the charge against her of having supported Eugene Terreblanche, you can see it in this article and I quote the answer to the charge:

"FALSE CHARGE: Pamela Geller defended South African apartheid advocate Eugene Terreblanche. In reality, I wrote this about Terreblanche: “Insofar as my sanctioning of white supremacists in South Africa -- that is a blatant libel….I vehemently disagree with Terre’blanche’s ideas…” "

I propose we should write the phrase this way: "American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg, who frequently writes about topics relating to Israel and the Middle East, has described Geller as a "bigoted blogger" and said she supported South African white supremacist Eugène Terre'Blanche.[67] A charge denied by Geller [1]" (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I added statements by Geller from the e-mag American Thinker to clarify her views of Terreblanche. I hope this is satisfactory to all and solves the problem of fairness. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see some evidence that Geller supports or supported Milosevic. The link to her blog only shows a reprint of Julia Gorin's article which doesn't mention Milosevic. I think more evidence is needed for that statement. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC) It also turns out that she has withdrawn her support for the English Defense League on June 30, 2011. We should note that she has changed her position. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Fat&Happy has added a footnote to a Guardian article for the claim that Geller strongly supported Milosevic. Unfortunately, the Guardian gives no indication where or when she has supported Milosevic (although it is correct that she questions the existence of concentration camps.) I see no such support for Milosevic on her blog. I actually see a statement denying that she supports Milosevic. It would be fair to add that she denies that she supported Milosevic given the assertion in the Guardian is unsupported and perhaps only an inference from the fact that she questions the existence of the camps. For an unsubstantiated charge of this gravity it is only fair to note that the person in question denies the charges. Jason from nyc (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Claims Section

I think this needs a claims section to detail her various claims and beliefs

John.stevenson3 (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

John, let me suggest another path. Everything in the "claims section" come from her blog with a few exceptions and even in those cases it's from people who read her blog. Thus, I suggest that the whole claims section become part of the "Atlas Shrugs blog" section. Generally speaking a blog isn't acceptable for a reference on Wikipedia but there are exceptions. Putting the "birther views" and "other views" in the "blog" section gives the reader a 'heads up' as to the nature of the subject matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is worth adding that she has claimed Obama is Malcolm X's "love child," that Bin laden was killed based on a "coup" against Obama, that Obama dated a "crack whore," made claims Obama's mother appeared in pornography, and that Obama answers to Islamic "overlords" and wants US to succumb to "Jihad." The claims section is pretty thing, considering her unique perspective. -Dave —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:02, 29 February 2012‎ (UTC)

There are a couple of problems there. One is the fact she has stated that some of those claims were not made by her, but by Atlas Shrugs readers writing to her. In a couple of postings where this is the case, I have personally found the content and organization to be so difficult to follow that I had trouble discerning who was actually saying what. Of course, that could be solely due to a lack of reading ability on my part; others may find the provenance of specific assertions perfectly clear. Another problem was mentioned by Jason above, the self-published nature of most of these claims. If reliable secondary sources haven't highlighted a particular claim as being particularly noteworthy, it seems a bit POV for Wikipedia editors to pick and choose for inclusion the ones they find most interesting, or most sensational. Fat&Happy (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Added cleanup template to claims section; it's so disorganized it's barely readable John.stevenson3 (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Violation of NPOV

The article refers to Mohammed as a prophet, which only Muslims believe. This reference should be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:01, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

No, the sentence is neutral. We can't just say "Muhammad"; we need to disambiguate it. According to the handiest dictionary, a prophet (lowecase) is "a person regarded as an inspired teacher or proclaimer of the will of God" (my emphasis). That's not a NPOV violation; it's neutral, verifiable fact. Rivertorch (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article on Jesus mentions him being the only son of Jehovah. That would also violate POV if your idea of it was correct. (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There are guidelines, see WP:SAWW. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

interwiki Turkish language

Hi ! can someone add an interwiki link to the same article in Turkish language ?

This : [[tr:Pamela Geller]]

Thanks. (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

tr:Pamela Geller


Light bulb iconBAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:10, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Users Binksternet and Jason from nyc, stop with the vandalism

Stop vandalising the article with your repeated removal of facts that are freely available on Pamela Geller's own blog. No, Binksternet, a secondary source is not needed, since the policy for primary sources states:

"Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them."

