Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Pamela Geller. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

RfC: inclusion of "right wing"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Based on BLP policy and the discussion here, I believe the only possible closure is that we should not describe Geller as right-wing in Wikipedia's voice, unless a source for self-identification as the term can be found.

In considering a label that is potentially loaded, several factors are involved:

Has the subject self-identified as that label?
Does the label have pejorative connotations?
Does the label imply attributes that are not necessarily accurate?

It seems from the discussion that the answer to the first question is "no".

The answer to the second question seems to depend on the respondent and their notions about the term. It is clearly perceived as a pejorative to some, and not to others. Of note is that our own encyclopedia article describes right-wing politics as "political positions or activities that accept or support social hierarchy or social inequality.", a definition that does not coincide with the apparent working definition of most of the responders to this RfC.

To the third question, due to the widely varied ideas about what the term means, I think the answer has to be "yes, depending on the reader". This third question gets to the heart of the matter, and is the most relevant question for WP:BLP purposes. The discussion makes it apparent that the term means different things to different people, not all of them positive. It is primarily for this reason that we should not use the term in Wikipedia's voice without self-identification.

On whether the term should be included at all, i.e. with attribution, and whether it should be in the lede, as far as this particular RfC is concerned, there does not seem to be clear consensus on whether is should be in the lede or not, but there does seem to be rough consensus to include the term in some fashion. Gigs (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding a description of Geller as "right wing", should the article directly describe Geller as right wing, should it say that she has been described in this way, or should the article omit the designation entirely? St Anselm (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment - this RfC was started because the previous RfC was not neutrally worded, and is too narrow in scope. St Anselm (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose ~~Comment~~ This option assumes that the 3rd option (omit) will fail the other RfC. If so I'd say "has been described" just as "Clinton has been described as a New Democrat." has been in the lead of his BLP for over 7 years and with 970 watchers. (I also don't think it should be in the lead of Geller's article since it isn't in the body and the WP:LEAD summarizes the body). However, this RfC now seems to be about whether both suggestions should be rejected and my comment has now become a vote. The RfC is flawed as it is a loaded question. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment I find the term "right wing" and "left wing" to be charged terms, often used pejoratively. If you wanted to describe her politics in the first sentence using Wikivoice, a more neutral alternative (if supported by the sources) would be she "is a politically conservative blogger" or you could use the term "political right" which redirects to "right wing". Morphh ^(talk) 22:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Attribute the description to a high quality source (something other than a British tabloid, for example). Roccodrift (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
This is sort of in addition to the above RfC? I don't approve of adding "right-wing" as an adjective in an opening sentence; such political labels shouldn't really be used as factual descriptions. Having it in the lead in a "critics call her" or whatever is fine with me. The current, protected version has my preference. FWIW, this article suffers from the kind of blog-induced recentitis politicavis so ubiquitous in this field, and could do with being trimmed by 50% or so. Opinions, opinions, opinions. She said A. Critic X said B. Critic Y also said B, but Z said B'. Surely we have better things to do than to archive what blogs and social media do. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment Is above due to some strange editing behaviour by someone or another. My points stand. Collect (talk) 22:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Support directly describing as such, I believe. It does not seem to be contentious as to whether she is right-wing. There are multiple reliable sources provided which say she is right wing (the Nussbaum and Takim sources already mentioned; Ruthven, Encounters with Islam (I.B.Tauris, 2012), p. 185; Lynch, The Sacred in the Modern World (Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 119) and no reliable sources which contend the claim. Whether a claim is contentious does not depend on whether editors here contend the claim, it depends on whether reliable sources contend the claim (or otherwise fail to give adequate support for it). As full disclosure, I don't believe Nussbaum is that great of a source for this, although I guess she counts as a reliable source.

I think whether a term is a possible pejorative or not is irrelevant: If reliable sources agree that a possible pejorative applies, and no reliable sources disagree, then Wikipedia should also apply the possible pejorative. For example, David Duke is rightly described as a "white nationalist" even though this is a possible pejorative, and Paul Bernardo is rightly described as a "rapist" even though this is a possible pejorative. If it's wrong to apply a pejorative as such, then that's a problem with the reliable sources; Wikipedia is just supposed to reflect those sources, not try to correct them. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And no reliable sources disagree.. is that proving a negative? I guess we'd have to see the reliable sources. Seems it would be easy to find sources that say "right wing", but what is the weight in relation to all descriptions. Seems we're focused on this because that's what is being added. Seems politically right would be just as easy to support and be more neutral. Morphh ^(talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, quite right, maybe some reliable source that we don't know about yet does contend the claim; but none provided at least contend the claim; that's what I should have said. I don't think it is a matter of weight, which is really just another way of saying what I've already said: Questions of weight arise when there are differing points of view in the reliable sources for each of which we have to give due weight. But there's doesn't appear to be any reliable source provided which disagrees with the point of view that she is right wing, so for that count there only appears to be one unchallenged point of view. Anyway, I definitely wouldn't disagree, and could support using "politically right" instead of "right wing", because I would see those to be completely synonymous in this case, and if it makes more sense to other people, then it sounds like a great alternative. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment -- it is undesirable to have two separate active RfCs on the same issue. This second one might derail the first, and I suggest it is therefore disruptive and should be closed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Directly describe her as right-wing, per scholarly sources such as the Oxford University book cited in the previous RFC. Binksternet (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Directly per multiples sources. It should be in the lead and summarised in the the body. It is well sourced she is a right-wing blogger. QuackGuru (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Usually when someone is a political activist we mention what their politics are - liberal, consevative, progressive, socialist, Trotskyist, far right, etc. Calling Geller "right" reflects that she is somewhere between the EDL and JDL and CPAC. Saying she is anti-Islamist/Islamophobic instead would not be helpful because those terms are controversial and do not necessarily imply she is part of the Right. Saying she has been called "right wing" would question whether it was accurate, like saying she has been "described" as an opponent of Islamic extremism, suggesting that maybe she is not an opponent after all. TFD (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "right wing" is charged though. Describing her as being politically right does what you describe without the pejorative nature of the term. When you get into terms such as "far right" or "right wing" they take on a non-neutral tone. Morphh ^(talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that the terms right-wing and far right do not mean the same thing. But how does the expression "on the right" differ from "right-wing"? Are people "on the right" less right-wing than right-wing people? In what way? Do you have a source that discusses your suggested terminology? TFD (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@User:Morphh - Saying "right wing" is "charged", hence we should use it, is sorta a cop out. The fact is that "left wing" and "right wing" people exist, right? If RS exist which applies those terms, why can't WP? NickCT (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I expect they do mean the same thing, but the phrasing as used in our culture is often charged and sometimes used in as a pejorative. So if we have a choice in using two terms that convey the same thing, but one is often used in a bias way, I think as an Encyclopedia, we should use the term that is more neutral. If a term is considered charged or pov, we try to attribute it. I did a Google search on Pamela Geller and most of the sources I looked at didn't describe her as "right wing". Certainly we can find them, but naturally, we can find charged terms for any political figure - it doesn't mean we lead with it. Take a look at any big figure at the moment and think of labels - Cruz, Obama, Hilary, etc. Do their articles lead with such labels, no. Can I find lots of reliable sources for such labels, yes, particularly in the left media. Anyway.. again, I don't even know who Pamela Geller is - just another BLP, but in response to the RFC, the term, applied in that way, seems bias to me. Morphh ^(talk) 22:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Directly per TFD, Atethnekos — goethean 23:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"* Above on this page you asked me directly what I thought she is -- might you elucidate how you view my opinion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:BLP as being a contentious claim, and the "many sources" cited by some, simply ain;t. We have at best two sources, and several really strong-POV sources which no one would use for their other statements (heck - the statements from the same sources being cited for "right wing" have been deleted from the article. IMO, opinions can only be cited as opinions. [1] shows where some wish the BLP to head -- and I suggest that the job is not to depict anyone as the evil pro-Israel, Muslim-Hater, and then to refuse to add that she is pro-LGBT rights and pro-choice as a matter of NPOV balance in the article on the basis that this article should only be about how bad she is <g>. If we bar some of the source, we should bar all of the source. And this is an absolute "policy based argument" and one of two non-negotiable policies - NPOV and BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:26, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Directly, per TFD and in consideration of the many good sources (easily meeting WP:RS that describe her using this term and the complete absence of sources disputing it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Attribute far-right Sepsis II (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Contentious labels are not presented in WP voice. As is the case across WP we attribute these statements rather than WP:LABEL the person. Furthermore, this label seems to be directed at her because of one or two views. She is noted for being anti-Islamic and being pro-Israel (Not sure if this is one view or two because they are inter-related). While at the same time she holds many left views. The label of "Right-wing" is a lazy approach to simply stating the fact of these two views (for which she is most notable). Arzel (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Directly describe as "right" or "far right" - She's primarily noted for extremist xenophobic views. Xenophobic stances are typically associated w/ the "right" (e.g. anti-immigration, segregationist policies, etc). Her viewpoints seem far enough outside the norm to be reasonable called "extreme" and to warrant the use of the descriptor "far". As Arzel points out, she does have one or two seemingly liberal viewpoints. This is largely irrelevant however, as those viewpoints are ones for which she isn't really known. As a hypothetical; if I'm some notable individual, known for having extreme "family values" and "pro-life" positions, it doesn't really matter if I have lesser known liberal positions on "gun control", I'm still fairly classified as "right". Finally, RS for use of "far right" include The Gaurdian,Huffington Post, Haaretz, Daily Mail. NickCT (talk) 17:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- did you realize headlines are not part of an article? They are written by copy editors or headline writers at the newspaper, and are not actually anything more than a device to get folks to read articles. Cheers -- but some of your sources that she is the worst xenophobe in the world, ain't. Collect (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- so what you're saying is that terminology from headlines can't be incorporated into WP text? (citation needed) - Don't really understand your point about "worst xenophobe in the world". Are we discussing calling her the "worst xenophobe in the world"? I thought we were discussing calling her "right wing". NickCT (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Headlines are not a "reliable source." [2] inter alia. You need to use material from the body of any source to be a cite for any claims. You had emphasized your own personal view about xenophobia -- and I would note that personal views of editors should have no bearing whatsoever in any discussions about use of wording. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that we ignore those other aspects which don't gets as much attention because they don't fit the narrative that others are trying to label her with. Doesn't seem very biographical to me. I would remind you that a Bio is supposed to be a neutral presentation of a living person. Arzel (talk) 19:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

