Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

RSN

The take-home from WP:RSN about Nussbaum is:

This sources is reliable for the description of Geller as "right-wing".

Given this, I believe a block would be in order for anyone who violates this by removing "right-wing". MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated here, and on RSN, BLP policy requires fairness to BLP subjects, which in this case requires balance' to the right wing moniker, which is provided by sources, notably the VV. RSN does not handle such issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be forum-shopping: I already took this to BLPN and it didn't go your way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you opened topics at both RSN and BLPN, according to your interpretation of "forum shopping" you yourself are guilty. But that's besides the point. Your view that things at BLP didn't "go my way" is a novel read of the thread. In fact the predominant view appears to be against your position, but that's just my read on things. Furthermore the balance issue was raised briefly and never disputed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was Collect who opened a topic on RSN just now, but he didn't get what he was looking for, either. As for your read on things, it's as inaccurate as your memories of RSN. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked a specific question about a specific source -- which is what RSN is for -- and your precis is inaccurate and malicious here. As is your harassment of me via "thank"ing me to show that you are, indeed, now stalking my edits. Cheers -- now STOP THE STALKING. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:AGF. Then consider a few things:

1. I have BD2412's and AQFK's talk pages on my watchlist from before. There was no need to look at your contributions (which still isn't stalking), as these edits showed up automatically.
2. The posts I thanked you for were about me or addressed to me, so I wasn't butting in where I didn't belong.
3. A thank you is not an insult.
4. If I hadn't noticed your edits myself, Calton's courtesy post would have alerted me to the fact that you were making trouble for me behind my back.

In the future, if you must make false accusations, do it on my talk page instead of cluttering this one. MilesMoney (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should note I made no "false accusations" and your claim that I did is egregious. I asked a polite question and was answered politely, and I made no false statements there at all. Meanwhile, it is clear that unless you used tachyons for Calton's post -- it occurred well after you "thank"ed me. And your multiple other "thanks" after that can only have occurred by stalking my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(unstriking as no attack was present) Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Attack redacted. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-defamation league

I don't see Geller or her organizations labeled "hate groups" by the Anti-defamation league. I check the citations and did a search of their website. Please check that I did not miss the passage. They do say that she and her organizations support "anti-Muslim bigotry" and that is appropriate to mention. It's the SPLC that has a "hate group" list. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

She says the ADL designated the group a hate group[1] They list Stop Islamization of America in a report to a senate subcommittee "Selected ADL Resources on Extremism and Organized Hate Groups in America."[2] [Here] is a link to her group's page on the ADL website, which is used as a source for the article.[3] I do not think they keep lists, so perhaps we could re-phrase the statement. TFD (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what will happen

Once protection expires, I will use the Harvard ref given above, the article will then read, "right wing blogger" per the source. Anyone wishing to argue this can of course go to the RSN board, and given the source, I figure they will get short shrift, any arguments? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Such an act would be "edit war" ab initio -- the concept of WP:CONSENSUS is that contentious claims must have consensus to be inserted into any BLP. Period. Your concept of unilateral action without getting a consensus is against Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And as soon as you have a source which disputes the one from HUP we can revisit the issue, as this is not a contentious claim at all, only among a few editors, and the opinions of a few editors to not matter as we have WP:V. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue, for some editors, is not whether some sources use the label right-wing but whether it is a contentious WP:LABEL. Our own article on the American right, i.e. American conservatism says it is a category "marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and capital punishment and oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel. Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism. ..." If we have a strong source that tells us unambiguously that she is conservative/right-winger and what type, we'd have something solid. But a vague label is a WP:LABEL. BLP compels us to go beyond mere RS and V. This type of fact is not the same as seeking a source that water boils at 100C at atmospheric pressure. That's a simple fact. This is an complicated fact stated with an ill-defined word that can have many meanings. If a source says she's a neocon because of the role that Israel plays in foreign policy, I'd opt to go with neocon (the more specific) than right-wing (which may or may not include neocon). Let's explain what the sources say rather than pluck a vague label out of context. Spell it out. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is specifically about religion ... And thus is not RS for an off-hand political spectrum adjective. The source on page 53, for example, equates Muslim circumcision practices with US male circumcision. I suppose we could as easily assert that as "fact". In an article. In short ... Books on religion may be RS for claims about religion, but are not RS for other claims. Collect (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is correct. Once the fact that she's right-wing is strongly sourced, any contention about it is merely an instance of WP:IDHT. Threatening to revert Darkness Shines' proposed edit is, by the way, edit-warring from the get-go. No amount of spin can undo the fact that our sources confirm that she is right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A book on religion is not a strong source on political spectrums and secondly your absolute certainty that Rand was "right wing libertarian" would itself require some sourcing other than your own knowledge of the topic. And I would note your use of "threatening" is rather non-collegial utterly. Cheers and Happy New Year. Collect (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "threatening" is a whole lot more collegial than actually threatening, which is what you're doing. There will be no edit war because you will not revert reliably-sourced material. I know this is true because you hate getting blocked. MilesMoney (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also non-collegial, in a rather egregious way, is the incessant accusation of "whitewashing", here as well as across multiple articles and noticeboards. Roccodrift (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a better term for removing sourced material because it embarrasses you? I'd love to hear it. MilesMoney (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what should happen