I bolded the part you seem to be intentionally oblivious to. Please put your reading glasses on and try to read it. I'm sure you can do it. Once again, the part you are continuously vandalising fits the description in the policy: it is a) straightforward, b) descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge, and c) requires no interpretation. And once again, there are over 15 primary sources from her blog referenced in the article that are not given this destructive treatment of yours, so please, either remove all of those references as well or leave this one be, as it is no different from the rest of the entries. Of course, doing so will be even bigger vandalism than you are already committing, so may I suggest you remove yourself instead from this article? If you disagree, explain why this entry differs from the other 15+ primary sources referenced. Of course, this will just be based on your non-neutral subjective interpretation, because in reality, it doesn't differ one bit, so your opinion is worthless and not needed. In fact, it's the reason for this vandalism of yours. Once again, please remove yourself from this article or stop with the vandalism.

And Jason from nyc, no, this is no "original research," since the text is quoted directly from Pamela Geller's own blog, and as I have already explained to Binskternet, it is allowed to be submited under the policy for primary sources, because it is a) straightforward, b) descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge, and c) requires no interpretation. As per Binksternet, the same applies to you. Kobayashi245 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you apply your interpretation of the guideline to the article about Geller then everything she has ever written could be put into the article. Instead, the guideline WP:UNDUE applies: only those things that rise to the top are brought into the article. If one of Geller's outlandish opinions on her blog has been widely described in other media then it has risen to the level of notability and we include a summary of it.
I don't see why you cannot look for a mention of Geller's opinions in a WP:SECONDARY source. Surely if the opinion is worth discussing then it has been discussed in reputable media. Right? Binksternet (talk) 00:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Not true, because that quote was in the part of the article dedicated to "controversial postings" on said blog. As such, only controversial postings should be included, and the quote you keep deleting fits there 100%. I've made it more obvious now, by adding a sub-category called "Controversial postings" to the "Atlas Shrugs blog" category. Please explain to me why this particular quote differs from the other primary source quotes in this sub-category:

'false claims that Obama's mother was involved in pornography and that Obama "was involved with a crack whore in his youth".'

'Geller has written "that Islam is the most antisemitic, genocidal ideology in the world".'

Also explain why this quote should be removed, and why the others should stay. Thank you. Kobayashi245 (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you think that other parts of the article are poorly supported, without any prospect of finding WP:SECONDARY cites, then you should remove them. Binksternet (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Secondary sources must be used as a "filter" in this situation. We cannot and should not repeat every claim a blogger makes on their blog in their Wikipedia article. We let the wider media make the decisions about what is notable. A note for Kobayashi245 - when editors make removals based on a reasonable interpretation of policy, it is misleading to call their edits "vandalism". That word has a strict definition here, please be careful when applying it to other editors. The Interior (Talk) 15:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Geller is the subject matter and writers who selectively comment on her corpus are the secondary sources. Now if after a writer in a notable journal comments on something she has written, the source becomes selected by the writer or commentator. Now, Kobayashi245, I believe some direct references to her blog are only after and in response to secondary commentary. Others may be questionable, like yours. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment is free

Comment is free is not edited by the Guardian, at least not in the way that news articles are "edited", it is an equivalent to an op-ed. The op-ed that is now used to claim that Geller is actually against just those pesky "extremists" and not "moderate" Muslims was written by Richard Spencer in response to another comment is free post by Charles Johnson, who takes a decidedly different view of Geller's activities than Spencer does. So, in sum, an op-ed by an ideological ally is used for things that it doesnt even say in the lead of the article for a factual statement, when the post that this was written in response to says the exact opposite and is not used. And finally, notablaity has nothing to do with the content of articles. That is a guideline covering the existence of articles as separate topics. Before anybody else says "it's notable", please go read WP:N, particularly the last sentence of the lead. The insertion fails WP:RS and WP:NPOV and should be reverted. nableezy - 18:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, WP:RS is the issue. I was under the assumption that if the venue (newspaper, publisher, etc.) was considered a reliable source it could be used as a reference. Both Johnson and Spencer are being published by the Guardian in their "op-ed" style section. I don't have a definitive description of the editing process but here is comment is free discussion. Reviewing WP:RS I see "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (opinion pieces) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." Thus, perhaps both Johnson's and Spencer's views should be listed in the body of the article as critical commentary. What do you think? I'll remove it from the lead, promptly. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
An attributed statement in the body is fine. But the line in the lead wasnt in the op-ed cited. That would have to be corrected. nableezy - 21:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


