| Revision as of 00:20, 26 August 2010 editArjuna909 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,588 edits →Unbalanced POV← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:38, 16 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,323,539 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skiptotoctalk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talkheader}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
|
{{DYK talk|31 August|2010|entry=... that American blogger ''']''' has strongly defended former ]n dictator ] and ] of Serbian ]?}} |
|
{{WikiProject Politics}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=b|collapsed=n|blp=yes|listas=Geller, Pamela|1= |
|
{{pbneutral}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=Low|a&e-work-group=yes|a&e-priority=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative views|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state)|LI=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish Women}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 100K |
|
|
|counter = 9 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 4 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Archives |auto=yes |search=yes |title=] (]) |bot=lowercase sigmabot III |age=30 }} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
|
|target=Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive index |
|
|
|mask=Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive <#> |
|
|
|leading_zeros=0 |
|
|
|indexhere=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Previous version == |
|
== "$100,000 (5555h 34m)" == |
|
I was googling and found of this article. You might be able to use some of it. ] (]) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what this means... ] (]) 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
=="Controversial", and "false" claims == |
|
|
|
:I am not sure either so I have gone ahead and removed the "(5555h 34m)", if anyone disagrees they are welcome to revert me. ]<sup> ]</sup> 07:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC) |
|
] has twice reverted my edit of the following material (my additions are in bold): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Does this article need twelve citations following a sentence? == |
|
Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at '']'', concurred with Hooper's sentiments, remarking that "she's been instrumental, she has whipped up hatred in the right-wing blogosphere and now that's spilled out into the wider community."<ref name = "QueenHP" /> '''Media Matters has suggested that "Geller's history of outrageous, inflammatory and false claims, particularly when it comes to issues related to Islam, demonstrate that she cannot be expected to make accurate statements and should not be rewarded with a platform on national television." ''' (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I mean is having the first sentence in this section be followed by like twelve reference tags really conducive to the article, and is it conducive to readability? The answer to both these questions is no.--] (]) 19:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC) |
|
and |
|
|
|
:Sorry, but you're wrong. When I added Geller's quote about Islam being the "most genocidal ideology in the world," I had multiple shills question the quote until I used as many factual resources to support my edit. First, people are attacking the one or two sources which provide evidence. Now, people are complaining about too many sources used to provide evidence? It looks to me like people are just looking for anything to complain about. ] (]) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024 == |
|
'''Controversial postings''' on "Atlas Shrugs" have included '''a number of false''' claims, '''including''' that Supreme Court Justice ] (who is ]) supports ] ideology (accompanied by a fake picture of her in a Nazi uniform) (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting), video suggesting ] have ], a doctored photo showing ] urinating on an ] (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting), and '''false''' claims that Obama's mother was involved in pornography and that Obama dated a "crack whore".(for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting) Geller has also used her site to accuse President Obama of ] and doing the bidding of "Islamic overlords," while posting an essay suggesting, '''without any evidence''', that the President is the "]" of ].(for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pamela Geller|answered=yes}} |
|
On my talk page and the edit summaries, ] has made various accusations that this edit is ], that it is my "personal analysis", a "novel synthesis" of previously published material, and that it is "uncited". I take exception to his claims. To point out that Ms. Geller is "controversial" seems, well, not very controversial. That her claims cited in the article are "false" is also a demonstrably true statement, and provides necessary context for the naive reader. Finally, the material on the Media Matters statement is indeed well-cited. |
|
|
|
Change “The Morning Toast” to “The Toast, formerly “The Morning Toast”, taken in and produced by Dear Media network since 2023.” ] (]) 05:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] <sup>] ]</sup> 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2024 == |
|
I have no wish to get into an edit war, however Truthsort seems intent on keeping out relevant, well-cited, and acceptable material. I hope s/he will refrain from further disruptive editing. ] (]) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
:Arjuna has added unsourced content calling her postings as "false", and being "without any evidence". The sources that are used in this section are the Huffington Post and from her website. The Huffington Post makes no mention of these postings being "false". This is clearly a violation of ] in that this type of content needs to have a reliable source. I removed the MMfA content he added because it is ]. There is already criticism from MMfA in the article and more content from here will just give a disproportionate amount of weight. ] (]) 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Leave out the far right anti-Muslim nonsense. Everyone to the right of your extreme left is referenced as “far right “ on this biased forum. Also Pam is anti Islamist terrorist not anti Islam. — ] (]) 09:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::I have already addressed much of this above (it would have been more useful if you had added this into the section I created, but since you are relatively new here and may not have understood the need for convenience, I will do it for you). The false nature of these claims is self-evident, and thus needs no citation in the article (I mean seriously: Kagan, a Jew, supports Nazi ideology?). Does a sentence characterizing the claim that "the sun rises in the west" as "false" need to be cited? Can you possibly be serious in suggesting this? That would be very post-modern, indeed. ] (]) 06:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::The essay ] explains this perfectly |