@Arzel - What I'm saying is that we focus on what is notable about a person. Even the most "conservative" or "liberal" people are going to hold one or two viewpoints which belong to the "other side". By your logic Arzel, we couldn't call anyone left or right wing. Is that really what you believe? @Collect - Odd that you would cite a talk page to demonstrate what is and isn't RS. It sorta begs the question whether limited talk page discussions are reliable sources for WP policy. The specific discussion you referenced was a discussion about the Daily Mail which to begin with is already a fairly dubious source. As to my "own personal view"; I'm a tad confused how you'd arrive at the conclusion that this viewpoint resides solely with me. Have you noticed any of the plethora of sources given above pointing out that Geller has an issue with Islam? Or is it that you have difficultly equating being anti-Islamic with being xenophobic? NickCT (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not make "equations" not directly found in sources where the result would be in any way contentious. You appeared to use "xenophobic" in a manner suggesting it was your own opinion. Linking to prior discussions on Wikipedia is not using a "reliable source;" it is using prior Wikipedia discussions for the specific best use - to inform other discussions of what has been said here in the past. I have no problem with "anti-Islamic" as that has been stated as a fact in good sources. The problem I have is using "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice when the only issues presented are her "pro-Israel" and "anti-Islamic" tenets, eliding every other issue ... as those were the unique defining salient issues for the right. I suggest if you went to, say, Israel, you would find a huge majority of the entire nation being "right wing" by such an opinion valuation system. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

re "find a huge majority of the entire nation being "right wing" by such an opinion valuation system" - Well, we might agree on that. Political opinions are relative. What might seem like conservative family values in the US, would probably be pretty liberal in Afghanistan. But still, I think one has to think about context and notability here. Geller is a notable American anti-islamic individual. Not a notable Israeli one. Regardless, there are still a plethora of sources using the term right wing. You didn't like the ones I gave earlier? How about Channel 4, NY Daily News, or The Express? NickCT (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Support in WP voice, for the same reasons I explained in the original RFC above. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose, and it's silly to waste so much time debating this. Let's improve the article and let the readers decide for themselves if they think she's right-wing, left-wing, or wingless. Jonathunder (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Directly, plainly, and unemotionally describe her as right-wing in Wikipedia's voice. We should follow our sources, not try to sugar coat them. From WP:BLPSTYLE: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves." WP:SPADE also applies.- Mr X 16:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose WP:LABEL charged terms should be avoided or attributed. Use a more neutral term in the first sentence. Pointing to Huffpo and DailyMail as sources sort of seems like being described by the opposition. Google search on "pamela geller + blogger" doesn't return any overwhelming amount of "right wing". Seems like selective sourcing to me. Morphh ^(talk) 19:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
- Can you suggest a non-charged term that indicates her political positiion is between the EDL and CPAC? TFD (talk) 20:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You're requesting an inference, i.e. original research. No term is required. Our article already notes that she shares their stated goals of "oppose [to] the Islamisation of the west." We have long had copy describing her support (and at times we had copy describing her split, and subsequent support). I wrote much of that copy as it was documented. Nothing is being hidden. We describe the facts, not make inferences even if you and I agreed on the inference. And it still is a contentious WP:LABEL, to boot. Jason from nyc (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD does not want to use any inference. Who is contending the label? Nussbaum, Takim, Ruthven, Lynch all use the term, and do not say it is contentious or pejorative. How do you reach the conclusion that they are using the term contentiously or pejoratively apart from an original research inference? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:43, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The term "right-wing" is not OR, it is well-sourced. Here is someone who positions herself between CPAC and the EDL and rails against "liberals" and "leftists." Obviously in addition to being anti-Islamist, she has a political position. Reliable sources call it "right-wing." What do you call it? And to avoid an "inference", please provide a reliable source. Otherwise we are left with "right-wing." TFD (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:LABEL has to supplement WP:RS. Most sources don't define or explain why they label her right-wing and many sources prefer not to use the label. WP:LABEL applies. It's your OR that has her "between" how you position those others on a scale. Now reliable sources do explain why they consider her anti-Islamic and that's a shared analysis among those that would add "right-wing" and those that avoid "right-wing." By the way, I found one source that does explain that they see her as right-wing ... on fiscal matters. Perhaps saying that she's a "fiscal conservative" or "right-wing fiscally" would be warranted. Otherwise you using a contentious label merely because some sources use a contentious label, and in an ill-defined manner. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

So, who contends the label? How are you arriving at your conclusion that the label is contentious apart from original research? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:08, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

The point is: What you are saying is incorrect: It is not "merely" because some sources use the label that we say Wikipedia should use the label. It is because multiple independent reliable sources use the label and no reliable sources provided contend the label. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:11, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

That seems to be proving a negative. Sources that wouldn't endorse the label wouldn't contend it, they'd just omit it. It would seem the nature of this dispute shows that the term is contentious. My perception is that the terms "left wing" or "right wing" are often used in a charged accusatory manner, generally when describing an opponent from the other side of the isle. This seems to be the experience of some others as well and would likely reflect a similar degree of opinion from our readers. If we can use tone that addresses that problem, we should consider that language. I'm not at all familiar with her politics to make a judgement as to what niche she holds, but it would seem the occurrence of just the term "right" would outweigh usage of "right wing" in any regard. Using something like "political right" would say the same thing without the charged nature that often comes with "right wing". Again, this is due to the use in Wikivoice in the first sentence. If instead you placed it in the second sentence "She is known for her right wing politics, primarily ...". That would provide some level of attribution - something she is described as rather than direct wikivoice. I'd have no issue with that. Morphh ^(talk) 22:45, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, I would have no issue with "political right" instead of "right wing" as to my mind these would be synonyms in this case. But this is not about proving a negative. It's not about proving anything, let alone a negative. It's just about reflecting what the reliable sources say. You could say the same thing about Barack Obama and "community organizer": Multiple independent reliable sources state that he was a community organizer, and no reliable sources contend the claim; that's why Wikipedia describes him as such. Now if we take your thought: all the sources that disagree would simply not call him a community organizer, but none would actually contend it, so the claim could still be contentious. If mere editors here contended the description (and some do), it would be contentious, despite no reliable sources actually contending the description. I agree: Editors here have contended the description, but editors here have not been established as reliable sources; unreliable sources contending a claim does not make a claim contentious. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