There is still time before protection runs out. If an impeccable source is available that nobody will disagree with, agree on a wording and make an edit request. Saying you're going to make an edit no matter what once protection expires might be what will happen...but it's not the way to go about it. --Onorem (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree that swearing to make changes regardless of consensus is inappropriate, but sourcing is not the problem: weaseling is. We have many reliable sources supporting her right-wing status, but there are a few editors who oppose its inclusion regardless of policy. There's no reasoning with them, so there's no reason to try to. Opinions that contradict policy have no influence on consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we will need to get some outside help in determining the consensus of the discussion. If you're right, you have nothing to worry about. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could avoid ringing in the new year with an edit war. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You are half (Ok...not exactly, but my point stands) of what makes that possible. Don't edit war. You've helped prevent one. Good job! :) --Onorem (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If I see editors reverting to whitewash the article, I'll ask for protection. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you state that as the reason for the request, your request will be declined at best, and you laughed at worst, with probably a stern talking too in between.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted in several places, some people call her "right wing" as a matter of opinion, and generally based on her being anti-Islamic terrorism and pro-Israel. The problem is that she is clearly libertarian per sources (which is arguably not easily placed on a left-right spectrum) and pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights. Neither of which is inherently right wing. This is not "whitewashing" anything - it is following the policies and precepts of the project. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The sort of libertarianism espoused by Ayn Rand is right-wing libertarianism, or for short, right-libertarianism. It's libertarianism, but it's also right-wing. In contrast, there is such a thing as left-libertarianism, but that does not seem to be the default meaning in America. In the rest of the world, things are a bit different. MilesMoney (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing of a claim by assertion that you know what is true does not actually count for a lot. Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she's right-wing is reliably sourced in multiple ways. I'm simply explaining to you why your argument against using those sources is pure spin. MilesMoney (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And you will be immediately reverted, and hopefully blocked for adding text you know will be disputed amongst editors, for violating BLP and for stirring the pot. The BLP policy states "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times", and by omitting any explanation of the juxtaposition of Geller's beliefs, described in the arguably the best RS on Geller we have (Village Voice) is certainly unfair. Without providing the necessary and required balance labeling Geller with the same adjectives used to describe (and implicitly associate too) the KKK, Apartheid, the American Militia Movement is ridiculous, yet that is what some editors are loathsomely attempting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should have a chat with Rocco. By his standards, your remarks are uncollegial and unbecoming. Or do we have a different set of standards for those who keep saying WP:IDHT, threatening to edit war, and ignoring our sources? Let me know. MilesMoney (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring comment removed without explanation by MilesMoney: ::::::::::Sourcing of a claim by assertion that you know what is true does not actually count for a lot. Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney -- removing posts from a talk page without noting the fact is improper, and violative of talk page guidelines. Please do not do this again on any talk page. Collect (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

AGF. If you have a diff for this, I'd like to see it, as I don't remember intentionally removing anything. Perhaps it was an edit conflict. MilesMoney (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

[4] Of course "if you have a diff" is weird since my post was there for eleven minutes before your edit, which is generally beyond "edit conflict" range, and you had made and saved an intermediate post by yourself as well without having an edit conflict with yourself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't reconstruct precisely how the error happened, but it's clearly an error. The diff you linked to adds a response to another comment (starting with "Using the word") but reverts my previous edit (where my response starts with "The fact that she's right-wing") and even what it's responding to.