She's 55 now not 54. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

UK Ban

Today Geller was refused entry/banned from entering the UK, under our extremism/hate speech laws. Please update.

"A Home Office spokesman said: "We can confirm that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are subject to an exclusion decision. The Home Secretary will seek to exclude an individual if she considers that his or her presence in the UK is not conducive to the public good. We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.""

Cjmooney9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

That is noteworthy and I've taken the liberty of editing the article to include this new information at the end of the "Career" section. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Lovely link to the photocopied letter here [2] (

Maybe you could add as an aside that the UK Shomrim offered to protect Mosques in light of her proposed visit. ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a tiny bit of WP:SYNTH there, considering she's not mentioned anywhere in that article. Fat&Happy (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
I added this in the same way as it has been done for the Robert Spencer (author) article. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BLP issues?

Can somebody please explain the "BLP issues" involved with the line

In 2011, she was listed by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle".

sourced to The Anti-Muslim Inner Circle, Intelligence Report, Summer 2011, Issue Number: 142. The SPLC is a fine source, and its been taken to RS/N in the past (this has a good overview of past discussions) and is among the better sources out there for documenting extremist and/or hate groups. So what's the issue here? And while SPLC is cited for SIOA and FDI being "hate groups", they are not cited on Geller personally, so I dont see any duplication (as Jason's edit summary said)