We call people liberals, conservatives, progressives, etc., even "left-wing" and no one says well maybe those are "labels" and maybe people who omit to describe them that way secretly think that those "labels" do not apply. In what way is this different? If the term "right-wing" is labelly, what is the politically correct term. Or is it your view that there are no people on the right of the political spectrum? TFD (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Technically, the term is fine if you apply the strict definition to it. In the end for me, it just strikes the wrong tone to start the article - it sounds bias, even though technically, it may not be. If I were introducing this person as a guest speaker, I wouldn't say welcome so and so, a right wing blogger ... Those terms, at least to me, are normally used in a contentious way. And it seems unnecessary - like we're creating this contentious point for what gain? They read it in the first sentence instead of the second. Just seems like a ridiculous debate. Anyway... I've voiced my thought - done my RFC duty. Morphh ^(talk) 00:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@TFD, actually we don't label people on the left, from what I can tell. The following is a list of well-known individuals on the left. Some of them self-identify as very left, and even those are not identified except by themselves. Lawrence O'Donnell Rachel Maddow Al Sharpton Keith Olbermann Touré Chris Hayes Chris Matthews Paul Krugman Jesse Jackson Mike Malloy. Olbermann is a great example of a previous issue about labels and additional discussion because he refuses to be labeled. There is a clear dichotomy on WP to be sure in that those viewed to be on the right are much more likely to be labeled than those viewed to be on the left, even when those on the left self-identify as being on the left. Those fights have happened and the largely because of Olbermann the accepted consensus is that we don't WP:LABEL people in WP voice. Arzel (talk) 05:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

We usually mention how they describe themselves: O'Donnell (socialist), Maddow (liberal), Sharpton (radical), Olbermann (described as liberal, he rejects it), Malloy (liberal Democrat), Krugman (liberal). Unfortunately for people in Geller's category do not use an agreed term to describe themselves and hence are called right-wing by default. Note too that most of the people listed are in the mainstream, having shows or regularly appearing in mainstream media. None of them are banned from the UK. TFD (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a cop-out if I have ever seen one. The agreed upon and widely used term from all of them is not phrased in WP voice, why should this one be different? And what does being banned from the UK have to do with it? Arzel (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Routine Support inclusion of description of Ms Geller's political views as "self professed rightwing." Why is this even debated?? Why do editors bring up irrelevant WP rules, such as BLP, when, per the New York Times article, "Ms Geller habitually refers to herself as a 'racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot'"? Enough with the overheated, unnecessary, storm-in-a-teapot RfC's already. -The Gnome (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Context is everything. Now do I see everything through the prism of Israel? No, I don't, but I do think it's a very good guide. It's a very good guide because, like I said, 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. She did not describe herself as that. ViriiK (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Context is indeed everything and the context of Ms Geller's own words demonstrates that she holds political views that are typically, summarily labeled as "right-wing", per the definition provided in the relevant Wikipedia article. The quote abt Israel you provided does not refute any of this. Ms Geller proclaims that she does not see "everything through the prism of Israel". Even if we were to accept this (which would be difficult in itself, seeing as she has rarely, if ever, disagreed with official Israeli foreign policy), it does not affect the "right-wing" label at all. Right-wingers may not be seeing "everything through the prism of Israel" indeed but still be right-wingers. I have no dog in this fight. But it all seems extremely silly to me! Disputing whether third-party, reliable sources label Ms Geller a right-winger?! What next, looking up such sources for Michael Moore before labeling him a "left-winger"? -The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

P.S.: How about getting rid of "right" and "left" entirely for wingers in sports as well?-The Gnome (talk) 08:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to jump in between here. You used the sentence from an article that she habitually refers to herself as a "racist-Islamophobic-anti-Muslim-bigot" which was not true at all. Plus I don't know why you have the version with the "-" in between every word when the New York Times didn't do that. So I'm wondering if your source is actually [3] which is not the NYT but rather a blog. In this circumstances she's talking about people who state that it's wrong for her to oppose ideologies of Islam and therefore she should submit. That's her entire point. There's no self-labeling here hence it's wrong to say she's "self professed" as that label. I can find a thousand articles on any particular person who advocates for left-wing causes being labeled as a left-winger, communist, socialist, whatever. But when people avoid those labels, does that make the articles true? I don't know. I'm a jackass, so there I just self-labeled myself as a jackass. You're free to use that. So show me something that Pamela Geller saying she's right-wing? I know, MilesMoney isn't here to help annoy people and destroy this argument into oblivion to help get this label stuck on her. ViriiK (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that you give Michael Moore as an example. It doesn't say he's "left-wing" in the lead. (I gather this has been discussed an infinitum: [4].) Indeed, you have to go down into the article to find: "According to John Flesher of the Associated Press, Moore is known for his "fiery left-wing populism ..." Thus, it's a specific type of leftism and it is an opinion attributed to a particular individual. The exact opposite is case for Geller. Here her hostile critics, generally left-wing, call her "right-wing" without definition, qualification, or explanation. It's a gratuitous insertion left unexplained. This is an abuse of the reliable source rule. As a researcher, one is supposed to read reliable sources for well-reasoned information. Merely doing a google search and blindly extracting phrases turns "reliable source" methodology into a mere appeal to authority. This argument has degenerated into Argumentum ab auctoritate. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is a talk page thread on calling Moore 'left-wing': [5]. — goethean 13:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The debate (see your link and my link) sounds very similar to the debate we are having here. And that was in 2007. They have since stuck with a description of his positions instead of a categorical left-right label. In terms of general labels he is described by the generic "social critic, and political activist" while the lead ends with his positions: "criticize globalization, large corporations, assault weapon ownership, U.S. Presidents ... the Iraq War, the American health care system, and capitalism." But don't call him a leftist! Noam Chomsky isn't called left-wing but "political commentator and activist." That would seem to be the standard (and that could be said of Geller.) Further down it says "came to be associated with the New Left" during the Vietnam War and the lead ends with " aligns himself with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism." Thus, it is more specific. Our article is also more specific when it says she is anti-Islam. I would object to the weasel word aligns both there and here but that's another matter. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruthven, Takim, Lynch—none of these sources are hostile to Geller, their descriptions are all calm and neutral. The worst-sounding thing that Ruthven says is that Geller uses "anti-Muslim rhetoric", which is probably an equally fair description of David Hume, Richard Dawkins or Winston Churchill—not even close to being a hostile assessment. The worst thing Lynch says about that Geller is that she has a lower profile than Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Pat Robertson—again, not close to hostility. The worst thing that Takim says about Geller is that her coining "Ground Zero mosque" is misnomer and gives a distorted impression. These are clearly people calmly giving their thoughtful responses to what they have read and heard from Geller, not some ideological opponents grinding their axes. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ruthven, a writer for the Guardian, is clearly demonizing a group of writers as “right-wing” (the whole paragraph is about Breivik.) We’ve discussed Takim above in a special section. Lynch, a writer for the Guardian, like the other three also use “right-wing” in passing as a WP:LABEL. All 3 writers are labeling Geller with a term the don’t define nor explain how it applies to Geller. It’s an example of labeling. There is nothing in any of the sources to vet. This is nothing but a “google” search for the label and Geller’s name. It’s a gratuitous use of the label. Editing an encyclopedia is more than blindly copying phrases used in passing from sources. “… we are not transcription monkeys. We can and should exercise judgment.” - Jimbo Wales. Regards, Jason from nyc (talk) 12:44, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not transcription nor blindly copying phrases. It is reading, understanding, and comparing multiple independent reliable sources to arrive at a judgement that they all describe Geller as right wing. Saying that the description is gratuitous or creating novel requirements in sourcing (that the reliable sources also have to define their terms before we can use them as a source) are absurd objections, since they would apply to almost everything we do. Ficino is described as a Neoplatonist. Do the reliable sources adequate for this description define "Neoplatonist"? No, they don't. Could we say that the description is "gratuitious"? Yes, we could. So then why include the description? The answer is because multiple, independent, reliable sources describe Ficino as a Neoplatonist, while no reliable sources contest this description. So the description perfectly reflects the scholarship on Ficino and therefore passes all WP:V and WP:NPOV requirements. The same is the case with Pamela Geller and "right-wing". We can doubt the motivations of Ruthven, Lynch or Takim all we want, but no one doubts that they are reliable sources, so the point is moot. And none of them are demonizing Geller; their criticisms are tame. None of these claims are from a Google search. These books are all published by very respectable presses; the Lynch is published by Oxford University Press, one of the absolute top scholarly presses. If we do not apply the term to Geller, then we have failed to reflect the reliable sources.