I suggest that the right way to handle such errors is to quietly restore what was accidentally removed. Bold-faced accusations are a violation of WP:AGF and a waste of time. MilesMoney (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quietly restored. MilesMoney (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the term conservative, the term right-wing merely means opposed to the Left. Anyone question whether Geller opposes the Left? TFD (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I question your faulty definition of "right-wing". Roccodrift (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And? I suggest that on any given issue a lot of non "right wing" people can oppose "the left" but you seem to like a tautological claim that "anyone who opposes any part of the left is ipso facto right wing." I demur on tautological definitions as a rule. Geller is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, and the primary basis for asserting she is "right wing" appears to be the "Anti-Islamic" charge and the concomitant "pro-Israel" charge. As I see no reason to believe "anti-Israel" is left wing nor that "pro-Islamic" is left wing, the tautological claim seems to vanish. Cheers -- but feel free to assert that "left = anti-Israel" of course. Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I have long suspected that she's labeled right-wing because of her opposition to Islam and her Zionism. However, writers who label her right-wing don't tell us why. I wish they would because then we could accurately report "X say Geller is right-wing for her opposition to jihad, Zionism, ..." If X, Y, and Z say that, we could report what these people consider right-wing and why they classify Geller in that category. Otherwise the word is too broad. By the way, the Wikipedia article on right-wing starts "In left-right politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is only tautological if the left is defined as opposition to the right, which it isn.t. Not every source about right-wing politics will explain why each and every person may be considered right-wing, any more than articles about liberalism, conservatism or socialism will explain why each and every person should be considered to belong to them. Reliable sources call Einstein a scientist, but they do not normally explain why he should be considered one. Geller allies herself with the EDL and CPAC, which places her on the right. TFD (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but a scientist would not object to Einstein in their category. They may balk at the label being applied to some quack. Just like most Muslims would object to saying bin Laden is a Muslim and leave it at that. Our article on him identifies him as the founder of a "Sunni militant Islamist organization." Note it says Islamist and not Islamic. If the broader category was used, "he is an Islamic leader," you risk objections from moderate Islamic leaders who do not see him as one of them. Now why do I bring up this example? Geller is accused to using the broader category "Islamic" instead of the more exact "Islamist." This is the basis of much of the criticism. She explicitly states that she is against "political Islam" but "political" often disappears in her rhetoric so people question her sincerity. If we believe she is some type of right-winger we should be specific and seek sources that are specific or we are going what Geller is accused of doing. If she's a neo-con on foreign policy we should state that and source it. What type of conservative is she? Where are the sources that tell us? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