|
|
|
|
|
::::<blockquote>Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Misplaced Pages article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Misplaced Pages:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.</blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] (]) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for your comments. First, I note that the material is still there today, so other editors in the last 24 hours don't seem to find "false", etc. to be objectionable. I believe that most, but not all, of the actual statements attributed to Geller are cited. I agree that those that aren't should be (I didn't contribute that material). The next issue is how to verify the claim that those Geller statements are indeed "false", which is a trickier proposition. Say, for example, that I am a bomb-throwing demagogue who makes the unsubstantiated claim on my blog that Beloved and Notable Public Person X is actually a heroin dealer, wife-beater, and pimp. Because that person is a public figure, libel laws do not apply. The claim is so absurd that no respectable news outlets will even dignify such a statement enough to bother refuting it. (Also, scientifically speaking it is impossible to prove a negative.) The only media sources that do note its falsity are other blogs, which are not appropriate sources of citations on Misplaced Pages. But to (effectively) re-publish that material without the context that they are self-evidently absurd is a disservice to the Misplaced Pages enterprise and the reader. What to do? At some level, common sense and decency should apply - i.e. such statements are self-evidently untrue and should be characterized as such. But to be honest, I have not had time to go through ] yet to see what if any specific policies may apply here, but this should prove instructive. If those guidelines don't clarify how to approach this, I think we should take this to the Admins at BLP, not because I'm trying to pick a fight with you, but because I genuinely think it's a gray area that needs to be clarified. So if we do need to do that, as far as I'm concerned it's an amicable process and hopefully you will see it the same way. Agree? ] (]) 03:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Indeed. Are we allowed to point out — in the absence of reliable sources — that the photo of Obama urinating on an American flag is doctored? Should we point out that the picture of Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform is fake? The somewhat absurd implication of User:Truthsort's reading of policy is that we cannot. — ] ] 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Arjuna, your entire argument is nothing more than ]. Unfortunately, you still do not seem to understand ], ] and ]. Misplaced Pages does not publish original research. Original research refers to content that is not published by reliable sources. If there is not a source for something you want to include in Misplaced Pages, it is then original research. To show that you are not editing in original research, you have to cite reliable secondary sources that are precisely related to the subject matter of the article, and that straightforwardly back the material as shown. Sure, Geller's post might be false, but in the end, the threshold for admittance in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. As far as the photo of Obama urinating on an American flag and the picture of Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform, that information is provided in the ] source and that content is not what I'm discussing. ] (]) 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have somewhat mixed thoughts on this topic. I don't like leaving readers with the idea that patently false statements may be true because we haven't refuted them. But I wonder, if it's so obvious a statement is false that its falsity doesn't need verifiability ("Throughout the world, the sky is usually a beautiful mixture of green and orange stripes."), why do we need to state it's false? If that's not the case (e.g., some Jews undoubtedly ''do'' support Nazi ideas – for various reasons), shouldn't normal rules of verifiability apply? |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Arjuna, you give an example where "the claim is so absurd that no respectable news outlets will even dignify such a statement enough to bother refuting it." A corollary to the old "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it..." might be "if a blogger makes an outrageous statement and nobody comments on it..." is it undue weight to mention it in Misplaced Pages in the first place? Geller writes a blog, and not much else. If she's ] enough to have a Misplaced Pages article, ''some'' reliable sources ''somewhere'' must have written ''something'' about her. If they haven't, we shouldn't be either. ] (]) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Fat&Happy, thanks for your comments, they are helpful. Indeed, it is not hard to find articles from reliable sources painting Geller as a loathsome demagogue, but I haven't found any yet that specifically refute her more wacky charges. I don't find this surprising for the reasons I already outlined. Simply to re-publish them gives them a hearing they do not deserve and is beneath the dignity even of the mainstream media (which is saying something, if I may editorialize a bit). Your point about including such statements at all, in that doing so may give them undue weight, is an interesting one. Fair point, and I think this deserves consideration. However, at the same time the vile nature of her claims is sufficiently well-known (indeed, as a sensationalist with little else to say, perhaps this is her claim to fame, but in this I most certainly am providing original research!). So it seems relevant to include examples of her outlandish claims, and as I have