Another source, calls her a "popular right-wing blogger": McElya, Micki, "To "Choose Our Better History": Assessing the Obama Presidency in Real Time", American Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 1 (March 2011), p. 181.

Another source: Eric Klein, the founder of the Lifeboat Foundation, for which Geller was on the advisory board, identifies Geller as a "right-winger" in an article invited and hosted by Geller on 11 January, 2007 [6]--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

You don’t address my main objections. None of the sources give any indications what they mean by the phrase and why they conclude that she is right-wing. You merely repeat that they use the phrase. When I pointed to a source that said she was “socially liberal” I showed that the writer noted her positions: “pro-choice” and “pro-gay marriage.” Thus, he implicitly defined the phrase and explained why it applies to Geller. None of the sources you use do this for right-wing. You are just plucking it from sources and plopping it down here. If that’s not a “transcription monkey” I don’t know what is. (By the way, our own article explains that Ficino translated the “writings of many of the Neoplatonists, for example Porphyry, Iamblichus, Plotinus” so we know which philosophers make up that school; and he's known for "espousing the Neoplatonist view of the world's ensoulment.") Jason from nyc (talk) 02:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So list out your objections explicitly so that I may understand them. Is one of your objections that the sources don't define the term? I addressed that objection explicitly: That is a novel requirement for sourcing (i.e., it's not in any policy or guideline) which leads to absurdities (e.g., we would not be able categorize David Chalmers as an "analytic philosopher"). What are the other objections? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not absurd to expect a source to indicate (a) what they mean and (b) why they hold their viewpoint. Nowhere did I say they need a formal definition and I gave an example (see "socially liberal") where a source implicitly defines what they mean by providing to concretes (a). And this sources stated that Geller holds these views and thus showing that she is socially liberal (b). I argue that the source must give us some indication of what the term means (a), particularly if the term is multi-dimensional and can mean many things; and in what sense is it applicable to Geller (b). I illustrated this idea with "socially liberal." Jason from nyc (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you (and please correct me), you hold that it is sufficient that the term is merely used even if (a) it isn't clear what sense the author believes it applies and (b) what concretes are used to support this conclusion. Thus, the mere usage means it is sufficient to copy the term here. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:43, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The article begins, "Pamela Geller... is an American blogger, author, political activist, and commentator." What is an American, a blogger, author, political activist or commentator? Do you think we need sources that define each term and explain how they apply? TFD (talk) 06:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

For a), yes, it must be clear what sense the author has for the term. This is obviously true because it could only be a reliable source for a claim if it is clear that it backs the claim. If it wasn't clear that Takim, Nussbaum, Lynch, Ruthven, McElya mean that Pamela Geller is right wing is the sense that we mean, then they wouldn't be reliable sources for the claim. However, no one is doubting that they are reliable sources for this claim. And if they're reliable sources for the claim, then it must be relatively clear what they mean with the term. Does that mean they have to be 100& clear in every way? No, of course not. No source has absolute clarity.

For b), no, I don't think reliable sources have to provide concretes for their claims, they just need to make them. That requirement is the novel one (no policy or guidelines have it), and it would result in the absurdities. There are no sources that give concretes along with the claim that David Chalmers is an analytic philosopher, for example. There are a number of sources though that just plainly say he is an analytic philosopher. Do we know exactly what the reliable sources mean by "analytic"? No, not even close: The term is so loose as to be almost useless. "Almost", but not entirely, and that's why people still use it and we do rightly in repeating them.

So no, it is not the mere usage of a term that means it is sufficient to copy the term here (because a term can be used in many different ways). It is sufficient however if (I can only repeat myself here) multiple, independent reliable sources back a claim and no reliable sources disagree; in WP:NPOV terms, this what we call an uncontroversial, majority point of view.

I think TFD's examples are trenchant: Take "blogger" for example: Do any of the sources which say that Geller is a blogger or runs a blog define what a blogger or a blog is? No. What's the concrete difference between a blog and a plain old website with comment sections etc.? I honestly have no idea, but one difference is that no one calls Pamela Geller an administrator of a website described in just those terms, but lots of people call her a "blogger".

With more reading, I've found that Geller in 2009 self-identified as right wing as well: "The thing is Johnson does not speak for the right, that idea is -- so 2004. Funny, the left blogmedia is trying to perform CPR, mouth to mouth resuscitation. Johnson is the left's idea of a right wing pundit? So is Pat Buchanan ...........[sic] the left is incapable of a rational, reasoned thought, so how could they know who speaks for us?" [7], and a month before she says "I am a right of center blogger" [8], although I'm not sure if "right of center" is the same as plain "right" as she says later, in April. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources don’t make clear what they mean when they use right-wing. That’s the point. The fail (a). I gave an example of a source that makes clear what “socially liberal” means by listing “pro-choice” and “pro-gay marriage” as two positions that she holds. You can say that for the author “socially liberal” is a short hand way of referring to those two positions. I have another source that says she does’t support drug legalization. Thus, without the specification the phrase would be somewhat ambiguous and misleading. It’s worse for the term right-wing. Our article on American conservatism, in paragraph 3 of the lead, lists a number of thesis and antithesis for the right. Thus the term is very vague; and without concretes, we become mere “transcription monkeys” by copying a phrase when the context doesn't reveal the meaning. Take our article on Noam Chomsky. It doesn’t say he is left-wing but the lead ends with “… a leading critic of U.S. foreign policy, state capitalism, and the mainstream news media. Ideologically, he aligns himself with anarcho-syndicalism and libertarian socialism.” It gives the specifics to some degree. I could cite Martha Nussbaum calling him left-wing but the specifics clarify how and in what sense he is left-wing. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The sources don’t make clear what they mean when they use right-wing.

Probably because they realize that they don't need to — it is a common term with a well-known dictionary definition.[9] If they thought that the term would have confused their readers, surely one of them would have elaborated on it. But they didn't, because the meaning of the term is clear. — goethean 17:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If it's not clear that the sources mean "right wing" in the sense that we mean it, then they wouldn't be reliable sources for the claim that Geller is right wing in the sense that we mean it. Everyone who responded at RSN said Nussbaum was reliable for just that. Do you really think the responses for Lynch, Takim, Ruthven, McElya are going to be any different at RSN? If you do, I will gladly run them by there. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"If?" Are you agreeing with me that without some indication what specifically "right wing" is meant to refer to we shouldn't be using it? I noticed that in the Martha Nussbaum article Chomsky is referred to as a “leftist intellectual’’ with that phrase in scare quotes. Apparently you can’t even call Chomsky “left-wing” on Wikipedia. I noticed that we don’t call Howard Zinn a leftist in the lead or even in the article as a whole despite a major source of information is a bio called “Howard Zinn: A Life on the Left.” Yet here we have several veteran editors that want to call Geller "right-wing" in Wikipedia’s voice! What’s happening here? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "specifically"; if you mean a complete listing of necessary and sufficient conditions, then no, we don't need the sources to be that specific. If you mean, some (any at all) understanding of what the authors mean, then yes, we do need that, or else we wouldn't know what claim they are making. If there is not an understanding of what the term means in the source, then the source could not be a reliable source for the claim made using that term. Now, I'm not sure, but you seem to be saying that there is not such an understanding of what the term "right wing" means in these sources. Well, if that's the case, then they are not reliable sources for the claim that she is right wing. But they are reliable sources for the claim (or do you deny this? I don't know if you do, that's why I asked), so there must be an understanding of what the term means in the sources.