She vehemently opposes the left and claims the Islamists are in alliance with them. And she allies herself with the Right, speaks at Tea Party events and called Palin the "perfect candidate" whom McCain threw under the liberal bus. She is a follower of Ayn Rand It does not matter what she would score on the Nolan Chart, she is part of the U.S. right. That does not mean she is a "conservative", she could be a liberal like Ayn Rand. TFD (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What we could reasonably do is state that "she has been called pro-Israel and anti-Islamic and that xxx called her 'right wing'" in the body of the article - and not try parsing it all out in the lead, where it would be proper to also include the "pro-LGBT rights" and "pro-choice" sources, and likely also a "libertarian" source. And not place her into any contentious categories on the basis of the sources given. Sound reasonable? Collect (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That or something close does sound reasonable. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be like saying the Socialist Workers Party has been described as a left-wing. Not only is it weasel wording, but it is describing a fact as an opinion. Back to Einstein has been described as a scientist. TFD (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And the earth has been described as round. The fact is that this is exactly where Wikipedia as a project is at the moment: unable to state obvious, basic, undeniable facts due to an inability to curb political partisanship. — goethean 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this line in the lead of Bill Clinton: "Clinton has been described as a New Democrat." This has been in the lead for over 7 years. The article has 970 editors (watchers) who obviously fine this acceptable. (I still think we should just describe the views.) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You convinced me a while back, Jason. At the start of this discussion I was in favour of a straight designation of "right wing", but I think your arguments are stronger and have not been refuted, only contradicted. The whole "But we don't say she is described as a woman" thing is a false analogy, since "left" and "right" designations are much more subjective. As far as I can tell, we have one neutral, objective, authoritative source unambiguously calling Geller "right" - that's not enough, in my opinion. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another interesting example: The George W. Bush article doesn't say he's right-wing, but these reliable sources [5][6][7] say he was. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually none of your sources say Bush is right-wing. And yes sometimes conservatives or right-wing liberals are referred to as right, as for example speaking about the UK's "center-left" coalition government. However, people to the right of mainstream liberals and conservatives are always called right-wing, because there are no other terms, such as liberal or conservative, to describe them. TFD (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Socialist Workers Party (United States) is an organization not an individual. Let's stick to individuals. Recently I seen several conservatives call NYC mayor Bill de Blasio far left. I looked at our article on him and it doesn't call him left let alone far left. The only mention of leftist tendencies is in the headline of a NY Times article (in the footnotes) that says he was once a young leftist. Here is a major politician and our article doesn't classify him: not left, not progressive, not liberal, nada. All it does is describe his positions and achievements as it should. We should do the same here. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason it does not call him left-wing is that he is not considered left-wing in reliable sources, although he might have been thirty years ago. The article does mention his politics however - he is a Democrat. What is Geller? The best description is right-wing. TFD (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's his Party. Geller is anti-Islamic or Islamophobic depending on the source. I don't see any discussion of her politics. Do you? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"She is a supporter of the English Defence League (EDL)....Geller, who has spoken at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) convention in past years, finds she is no longer welcomed. She has attacked the American Conservative Union’s board members, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, alleging ties to the Muslim Brotherhood." The Democrats btw are a political party, just like the Republicans, hence saying someone is a Democratic or Republican Party politician is usually enough. It is possible btw to be anti-islamist or islamophobic while being left-wing. TFD (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In the beginning of the discussion I too, like StA, was leaning towards right-wing but ruling out far-right. But then I realized I was using my definition and original research. I’m sure if you and I (and a few others) were to do the research we’d agree that X, Y, and Z are good signs that she’s a certain type of right-leaning individual. I just don’t see the sources explaining the “how and why.” And as you note, being anti-Islamic (for which she is know) has nothing to do with right-left. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Another source: Liyakat Takim

Liyakat Takim[8], The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam Religions 2011, 2(2), 132-144; doi:10.3390/rel2020132[9] p136

It will contain a Muslim prayer space that has been referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", though it is not intended to be a mosque nor is it to be located at Ground Zero. In fact, the term “Ground Zero mosque,” which was coined by right-wing activist Pamela Geller, is a misnomer since it depicts the distorted impression that the center is to be constructed on the actual site of the 9/11 tragedy and former World Trade Center.

— goethean 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And of course the really great quote: In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Christian fundamentalist groups, and the pro-Israel lobby were responsible for inciting and encouraging the anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Once again -- the villain is the "pro-Israel lobby."

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict forced Muslims in America to reconsider their apolitical posture

Your great source mentions Geller only once en passant, is not about Geller, and seems primarily to dwell on the nasty pro-Israel lobby. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source cannot be used? If so, please specify the Wikipedia policy which you are referring to. I don't think that there is a policy against using sources which mention a pro-Israel lobby. — goethean 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you object to claims by such sources including the "pro-Israel lobby" language in the claims to make clear what the full nature of the source is? Collect (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think that mentioning that it is a peer-reviewed[10] academic journal on religion would be more generally descriptive of the source and more useful to a general audience. — goethean 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent source; Wikipedia should make more use of good academic sources like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm perfectly happy to use this source, as well as several of the others proffered. To be frank, now that the adults are the only ones left in the room we can move forward, no? It is clear to me that we may use "right wing" (though of course it isn't mandatory). However I'm still greatly concerned about pro-forma appearance of lumping Geller into a category of individuals known for lynchings, bombing churches and the wholesale subjugation of an oppressed majority. This is still BLP territory. Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to "right-wing", or "far right"? I support "right wing", not "far right". — goethean 13:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I support "described as 'right wing' by Liyakat Takim" as clearly describing who used that description, and adding that "Takim places her with the 'pro-Israel lobby'." When one uses a source, one ought not pick-and-choose single sentences where context may be important to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly what you are doing? Why not tell the reader that this was written in a peer-reviewed academic journal of religion? — goethean 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Takim places her with the 'pro-Israel lobby'."