already argued, not to state that such charges are false or unsubstantiated seems an injustice to the spirit - and perhaps letter - of Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::As for examples of the difficulty citing refutations, have a look . Media Matters doesn't specifically come out and say that Geller's charge is false. It is so self-evidently absurd that it is accurately described as an "outlandish, offensive smear", which is a version of "false" but not that exact word. So at some point, dickering over such things becomes wikilawyering. Trust me, I've dealt with this sort of stonewalling before, and we don't want to waste our time with that kind of disruptive editing. Other examples of good reliable sources characterizing Geller (indeed, there is a wealth of material here that probably merits additional inclusion in the article but I will refrain for now) can be found and . Note that they don't discuss the specific Geller claims in question, and I'm not saying they do - in fact the point is that Geller is portrayed as such a fringe character that her actual views can hardly be taken seriously by serious journalists. I suspect that they feel to repeat certain statements as "false" gives such memes a dignity they do not deserve. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that human psychology is such that making a charge, even a demonstrably false one like "Obama is a Muslim" has a 'stickiness' that makes it hard to refute in terms of aggregate opinion. Corrective statements that "Obama is NOT a Muslim" are actually not that effective, since the meme gets stuck there and people tend to forget the "NOT" part. In any event, it is for this reason that I think it's important to make sure that Geller's statements' falsity be clearly acknowledged.) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::Truthsort, I'm disappointed in your response. I am trying to be constructive in acknowledging that this is a gray area, and that perhaps we should solicit the advice of BLP admins. Yet all you seem to offer is an accusation that I "don't understand" Misplaced Pages guidelines. All I can say is that while my understanding of every single Misplaced Pages guideline and policy is certainly far from perfect, I have been around for quite awhile and am pretty well-acquainted with Misplaced Pages policies. You seem to have read my reply but I'm not sure you understood it. I don't know how I can be more clear. I'm sorry to say that I don't really find your response very helpful. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I will add the Media Matters citation to the "Nazi" claim, and will look at Politifact, Factcheck.org, and Fact Checker (WashPo) to see if they have anything, though I doubt it for the reasons I have already given. Honestly, I suspect this is something that the BLP admins will have to provide guidance on, and that is something I am quite willing to initiate. Best, ] (]) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::I made some significant changes, including addition of several references to reliable sources supporting the claim. I also added reference to the mainstream perception of Geller, which I was careful to base on the ] article so as to avoid potential ] issues. ] (]) 10:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::I have opened a discussion on ] about this. ] (]) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::I agree that this is warranted. ] (]) 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Michael Oshrey == |
|
|
|
|
|
The former marriage does belong in Personal life. As she was listed as an owner, the investigation also is relevant. She appears to have been married although we need a source for that. I'm sure divorces are recorded online somewhere. ] (]) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Agree in principle but this keep in mind that ] policies apply and so this material needs to be approached with extra caution to avoid unfair guilt by association. All this material must be extremely well-cited using ] Cheers, ] (]) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::On further reflection, I agree with other editors that this material doesn't belong in the article unless it becomes a more salient issue in the media and can be well documented and cited. For now, it's guilt by association and unfair. ] (]) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Major EW violation == |
|
|
|
|
|
I have reported a user (]) for unrepentant edit warring on this article; most of Altivia's edits were done under an IP, then the IP was warned and the account "Altivia" was created, however it's ] that they are the same person. For more details relating to the discussion, see ]. ] (]) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:Agreed. This user seem quite vitriolic. Let's hope for a quick ban. ] (]) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Unbalanced POV == |
|
|
|
|
|
This looks a lot like an anti-Geller pig pile, not much mention of the valid research she's dug up on radical Islamist terrorism. She was one of the first to correctly declare Fort Hood a case of violent Jihad, which has still not been acknowledged by any official in the US government or military. Many of the persons and organizations quoted against her are precisely the parties she (and jihad-watchers) has accused of siding with Islamists. ] (]) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: I think ''you'' are the one who is trying to push a POV here. ] (]) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
::Lets remember ]. We can work together to create an article that represents an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources have to say. ] ] <font color="gold"> ''' ('''</font> ] 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Agree with ActiveBanana that the article must scrupulously meet standards, and I think it is both necessary and possible to make the article accurate while meeting those standards. Unfortunately, most of Bachcell's edits were highly POV (in addition to mis-citation of sources) and don't come close to passing muster. ] (]) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC) |
|
Leave out the far right anti-Muslim nonsense. Everyone to the right of your extreme left is referenced as “far right “ on this biased forum. Also Pam is anti Islamist terrorist not anti Islam. — 65.128.86.246 (talk) 09:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rusty4321 05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)