Imagine a hypothetical word, gzhba. Say there are exactly two separate usages of this word, one usage means "famous" and the other usage means "healthy". Say I have five sources which say that Pamela Geller is "gzhba". Now, hypothetical case 1: It's completely ambiguous whether these sources mean gzhba in the sense of "famous" or in the sense of "healthy". In this case, could these sources be reliable sources for the claim that Geller is gzhba in the sense of "famous"? No, of course not, because it's completely unclear if the sources even support the claim. Hypothetical case 2: These five sources are reliable sources for the claim that Gellers is gzhba is the sense of "famous". In this case, could it be ambiguous as to what sense the sources mean "gzhba"? No, of course not, because this just invokes the contrapositive of case 1. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment Saw this referenced on AN/I. Evidently she is referred to as "right wing" in various ways by several commentators. I think what's here already is enough. We don't have to say so in Wikipedia's "voice." Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment It's clear that there is no consensus in this RfC and the similar one above. It appears that the RfC expired with no one willing to close it and neither side conceding ground. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, I am of the opinion that the RFC above shows a consensus for us saying what the sources say. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for posting it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Hopefully it will be closed soon. St Anselm (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose directly calling her "right-wing". I'm still not convinced that we need it at all, but if we do it should be attributed. These are subjective terms, and she does not identify herself as such (unlike many other "right wing" people). St Anselm (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

She does self-identify as part of the right wing, at least she did in 2009: [10]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your only problem is that she does not call herself "right wing" in that post! A very minor <g> quibble, but one which kills that position pretty thoroughly. Collect (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

She clearly does include herself as part of the right wing. She says: "Johnson is the left's idea of a right wing pundit? So is Pat Buchanan ……….. [sic] the left is incapable of a rational, reasoned thought, so how could they know who speaks for us?" To whom does "us" refer? It refers to her and the rest of the right wing. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

You can use it to say that she does not call Johnson a "right wing pundit". She does not call herself a right wing pundit. And "us" presumably refers to the American people as a group - it does not mean she is calling herself anything in particular (other than that she is not a left winger, I suppose?) Collect (talk) 23:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

She never mentions the American people, she premises: "The thing is Johnson does not speak for the right, that idea is — so 2004", gives her other premises, and concludes: "how could they know who speaks for us?" The "us" in her conclusion clearly refers to the right and the "right wing" of her premises. She never refers to the American people as a group. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

May I make one thing perfectly clear? Wikipedia editors know many things - but can never use "what they know" instead of what is clearly written in the reliable sources cited. We can certainly write "X and Y call her 'right wing'" but when we use Wikipedia's voice, we are making an opinion into a fact, which we can not do per policy. We can not say "but this is between the lines" as such is against policy here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but I don't think this case is anything like that. What we have is multiple, independent reliable sources saying she is right wing, and no reliable sources contradicting this position. So it's not a matter of making opinion into fact, it's about reflecting the unanimous voice of our reliable sources. In the same way we say in Wikipedia's voice that she is a "commentator" and we don't say e.g. "the NYTimes staff writer calls her a commentator", because it's an uncontested point of view. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:30, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

These sources are labeling her has right-wing, don't say what they mean by right-wing, and don't say in what sense she is right-wing. Thus, their utility as fodder for an intelligible statement in an encyclopedia is questionable. But we're repeating ourselves and this just shows that after a month there is still no consensus. Perhaps we should let the admin judge this fact. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

If what you're saying is the case, then the sources wouldn't be reliable for the claim, because it wouldn't even be clear what claim they are making. That's a question for RS/N, which has already disagreed with your assessment.

Another example of self-identification, from 2012: "The left is always looking for pictures of those of us on the right that make us look as horrible as possible. I have seen photos of myself in the media that I don't recognize." [11] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

And another where she says she is right-of-center, [12] which means a moderate. It doesn't seem that she considers herself "on the wings" but that she merely has "leanings." However, it's not her self-proclamations that determines our article. Let's "rest our case" and see the final disposition of our discussion. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I don't object at all to describing her as "right of center" instead of "right wing". I agree it's not her self-proclamations that determines the article; that was never an argument I made: Others had made it, I just disagree with the premise that she doesn't self-identify as right wing. My position here and on every article is that a minimal statement of an unchallenged consensus of multiple, independent reliable sources is ipso facto verified and not undue weight. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Support per the sources, forgot to vote on this aon also Darkness Shines (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Per multiples sources. QuackGuru (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Comment One example that I remember, and I think this actually use to be an example in NPOV, was with regard to Osama bin Laden. We can easily find that a vast majority of sources will refer to him as a terrorist. However, we don't label him that in Wikivoice. What we do is describe he was on the FBI lists of Most Wanted Terrorists (first mention at the end of the second paragraph) and part way through the article "His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars." This is a perfect example of neutrally applying a label and this is an extreme example, way more prominent then "right-wing" being applied to Geller. The argument that because several reliable sources label her as right-wing so we should also do so in Wikivoice and not attribute it is not consistent with our policies for subjective descriptions. Morphh ^(talk) 02:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
- Two different types of terms. Or do you think that being right-wing is similar to being a terrorist? TFD (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  - They're similar in the sense that they're subjective descriptions. It's an example of how Wikipedia deals with such labels, even in an extreme example when significant sourcing describes the person with that label. Since the term is subjective, it is by definition an opinion and must be attributed in some way. Morphh ^(talk) 05:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
    - That's not why we do not refer to Bin Laden as a terrorist. See WP:LABEL, which is the relevant guideline. In any case, different people have different political beliefs and we normally mention them. Do you propose removing all references to liberal, conservative, socialist etc. because you find those terms subjective? TFD (talk) 06:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
      - From WP:LABEL "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." And yes, I would say being labled far-right or left-wing is contentious, depending upon the company. In-text attribution is the way to go.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        political ideologies, religions, nationalities, academic credentials, etc. are not "value-laden" or "contentious opinion" and the term suggested is "right-wing", not "far right". Notice that The Nation calls itself "The Flagship of the Left." These terms are not contentious. TFD (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        If it wasn't contentious, we wouldn't be having this debate. We write from a historical viewpoint - how has right and left changed over the years, even recent years, in shifting ideologies? How is it defined in a global context? It's not like we're referencing she's part of the Republican Party, which could be verified via voter registration or that she attended XYZ. Those are static historical facts. The description of right-wing is subjectively based on the issues they're wrapping into the label for a specific point in time for a specific country. Some of her positions (arguably important ones for the "right") fall on the political left - judgement applied to the dichotomy. As for your example, I would write that they describe themselves as "The Flagship of the Left" and list their stated goals, views, etc - not stating as fact one way or another in Wikivoice if those views are left. The point is - it's perspective and an opinion - we know how to treat this in Wikipedia. Morphh ^(talk) 14:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
        So there's a few arguments here. You say if it wasn't contentious, we wouldn't be having a debate. We are having a debate. Therefore, it is contentious. However, go over to Evolution and you'll see many editors contest the view that "All life on Earth is descended from a last universal ancestor that lived approximately 3.8 billion years ago." But that claim is not contentious, because whether something is contentious isn't whether editors here contest it, it's whether reliable sources contest it; otherwise we would just be doing original research.
        
        The next argument is that Osama Bin Laden is the standard, and he is not called a terrorist, although there is the same sourcing (or better) for calling him a terrorist than calling Pamela Geller right wing. However, in the case of Pamela Geller we have multiple, independent reliable sources (I count over a dozen) say she is right wing, while no reliable sources disagree. With the case of Osama Bin Laden and "terrorist", you have many reliable sources which contest that description. E.g., Michael Scheuer (who was the chief of Bin Laden operations at the CIA) says "I don't consider Osama Bin Laden to be a terrorist. I consider him to be a resistance fighter."[13].
        