Um, where exactly does he do this? — goethean 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

He places Geller as being guilty of anti-Islamic rhetoric and clearly states In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Christian fundamentalist groups, and the pro-Israel lobby were responsible for inciting and encouraging the anti-Islamic rhetoric. As I doubt she is a "Christian fundamentalist" and she does not appear to be a "conservative Republican" that either leaves her as part of the "pro-Israel lobby" or not covered at all <g>. Take your pick -- we could mention all three of course. Collect (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to a more exact quotation where Takim states that Gellar is part of the pro-Israel lobby? Because I'm not seeing it. Thx. — goethean 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That quote is being taken deeply out of context. It is referring quite specifically to groups of the 80s and 90s, and not post-9/11 activism, or describing groups stated in the 2010s. It's certainly not a sentence that actively "places" Gellner with that earlier era's groups. It makes a clear argument that anti-Islamic rhetoric flowed from more sources that the three you quote, and nowhere is it suggested that anyone using anti-Islamic rhetoric must belong exclusively to one of those three groups. It states: "The 1980s and 1990s witnessed increased animosity towards Arabs and Muslims in the United States. In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative..." __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This is a passing reference of unknown origin in an article that gets much of its material from Wikipedia (see the footnotes). We know nothing about how this assessment was made and where he got his information, nor what he means by the phrase. The same is true for Nussbaum. There's no consensus for recent inserts. Let's reach a consensus here instead of edit-warring. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The journal is peer-reviewed, but I guess that you know better than they do. You are right. This is getting ridiculous. — goethean 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about Geller. The sentence is not about Geller. It's passing reference and if you believe reviewers verified every modifying phrase then you have no idea of the nature of academic review in the social sciences: here's a telling example. The article has to be accepted as a reliable source on the subject of the article. If Wikipedia editing has been reduced to a google search for pair-wise combination, like "Geller" + "right-wing", we might as well close up shop. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Further issues

I got up this morning to find that this article had been unprotected, and there was a flurry of editing activity. And now, of course, it's protected again. I think there is almost a consensus that we should mention the words "right wing" somewhere on the page; the RfC above deals with whether it should be in WP voice or not. If it isn't, I don't think we should say she has been described in that way by "critics". It is also worth discussing the placement of the statement; personally, I don't think it should be in the lead. I also think that long, strident quote from the Village Voice should go. StAnselm (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply to comments deleted by another editor without noting it here

(ec)*Comment If the material is substantially a matter of an opinion of anyone, be they President or Professor - the opinion should be stated as opinion rather than being presented as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. A person's age etc. can normally be considered "fact" while an ambiguous and vaguely defined term such as "right wing" is unlikely to be a "fact" per se unless the person self-applies such a label. In the case at hand, the person has also been described as "pro-LGBT rights" and "pro-choice" which might indicate that the vague term "right wing" may only apply to part of that person's Weltanschauung, in which case WP:NPOV requires the fuller picture to be limned for readers. Collect (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP RfC

Can someone start one for that, or modify the current one? That is the real issue, and unless it is addressed (BLP) here, this will come around full circle and be a waste of time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain that clearly please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, on the mobile now. Can you please modify the question so that it asks if either of those statements violate BLP and/or add a third which qualifies Geller as x,y,z (primarily whatever for the VV). Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, hopefully. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

When I get back to a terminal, I might take a stab at adding a blurb, but that's a good start. Thanks!Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Disagree that it is fixed. The asides "per the sources" and "her critics call her right wing" are clearly biased towards a particular outcome. As I said above, scrap it and start over. A correctly proposed RfC should offer no clue as to how the originator would like to see the matter resolved, but instead this RfC leaves no doubt. Roccodrift (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the RFC is based on the edits I had made and which were reverted in favour of Collects version. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• There's a lot more going on here besides your edits. In case you hadn't noticed, this discussion has been ongoing for many days. Roccodrift (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The RFC was called by me based on the edits I had made, I do not care about other issues at this time. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I have attempted to formulate a neutral version. StAnselm (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not dick about with an RFC in progress again, you also moved my initial comment. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 January 2014

I request that we remove the recently inserted “The same article says "She's viewed by "leftists," as she calls her critics, as a monster, the animalistic id of the racist, paranoid right, a supremacist leader of arguably the most extreme wing in the Tea Party, who knowingly interacts with bigots and xenophobes." and calls her "a pro-choice, pro-marriage-equality Manhattanite.” in the Career section. Geller is not a reliable source of her critics. She is using irony to mock and exaggerate her critic’s position. She did the same in the NYT article with, as the author notes, “hints at her sense of humor and her evident frustration at her public persona.” These items have no place in the “Career” section. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Human rights activist.