Next, why is the entire section on Geller being banned from the UK a "BLP issue"? That includes such sources as the BBC and The Independent. How is including widely covered material about a specific person a BLP violation? Even the lead includes that she was barred from travelling to the UK, but it is now nowhere else in the article. Arzel, please explain your edit. You cant just throw out a claim of "BLP issues", you need to actually back up the claim. nableezy - 15:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me address the duplication revert. The last paragraph of "Career" has the ban on entering the UK. I put it there shortly after it was issued. But I also added it to a paragraph on her ongoing support for the EDL as it is part of the story. This seems to be an adequate summary with the appropriate weight in light of the overall content. Perhaps others disagree. But ignoring the article and inserting the same topic again doesn't appear to be a collaborative effort. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
The SPLC is also already part of the article at the end of "Stop Islamization of America and Park51." SIOA citations are almost always Geller citations and references almost always talk about both in the same breath. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
On the BLP issue: I'll have to read the whole discussion of the SPLC in the link you provide. Let me ask you a question. As you know the SPLC established their reputation with their work on the Klan and other groups that readily admit their racism and anti-black sentiment. There is little BLP involved in labeling these groups bigots or racists--they wear the racist label with a perverted pride. As the SPLC has moved into other areas (homopobia, Islamophobia) they discuss individual and groups that deny being bigots. Thus, the BLP issue. It seems clear that we should proceed with caution. Don't you agree? Jason from nyc (talk) 15:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Sort of. I thought the idea is that, when we're not comfy saying it's true, we have to say who said it. So we can't call her an islamaphobe or whatever, but we gotta say that the SPLC does because it's important even if we disagree. MilesMoney (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Jason, Im sorry, I didnt notice that it had a couple of sentences in the career section, I guess Im fine with that. But the SPLC is among the most respected groups in the country for documenting hate groups and other extremists, and the BLP issue is resolved by directly attributing the claim to the group making it. If this were some random op-ed calling her whatever Id agree it cant go in, but the SPLC is one of the best sources out there for that information and we are using in-text attribution, so I dont see a possible BLP issue. I noted that the SPLC is used in the article for SOIA and FDI, but they also make specific mention of Geller, so I dont think that is sufficient. nableezy - 17:24, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
See my comments on the near identity of SIOA and Geller in the SIOA talk: Talk:Stop_Islamization_of_America#Do_we_need_this_article.3F as I think we have this covered many times over. See what you think. Jason from nyc (talk) 17:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if the two were merged, and I dont really have an opinion on if they should be, that wouldnt mean that SPLC's characterization of SIOA as Islamophobic and SPLC's characterization of Geller as being one of 10 people in the United States' "Anti-Muslim Inner Circle" shouldnt be included. I dont see any reason why the latter should not be in the article regardless of if SOIA is a separate article or merged into this one. I dont think the line even approached being a BLP violation. Do you still feel that way, because we could ask for outside opinions at BLP/N if we remain at an impasse here. nableezy - 18:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Thinking about it I still object and would welcome an outside opinion.
I have serious doubts about the SPLC in this area. Wiki’s article on the SPLC shows their history in the fight against self-avowed white racists who commit violent criminal acts. I don’t see their expertise in Islam and anti-Muslim bigotry, a sentiment, not a criminal act. To argue that she is a bigot they have to (a) know what Islam is (b) show that she is wrong about Islam and (c) argue that it isn’t a mere mistake. I see nothing on the SPLC that shows they have special expertise in this area nor anyone who claims they do. They cite Geller for “her broad-brush denunciations of Islam.” This is far from documenting an act or event.
We should be careful with accusations like “racist” “bigot” “communist” “terrorist” when dealing with BLPs. To put this in the lead is like adding a banner across her face with “bigot” written on it. What has Wikipedia become? I have no objections to their opinion in the body of the article along with Geller’s response in defense, as opinions are notable as just that--opinions. A careful examination of their Geller write-up shows they are editorializing and there is no evidence that they have read her published articles or books. Jason from nyc (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
They actually do document a few of Geller's more ridiculous attacks, such as "In the war between the civilized man and the savage, you side with the civilized man. … If you don't lay down and die for Islamic supremacism, then you're a racist anti-Muslim Islamophobic bigot. That's what we're really talking about." nableezy - 14:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
And notable mainstream newspaper editorials have taken both sides of the "savage" debate. Some note that when she is calling "jihadi" savage, she is talking about violent attacks on civilians. Others say she is using the word jihadi to attack all Muslims. The ads are facts; the meaning is interpretation; and we have both documented in the article. We can't do original research and decide who is right. Both opinions, being fairly common among notable and reliable sources should be presented. The SPLC is being presented as a final authoritative judge on these matters. There is no reason to give their opinion more weight than newspapers, academics, government agencies, or other non-profit groups. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It isnt being presented as any final authority, it is only being passed as the SPLC. Nobody said other opinions shouldnt be included, so long as they come from reliable sources. There isnt any OR, we arent saying who is right. nableezy - 15:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
We have long had the following statement in the lead: "Her critics have described her viewpoints as Islamophobic." The lead properly summarizes the article. In the body of the article we present the many critics who believe she paints with too broad a brush. Selecting one institution for a stand-alone paragraph to summarize the lead has disproportionate influence. Let the details remain in the body and the summary in the lead. The SPLC is just another opinion source and confers no special authoritative power. I wish their writings on her were less anecdotal and more analytical but that's the best we have from them.Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Jason, this is now at the BLP noticeboard; please join us in discussing it there, the appropriate venue at this point for the discussion, not least because it gets us more diverse input. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree. It is simply an attempt to attack a living person in a purely negative manner. Furthermore, the description is vague enough to be meaningless, but strong enough to attack. Just exactly what does "Anti-Muslin Inner Circle" mean? It is sad commentary to see WP used for partisan attacks, but it is common to say the least. Arzel (talk) 04:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
re "We should be careful with accusations like “racist” “bigot” “communist” “terrorist” when dealing with BLPs" - Completely agree with that. But at the same time, there are people who are legitimate racists, bigots, communists and terrorists out there. We should be careful about being overly careful about accusing or inferring people belong to these categories. I'd just try to stick to the basics and ask, is this sentiment verifiable and due. Frankly, there is a wide, wide swath of mainstream RS that points to this woman and uses terms like "far right" and "anti-muslim". Given that's the case, it doesn't strike me that SPLC thing is particularly undue. NickCT (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Pamela_Geller nableezy - 14:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)