        The last argument is that the claim that she is right wing is a subjective claim, so therefore cannot be in Wikivoice, no matter what level of sourcing. However, the most important response to this, is that no policy says this. Now, even if it were policy (and this could be why it's not a policy), you would have no basis in concluding that it is a subjective claim. Whether all these reliable sources make the claim with some objective standard in mind or not, is not established by any reliable source. They just make the claims, and we're left with it. We don't know their motivations for making the claims. Take B. B. King, which says that he is a blues musician. We have a lot of reliable sources which say he is a blues musician, and none which disagree. But maybe none of those reliable sources were using an objective standard for determining whether what King played was blues. Maybe their description is subjectively based on the issues they're wrapping into the label for a specific point in time for a specific country. You can use this argument to pump up any such case into a full-blown controversy, so that we couldn't describe anything in Wikivoice. Was Spinoza a rationalist? Is Paul Wolfowitz a neoconservative? Was Lenin a communist? Sure, all the relevant reliable sources say so, but we cannot know for sure whether they were being objective in their judgements. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a BLP. "right wing" is a label. Why are so many hell bent on stating this in Wikipedia's voice?Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain how being right-wing is similar to being a racist, pervert, extremist, or terrorist. TFD (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Does being labeled with the same term used to describe the KKK sound agreeable to you? That's certainly what some seem to be angling for. Far more notable people don't get labeled in their BLP's. What earns Geller this distinction?Two kinds of pork (talk) 09:29, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

We state in our article that she is "socially liberal" or, as many might describe it, views of the "left". The description is an opinion and per WP:YESPOV, we should attribute it described as widespread views. As a side note, it sounds like libertarian would be a more accurate description of her views, rather than "right-wing". Morphh ^(talk) 09:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

"Fact" and "opinion" for WP:YESPOV are defined clearly at WP:ASSERT. An "opinion" is a "matter which is subject to dispute". A "fact" is a "piece of information about which there is no serious dispute". Who disputes that Pamela Geller is right wing? No reliable source provided so far. Who states that Pamela Geller is right wing? Over a dozen reliable sources. For the purposes of WP:YESPOV, the statement is a fact, not an opinion. WP:YESPOV says: "Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice." --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 10:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You mean aside from a bunch of editors and sources? Like one which points out her liberal positions including support for multiple LGBT issues? And the fact that all the sources you provide only mention her en passant and only with regard to the Islam issue? Um -- I suggest that this is an extraordinarily clear case of labeling a person based on a single issue, and is clearly opinion of the first water. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:50, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:YESPOV also says "Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information". While we can clearly see the disagreement, the matter is also contested because we have sources that say she is socially liberal, which is the same thing as saying socially left-wing. Are we going to find sources that oppose the dichotomy, likely not, because if you had to put her in a box, she's more right-wing than left-wing and people are happy to put people in a box. But in cases like this, sources that dispute the dichotomy (or don't care to describe her that way) will just not state it. If we're looking at those sources that define her views, those that don't define her as right-wing greatly outnumber those that do. Regardless, it's not something we normally do - we don't label Republicans politicians as right-wing or Democrats as left-wing in their leads even though the sources would probably support it, same thing with conservative and liberal. Do we have any examples of political personalities where we've applied this label? There are more hits on the term conservative with Pam Geller, then right-wing, so what is the reason for this focus of using a polarizing term that is often applied as a pejorative? It doesn't describe her views and it presents bias. We can clearly see this is a subjective term that is based on opinion, but it's being debated like it's a historical fact. What's the big deal with saying that "she's often described as right-wing" vs "she's a right wing"? One attributes it and the other is in Wikivoice. It's not like those that oppose it are asking to strike the entire thing. There is no compromise being applied here, which creates a difficult atmosphere. Morphh ^(talk) 13:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to respond to both here (that is, I'm sorry that I conflate the issues, and refer to both of you indiscriminately as "you"). Which sources deny that she is right wing? A source says she supports multiple LGBT issues. Well, in order for that to deny that she is right wing, you would have to add another premise, "If one supports multiple LGBT issues, then one is not right wing". Importing such a premise from some other source is just WP:SYNTHESIS. Same with "she is socially liberal", mutatis mutandis. Same with "she is conservative", mutatis mutandis.

Nussbaum does not mention her in passing. McElya does not mention her in passing. McElya does not mention her only in regards to Islam. Eboo Patel does not mention her in passing. John Feffer does not mention her in passing. Grynbaum does not mention her in passing. Deepa Kumar does not mention her in passing. Power does not mention her in passing. As our article says, Geller "is known primarily for her criticism of Islam and opposition to Islamic activities and causes". The fact that most sources (not all, as you claim) which call her right wing are addressing her primary activity, is not a mitigating factor at all, because it is normal that sources for a person or thing primarily address the primary aspects of that person or thing.

What's the big deal? I'm not sure if anything is a big deal, it's just one article. But the point is, it's what WP:ASSERT and WP:YESPOV say, and we'd do right to follow it here as elsewhere. And the reasoning for it is given at WP:ASSERT: "Inline attribution of a reliably sourced fact on the grounds that it is just the "opinion" of the sources is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy and would have the negative consequence of allowing any contrarian to insist on an inline qualifier for material about which there is no serious dispute. Such an editorial philosophy, if taken to extremes, would require all material in Wikipedia to have an inline qualifier, even if only one Wikipedia editor insisted on it. This is not only poor writing, it is also editorially unsound as it is generally not possible to list every person who accepts any given fact. Additionally, presenting a "fact" as an "opinion" is needlessly attributing uncontroversial statements, and so creating the appearance of doubt or disagreement where there is none." I personally agree with the people who wrote that (I believe Larry Sanger was one of them [14]), and I could argue the merits of the policy, but perhaps that would be better left to the Village Pump or somewhere else. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 02:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

If the whole point is to WP:LABEL someone by what they are most known for, then what is the purpose of a bio. By your logic all we will have done is prescribe to the pre-determined expectations of any reader that comes to her bio. The only reason to even read the bio would then be to make sure that the bio conforms to what you already believe it should be. Her opposition to Islam is what brings people to read about her. In reading about her you should be presented with a neutral presentation of who she is, not a presentation of how you think she should be presented. If the label was not contentious then it would not be an issue, but it is and should be attributed as we do with Bio's throughout WP. Arzel (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

What makes right-wing subject to WP:LABEL is how it is used. Most sources use this label in a perfunctory manner to indicated that Geller is the "political other." She "right-wing", i.e. one of those kind of people, not our kind. If you read the vast number of sources you'll see nothing is extracted from the classification. It's just a label. The term can be neutral if it is used in a neutral sense. But if it meant to keep the subject at arms length it is used in a critical or derogatory manner. We have once source in our article that ties "right-wing" with "fiscal conservative" policies. That's a use of the term in a neutral manner. However, passing labeling (especially when it is not clear from the context what is meant by the label) unrelated to the following text suggests the author, reliable or not, is not conveying substantial information but merely indicating that "she's not one of us." As I point out above, Howard Zinn isn't labeled "left-wing" in his BLP even when a highly sympathetic bio is called "A life on the left." We use a more detailed description instead of a vague label. I can assure you that right-wing journals will start an article about Zinn with the "left-wing" label prominent to indicate he's "one of them." This is not how to write an encyclopedia. We cull from sources substantial information, not vague perfunctory labeling of the "political other" no matter how often partisans do this. We have the complex descriptions why do we need a superfluous label that is unclear? If the term isn't used in a way that distinguishes Geller from Hitler, like left-wing doesn't distinguish Zinn from Stalin, then the term is being abused to commit a BLP violation. Our usage in the article when we say she is a "fiscal conservative" is a proper usage but merely labeling becomes contentious when we use the term promiscuously. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, the WP:ASSERT examples for inline attribution of a reliably sourced fact are “Mars is a planet” and “Plato was a philosopher”. Writing "some describe Mars as a planet" would make no sense, which is the point they're making. It is not the same thing as a subjective term such as right-wing. I'll also note that she is in favor of abortion legalization - another, not so small, issue for the "right". Morphh ^(talk) 18:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the core objection is that the reliable sources are not in reality being impartial when they describe her as right wing, so therefore we cannot repeat them. My response is that that is a problem to take up with the reliable sources. We have no basis to conclude that a reliable sources is being partial apart from original research. I think the proper course would be to submit a review of Geller's work to a decent publication and correct the record, writing similar to what you have already: "Many commentators so far have just been othering Geller; in reality she's not unproblematically right wing, and in fact is more of a centrist, being left wing on some issues, and right wing on others", and then give an analysis of her positions. For us (and this is policy reflected by YESPOV and ASSERT), we just have to reflect what the reliable sources write. If this in reality makes us partial, then that's fine, because our job as reflectors of the reliable sources is just to be neutral with regards to the reliable sources, not with regards to reality. Excepting elementary logical and mathematical inferences, reality is useless to us, apart from how our reliable sources represent it. If our reliable sources are partial in reality, we should end up being partial in reality. This is a long-standing aspect of our policies, and for good reason: As, ASSERT says, if we were allowed to just second guess the factuality of our reliable sources, we would be left using reported speech to insulate all sorts of facts. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that is the problem (edited - at least not for me, looks like you may be replying to Jason). I have no issue with the sources being partial, that they describe her that way, or reflecting in the article what the sources write (though I do think it is a poor description and we can be more accurate based on the sources). The main problem is if the statement is a fact or an opinion. If you agree that the sources are partial or that there is any subjective judgement in labeling someone right wing or left wing when they hold views that cross both sides, then you must also agree it's an opinion. Morphh ^(talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