Gellar speaks about Islamists violations against woman and non Moslems. We should add human rights activist.64.134.64.118 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. She speaks against the rights of many others. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

That "human rights activist" remark would have made more sense if it were posted on April 1, 2013. Shabeki (talk) 10:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 January 2014

In the section titled "Personal life", the first paragraph contains a sentence that need improving: "Growing up in Hewlett Harbor, Long Island, New York,She felt she was the black sheep of her family, an underachiever whose parents refused to cover the expenses of her college education.".[16] It should be made clear that *she* claims these events and feelings; we do not have the parents' side of things. Also, some minor syntax correction is needed.

The Gnome (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Please establish a consensus for the change and submit the edit request in a change x to y format. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:31, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks but I won't bother. It was supposed to be a minor edit anyway. Cheers. -The Gnome (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Why should there be a consensus established for this? The sentence is phrased very poorly anyway. Shabeki (talk) 11:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Other views in lead

User:Collect has proposed adding the words She is also pro gay-rights, favors same-sex marriage legalization, and is pro-choice on abortion to to the lead. While this claim is well-referenced, and no-one (as far as I know) is disputing the claim, the issue is undue weight. Personally, I think they should not be included, since these are not the views she is primarily known for. What do other people think? StAnselm (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As you ask, I think you are full of shite, read WP:LEDE. it is meant to summarize that article, weight is hardly an issue. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. If the lead is meant to summarise the article, than of course weight is an issue. What part of WP:LEDE did you have in mind? StAnselm (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What personal attack? You asked what people thought, do not ask that if you do not want a response. The only part of WP:LEDE that I have in mind, is funnily enough WP:LEDE, read it. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, I meant what you thought of the proposal, not what you thought of me personally. I have read WP:LEDE and it is in full agreement with me. StAnselm (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

For example, the lead should "summarize the most important points". Geller's view of gay marriage is not one of the most important points in the article. StAnselm (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Her views are the most important aspect of her, all of them, her views are why she is notable. The lede is meant to summarize the article, not just bits of it, and most certainly not just the bits which make her look bad, so NPOV here is important. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

If her views on all those other issues are important enough to be mentioned in as many sources as they're mentioned in, they're certainly important enough to go in the lead. If only one or two sources mentioned them there might be an argument for leaving them out, but as that's not the case I believe they should stay in. I disagree with Darkness Shines that "her views are why she is notable;" I think she's notable only for her views on Islam, but that's neither here nor there. Her views on whatever are obviously important enough to be discussed in a variety of sources. QED.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Like being "right-wing", being a "social liberal" may not tie into the thrust of her public notability. However, let me add for your consideration that it might. Fundamentalist Muslims are seen by her (and others) as not socially liberal nor sympathetic to women’s issues. There are two mention of Geller’s sympathy for victims of honor killings. There also her repeated disgust at female genital mutilation (not yet in the article). Perhaps we might mention her “socially liberal views” and concern for the girls killed in honor killings. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Is this BLP only about the Islam views - or is it a biography of a living person? If it is a biography of a person, then all that is presented in the body of the article should be presented in summary fashion in the lead. The body currently has material about her variety of views, thus it is proper for the lead to reflect those facts. Claims that this should only be about her views on Islam place UNDUE weight on the single issue, to the detriment of presenting a biography of a living person. Collect (talk) 01:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Interesting point, especially since there is an article on her organization SIOA and her work via that vehicle. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion illustrates and interesting aspect about WP that I have only recently noticed. There appears to be an interesting trend towards Confirmation bias regarding many subjects, BLP's in particular. Geller is initially relatively unknown, she makes statements about Islam and become known and defined by those statements. Editors come to WP to see if her Bio reflects this POV, if it does not they write the BLP to conform to this perception. Aspects about her which do not conform are minimized or removed. Rational being that she is not known for these other aspects. The article becomes little more than the predetermined view of what an editor comes to believe about the subject in the first place. This leads to an interesting question. Are we more interested in writing any actual Bio about someone or simply writing a Bio which illustrates what we already believe to be true? It appears to be the latter. The logical conclusion is why even write the bio? Anyone that would search for Geller would already know about these aspects and thus would learn almost nothing about her, confirmation bias. Articles like these are basically worthless. Arzel (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just took a quick look at the bio and this discussion thread. There seems to be a fair amount in the body of the article on Ayn Rand's influence on Geller, but this isn't currently mentioned in the lead. It seems to me that the Rand influence would also give some context to Geller's views on abortion and same-sex marriage. Why not say something in the lead like "influenced by Ayn Rand's libertarianism, she favors legalized abortion and same-sex marriage."? Badmintonhist (talk) 05:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some people keep saying that if it's in the body it should go in the lead. This would make the lead just as long as the body -- silliness. She may well hold the views in question, but it's far from obvious that this is what she is notable for. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope -- but if some views are stressed in the lead then the balancing views ought also be in the lead. Leads are not restricted to what is most notable about a person they are specifically supposed to be NPOV summaries of the BLP, not cherry-picked POV "highlights." Cheers -- and it would be nice if you accurately reflect the issue at hand. The claim that the lead would be as long as the body is silly and not a rational argument here or in any article. Collect (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• I can't believe I'm hearing myself say this, but I think Badmintonhistory's point is well taken. Bishonen | talk 13:10, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