"If you agree that the sources are partial or that there is any subjective judgement in labeling someone right wing or left wing when they hold views that cross both sides, then you must also agree it's an opinion." I completely disagree with this conditional, and I don't know where you find policy support for it (this is obviously the crux of our disagreement). Nowhere is "opinion" for the purposes of policy defined with regards to "subjective judgement" or sources being "partial". As I quoted from WP:ASSERT, an opinion, for the purposes of policy, is any statement with regards to which there is a serious dispute. A statement could be the most objective observation or the plainest deduction, yet still be opinion for the purposes of policy. Corollarily, a statement could be the most subjective conjecture or the most obscure speculation, yet still be a fact for the purposes of policy. For example, if all the reliable sources agreed that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct, then it would be fact that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct. If the reliable sources seriously disputed that Mars was a planet, then it would be an opinion that Mars is a planet. Whether some statement of a judgement is a fact or an opinion doesn't depend on the intrinsic qualities of the judgement (whether it is subjective or objective, etc.), but only on the distribution of its affirmation and contradiction among the reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Left and right wing are not labels. Also, no one is claiming that the right-wing is "correct." We do report that Nietzsche was in the tradition of continental rationalism rather than British empiricism, even though one could argue that those terms are subjective. TFD (talk) 03:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)If all reliable sources agreed that Nietzsche's philosophy is correct, then it is still an opinion, and does not mean it is correct. Prior to Copernicus it was a "fact" that the Sun revolved around the Earth, yet that was not correct. Mars is a different situation because it is an attribute which has clearly defined parameters (as was decided with Pluto not that long ago). Interestingly, Pluto does have an attribution because of the distinction. I really don't see the problem of attribution. It would appear that at least some are against this version because it leaves open the possibility that this attribution is not correct, which is really the crux of the issue. Arzel (talk) 04:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, it does not mean that it is correct. But statements, for the purposes of policy, are only opinion if there is some serious dispute. Yes, it would still be an "opinion" in the normal, everyday sense. But it would just be an equivocation to use the everyday meaning of "opinion" for these questions of policy. As TFD rightly says, correctness has nothing to do with anything here. I don't think it is correct that Geller is right wing, at least not in any unqualified sense. I think she is like Robert Spencer: A moderate, leaning to classical liberal, who takes serious the hypothesis that Islamic religious activities includes aspects which are inherently political and imperial (which says nothing about one's politics tout court). I don't like Nussbaum as a source at all, I think she is a very misleading scholar when it comes to politically hot topics and her behaviour in Romer v. Evans typifies this quality of her. If I had to, I would guess the other reliable sources are of the same calibre. But I'm not a reliable source, so my testimony is worth less than nothing. Some policies (like WP:AGF) are not suicide pacts, but WP:V and WP:NPOV are. Even if all of us know that the reliable sources are dead wrong, we should still just slavishly reflect them without insulating uncontested statements (WP:ASSERT "facts") with attribution. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:32, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said! Binksternet (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

TFD, the definition of fact is that it is deemed to be true - so we are claiming it is correct when we state it in Wikivoice. Atethnekos, the sources describe her in various ways. The weight doesn't even favor that term. With your interpretation, any statement that is sourced that is not refuted is fact - that makes no sense. Note the definition of opinion "a matter which is subject to dispute". The classification of her views as black or white is a matter which is subject to dispute - we see in the sources that her views cross the standard definitions for those terms. And it's serious in the sense that a disagreement is not nonsensical. I've read ASSERT and YESPOV, you've read it, we just disagree with what the policy states and the spirit with which it was written. We all know it's an opinion, so we should use common sense, stop wikilawyering and just attribute it. Or why are we even including it if we know it to be a bad description of her views? We're not required to use that term - there are plenty of more accurate descriptions in the sources. Morphh ^(talk) 05:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Arzel, reliable sources (I am not talking about blogs) cannot say "Nietzche" was right, because reliable sources do not state opinions as facts. They may however say "in my opinion, Nietsche was right." Similarly, reliable sources do not say "in my opinion, Geller is right-wing", because it is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. Morphh, the only sources that categorize Geller's political ideology say she is right-wing. In case you were unaware, opposing groups in political cultures, whether in the U.S. or elsewhere frequently are described as "left" or "right". It is particularly useful when there is no more descriptive category. Usually for example, we can use terms such as socialist, liberal, conservative, or name their parties, such as Republican, Democrat. TFD (talk) 05:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Let me also note, while we're on the topic, that ASSERT is not vetted like NPOV and I'm not even sure if it's policy. Those entries quoted by Atethnekos were added by QuackGuru and were disputed when entered, but there are not that many editors there discussing entries and their impact, so things just get left in there. TFD, there are many sources that categorize her ideology using various terms - the hits on conservative outnumber right-wing. She's also labeled libertarian and the her views are more specifically categorized, such as socially liberal. You're focusing on one particular dichotomy as categorization then stating it as fact - that's not accurate or appropriate. Morphh ^(talk) 05:54, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of all content policies is so that we neutrally reflect the current state of scholarship—with attribution where there are serious disputes, and without attribution where there are no serious disputes—because that's our whole goal here as an encyclopedia. Trying to hold to this "nonnegotiable" goal is not wikilawyering. Yes, there are plenty more accurate descriptions: We know they are accurate. But we are not reliable sources. If it were acceptable, common sense to downgrade the consesus of our reliable sources when we judge that they are being inaccurate, then the whole purpose of the content policies would be negated. What you are suggesting would result in us becoming POV pushers: Our POV is that it is inaccurate to call Geller right wing, so therefore we should downgrade the view that she is right wing from being the unanimous view of the scholars to being just a contentious view held by some scholars. If we accept this, then every POV pusher would just reject a description from the reliable sources because it is "inaccurate". The natural result: Insofar as there is POV pushing, there would be no direct statements made in Wikivoice within core policy. Sure, by slavishly following the reliable sources, we get things wrong in reality, but at least we get somewhere. We have to hope the reliable are accurate in reality—that's the best we can do. We're not supposed to be here to make corrections to the inaccuracies in our reliable sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that it is the consensus of reliable sources. What I see is that the term was added and then people went Google searching for sources to support its inclusion. Plenty of sources describe her more accurately and with other terms - even some of those same sources. And to clarify when they say "serious", they are talking about excluding the nonsensical, not referring to important or weighty. You're looking at a dichotomy when there is an array of terms and descriptions. The serious dispute is not right-wing vs left-wing, it's right-wing vs all the other terms used to describe her views in reliable sources. Morphh ^(talk) 06:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't think it is their consensus, then we have two cruxes to our disagreement. I accept a criterion which is pretty simple, and I think it and equivalent formulations are widely supported: A consensus exists when there is a significant number of reliable sources which affirm a point of view, and no significant number of reliable sources which deny the point of view. I think that describes this case. I never added the term; I was directed here from a noticeboard, and had never read anything by Geller before that point. Any accusations of improper "Googling" do not apply to me; I've read everything I could get my hands on. At this point, I believe I've read almost every academic response to her work in English (there isn't much at all in German or French that I could find; a mention in an article in the Journal für Psychologie, a couple others; and that exhausts my modern-language reading ability). There aren't really that many, and I'd love for anyone to point out one I haven't seen yet.