Gee, Bishonen, I'd like to think that I've made some worthwhile points in the past that you might have agreed with. As for my suggested edit, it's certainly not one (twelve words) that would add a lot of volume to the lead, and it covers the fact that she is influenced by Ayn Rand ("Atlas Shrugged," for goodness sake) which I really think SHOULD be mentioned in the lead. The edit quickly gives the reader some context as to the kind of "right-winger" Geller is. Badmintonhist (talk)

I didn't mean to imply that I don't respect your editing, Badmintonhist. Merely that you and I are not in the same, uh, cloud, and won't often be found in agreement on any subject that has any sort of a political dimension. I think your suggested edit would provide a nice economic way of covering a good deal of ground while leaving the bulk of the lead dealing with the islamophopia the subject is notorious notable for — just as it should. But since it's a bio, surely the lead can accommodate twelve words dedicated to the views she promulgates that are not about Islam. It still won't be exactly fat. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC).

I guess I'm always a bit weary about fattening the lead. We could mention her "Objectivism" and we could mention her "social liberal views." We might even add "conservative fiscal policy" and "ardent Zionist". Don't forget her opposition to Obama! If we mention any of these, I think in all fairness we should show balance if she also has conflicting and opposing views. I think a better lead is a simple lead with generic terms, with the full text giving degree and manner of manifestation. I'd remove the sentence about "banned in Britain" since it only expresses an opinion of government officials that she is anti-Islam and we already have that in the lead. But I'd add a mention of her campaigns, Park51 and public transportation ads, and that they are controversial. Alas, I don't think my views are going to get traction here. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I must say this has resulted in somewhat of a Bizzaro world approach to this article. Nomoskedasticity twice indicated their support for direct WP voice that she is "right wing" yet just removed that she is pro-choice as a WP:BLP violation. I think we are Through the Looking-Glass. Arzel (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't really necessary (pro choice etc) to include in the lead, though BadmintonHistory's suggestion is one I would support because it succinctly summarizes Geller's libertarian ideology, which are more pertinent to her bio. I don't see too many sources making much notice about her "non right wing" views, but the Rand influences is one such way to introduce the reader to her many positions -- that of course if the sources are making this connection. Are they? Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It would be correct to say that she says she holds "socially liberal" views. But it is wrong to list all those views in order to counter the mainstream view that she is right-wing. There is nothing inconsistent with being pro-gay, pro-abortion or atheist and being right-wing, and presenting these views to counter her political orientation is POV-pushing. TFD (talk) 07:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually it is "NPOV-pushing." It is like saying "George Gnarph is an extreme right wing bigot who has some socially liberal views (pro-abortion, pro-LGBT, and chairman of the NAACP - but that is not 'relevant' as that is all 'POV')." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

@TFD "Presenting these views to counter her political orientation"?? But these views are part of her political orientation. One could argue that they are not significant enough to place in the lead, but they do give the reader a contemporary and brief example of her libertarian leanings. Moreover her admiration for Ayn Rand should definitely be in the lead, I think, even if her pro legal abortion and same-sex marriage views are not. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:58, 20 February 2014 (UTC) PS: Also, in support of the excellent point made by Jason from nyc above, Geller's Randian secular libertarianism is relevant to her anti-Islamic views and actions. Badmintonhist (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)