For example, of her three books, only the The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration's War on America has academic reviews, of which there are two, maybe three if you count a brief description in Moens' chapter in Tzifakis (ed.), International Politics in Times of Change (Springer, 2012) p. 36, which cites Geller and says: "Some fear that [Obama] appeases America’s enemies with naive diplomatic initiatives and generally speaks too softly and does not carry a stick". One is just a two-sentence entry in California Bookwatch Oct. 2010 (it reads, in its entirety: "THE POST-AMERICAN PRESIDENCY: THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION'S WAR ON AMERICA offers a call for Americans to stop the Obama administration from harming democracy. Obama's programs, this maintains, destroys the free-market system and nationalizes economic services: chapters delve into his agenda and why it's bad."). The other is the McElya, which says that she is a right wing blogger, etc. Certainly opposing the Obama administration is not inconsistent with being right wing!

As far as I can tell, I just gave you a complete survey of all the scholarly reviews of her books. That's not biased Googling. Anyway, when you do a thorough survey of the responses to her blogging and activism as well, by that criterion above it seems to me like there is a consensus. I'm not saying one cannot provide a significant number of sources which deny that she is right wing, I just don't think that has happened. The fact that sources describe her in other ways as well is nice, but not contradictory. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And, as noted, all of the "sources" using the term do so with regard to the Islam issues. And, for your information, with half the American populace now disfavouring Obama's administration, using that as a basis for "right wing" becomes ludicrous, alas. [15]. Cheers. What we can say is that writers about the Islam issue (ascribed opinions) have called her "right wing." That is all we can properly say per policy. Collect (talk) 13:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I also came here as part of the RFC and had no knowledge of Geller prior to the visit. I don't see it as disproving right-wing by requiring denial - I think that's a false assessment of the viewpoints. It is one description of her views among many descriptions, some of which contradict. There are differing opinions as how to describe her viewpoints and some descriptions are clearly more accurate than others. We could argue the WP:WEIGHT of right-wing, making it the majority opinion to describe her views, but it's still an opinion with regard to describing her views. Morphh ^(talk) 14:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I'm not saying that the California Bookwatch review (which says she opposes the Obama administration) supports that she is right wing, I'm just saying that it doesn't contradict that she is right wing: All I said was that the review is not inconsistent with the McElya. To all: Anyway (don't let me get the last word, but...) respectfully, I'll have to leave it at that. I'm sure our fundamental disagreements will result in some specific content dispute again in the future, so maybe one of you will have another chance to win me over. And, if you ever want the theoretical discussion of how we ought to assert statements, I'm always open to that, whether at the Village Pump or on my talk page. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you think you require a source calling her "left wing" to support a belief that "right wing" is "contentious" then I must ask you precisely where you got that idea. Argument from ignorance is considered a fallacious basis on Wikipedia. We have specific people making specific claims of opinion regarding her specific positions on Islam -- we can present those opinions properly cited as opinions but when we use Wikipedia's voice, we must have stronger sourcing than Nussbaum et al. Saying that "since we do not have a direct contradiction, that is the same as support" fails the logic test. Collect (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Geller's extreme anti-Islamic position defines her. Other issues she endorses or opposes have nothing of the media and academic attention given to her Islamophobia. That means we give very little weight to whatever left-wing positions that can be attached to her. Instead, we properly emphasize the right-wing position of extreme anti-Islamic racism. To do otherwise would be ludicrous. Binksternet (talk) 04:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

IOW, you aver that being "anti-Islam" is sufficient to label a person as "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice, when no definition of "right wing" is produced other than what you "know" to be true? Sorry -- that is not exactly how Wikipedia policies work. Find a definition of "right wing" stating what you aver first, please. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The article that covers right-wing doesn't mention Islam except to say that many Islamist groups have been called right-wing. It does however specifically mention opposition to abortion and homosexuality. Discussing due weight is a clear indication that we're dealing with an opinion and should not state it as fact. Anyway, like Atethnekos, I think I'm going to drop the stick. It's been a good debate. Morphh ^(talk) 16:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Being anti-Islamic is not sufficient to make someone right-wing. Being involved with right-wing groups, such as the EDL and U.S. conservative groups, while condemning "liberals" and "leftists" is. If Geller routinely spoke to Progressive Democrats and Marxist groups, and attacked "liberals" and "right-wingers", then she would be left-wing. TFD (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment Does she not identify as right-wing? Given that we are having this discussion, I am assuming she does not, in which case we should avoid it. However, I see no problem with the paragraph in the article (within subsection "Views") that describes her political views. If we are talking about the lead, it is probably best not to simplify her views as "right-wing." In reality, she is not known for her political views in general or as, for example, a conservative political activist. She focuses primarily on Islamic issues. So for the lead at least it is suffice to describe her as a critic of Islam, etc., and the rest that is on the lead. I am new to this discussion so if there is a point I missed you may kindly bring it to my attention. Hopefully we can resolve this dispute. --Precision123 (talk) 21:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

@Precision123:, the big dispute was essentially over this addition, with the essential issue being if we should say "she is right-wing ..." or "she is described as right wing ..." - the first is a statement of fact and the second attributes an opinion. The other part of the dispute was if right-wing was the best term (since it is sometimes used as a pejorative) and description of her views, since she is considered socially liberal on some issues such as abortion and gay marriage. Morphh ^(talk) 22:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (Thank you, @Morphh:.) In that case, I oppose that edit for a couple reasons:

(1) She is not known for right-wing activism, her activism is focused on Islam and Islam-related issues and controversies. While her political views may be right-wing in general or on one issue or another, the discussion of that can go in the body of the article, where it looks like it is already included in "Views." There it talks about her right-wing fiscal views and her more progressive views on certain social issues. I think it's fine that way.

(2) The second part of the edit is more troubling. It says she "has been described as Islamophobic and right-wing." Adding right-wing here is unneeded and irrelevant, but more importantly it seems misplaced when it coupled next to "described as Islamophobic," which is more of a slur. Her activism against Islam is well included in the article and it already mentions her other right-wing views. No need to POV push it. --Precision123 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Support directly describing as "right-wing" with no distancing clause. Looking at some of the quotes from her blog, right-wing is surely an understatement if anything, and absolutely not contentious. Neither "right-wing" nor "left-wing" are "attack labels"! Lots of people are perfectly comfortable with them as self-descriptors, and yes, I believe Geller is, even if I can't lay my hands on a quote right now — why wouldn't she be? Two kinds of pork, your problem with the KKK (in the first RFC) is an example of the undistributed middle fallacy. If I call an elm a tree and I call an oak a tree, I'm not thereby calling an elm an oak. Bishonen | talk 22:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC).

I strongly urge you to find that quote. This has been discussed extensively, and no-one has ever been able to provide a reliable source that suggests it is a self-descriptor. St Anselm (talk) 22:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Get back to me when a tree lynches someone or flies a plane into a building. There is a rule in this place that "protects" scumbags but is ignored when it suits someone? Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

[Intrigued.] TKOP, can you really not get your head round my ~~example~~ analogy? Then please forget it. Bishonen | talk 00:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC).

After editors showed numerous source say she is right wing it is time editors who oppose the text to move on. There is nothing controversial about the text. This is a case of editors who don't like what the reliable sources say. QuackGuru (talk) 18:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That's not the case at all. Charging users with WP:BADFAITH can be considered a personal attack WP:AOBF. Morphh ^(talk) 15:47, 16 February 2014 (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.