| Revision as of 22:13, 17 January 2019 editNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 edits →Discussion← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 19:38, 16 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,322,287 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (84 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|index=/Archive index}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{Round in circles|search=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|blp=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|class=C|listas=Geller, Pamela|politician-work-group=Yes|politician-priority=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Islam|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Long Island|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|class=C|importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{DYK talk|31 August|2010|entry=... that American blogger ''']''' has strongly defended former ]n dictator ] and ] of Serbian ]?}} |
|
{{DYK talk|31 August|2010|entry=... that American blogger ''']''' has strongly defended former ]n dictator ] and ] of Serbian ]?}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=b|collapsed=n|blp=yes|listas=Geller, Pamela|1= |
|
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=lowercase sigmabot III|age=30|small=no|dounreplied=yes}} |
|
|
|
{{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 |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav}} |
| Line 29: |
Line 29: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Islamophobia == |
|
== "$100,000 (5555h 34m)" == |
|
|
|
|
Are there any reliable sources that actually deny that many of Pamella Geller's statements are Islamophobic? If not, we don't need to qualify that and can state it as fact. Because there is certainly a long list of sources that agree that many of her statements are Islamophobic.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 14:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: You can't have it stated as a fact as there's no such thing as islamophobia. She's not phobic of them, she opposes their actions.] (]) 04:32, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:: That statement makes no sense and is based on strawman logic. Unless a reliable source denies that her statements are Islamophobic, then they can be stated as fact. ] (]) 15:41, 1 September 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Bizarre lede sentence == |
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence is bizarre: |
|
|
|
|
|
* ''Multiple media outlets have called her "far right", while others, such as the ], contrast her right-wing support for small government with her ] positions on abortion and same sex marriage.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
One, there is nothing notable about her views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage. Two, the text seems intended to dispute the widely used term "far-right" for her. Third, there's no need to attribute "far-right" to "media outlets". There's also no need to put far-right in quotes. |
|
|
|
|
|
I fixed the sentence but my edit was reverted by a blatant sockpuppet account. ] (]) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
: The BBC sources cited doesn't say far-right. It does say - {{tq|In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other.}}. Would would be a mixture of right-wing and left-wing politics in the US (on marriage & reproduction vs. the rest). You can not place "far right" unqualified in the lead here - all you have is some polemic sources uses this label - and other more mainstream sources refraining from it.] (]) 12:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::It's bizarre because the bit in the middle about the SPLC keeps getting removed by people who don't like that the SPLC rightly called her a right wing extremist. It's reliably sourced and due though so it boils down to ] ] (]) 14:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The paragraph says "right" three times when two would do. There's no consensus for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. That's a red-herring claim. ] (]) |
|
|
::::The SPLC position on her is definitely due in the lede. There's no clear consensus to keep it out, it's reliably sourced and your removal is plain and simple ] so I suggest you self-revert and put it back. ] (]) 17:01, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::First of all you are dismissing my points as subjective ("I don't like it") without considering them. This is not conducive to a discussion seeking consensus. Try again. ] (]) 17:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The SPLC quote is ''not'' duplicated in the lede. Your point is ''without merit'' and your conduct borders on ]. There's no demonstration of consensus; it's you who keeps reverting this statement out, to the detriment of the flow of the lede. ] (]) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::: We already have the SPLC calling her Islamophobic on the first paragraph in the lede - we don't need to reiterate the SPLC's position again. ] (]) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Biased article == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Critics believe she crosses the line from ...". Yet another biased article. The Misplaced Pages is a left wing propaganda organisation. "Opponents ...". On and on ... it's just a long condemnation, propaganda attack. Nothing about the millions of supporters. Nothing about the people that support her, the writers that agree with her. Just quotes from writers who oppose her. The whole article is politically motivated against her. Nothing to do with an encyclopaedia.] (]) 04:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
: What we need on Misplaced Pages is '''sources''' - ]. Do you have sources backing up the assertions you are making above?] (]) 04:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
:: You don't have sources on discussions of articles. A discussion is its own source. It's me doing it. The point I've stated is in clear English.] (]) 05:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I understood your point. And lets say for the sake of argument I agree - what are you specifically suggesting to change in the article? What should be removed (and why)? What should be added (based on what sources)?] (]) 05:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Several IPs, including this one, blocked for a month for block evasion. ] ] 18:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== grooming of Anders Behring Breivik on Pamela`s website == |
|
|
|
|
|
The article should clearly note the relationship Geller had with Breivik (]), in the lead-up to his mass-murderous attack. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:All I can find is that he was a fan, which isn't surprising - she obviously had an influence on her but I can't find a personal relationship. We can't make a claim like that about a ] without excellent sources meeting ].] (] • ]) 12:14, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You would need to show that the information is reported in articles about Geller, not just that she is mentioned in articles about Breivik. ] (]) 23:08, 27 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot seem to find it because she "pulled it" from her page. Other sources should be out there. Anyway, the technical people did her IT for her, kinda like hyping pop-music search results or the Russia social media thingee. Will keep an eye out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure what this means... ] (]) 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC) |
|
== "right-wing extremist" == |
|
|
|
: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) |
|
We usually attribute the SPLC. Furthermore, it would seem that most secondary sources covering Geller do not use this particular label (while they do use several other labels) - e.g. profile does not use this language). When attaching contentious labels to BLPs we generally follow labelling used in a wide spectrum of sources. There are several secondary RSes covering Geller over the years - which other sources have used this label? ] (]) 04:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
: I will further note that my reading of the cited SPLC source does not support "right-wing extremist" - I do not see that language there. The SPLC does use the extremist label as well as anti-Muslim - but not right-wing - please provide a quote supporting this.] (]) 04:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::Youll note that? But you didnt note that it says ''Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam.'' But sure, . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::: ''The Independent'' is possibly usable for American extreme-right. The SPLC does not support the specific assertion.] (]) 06:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: Right now, you have an epithet at the beginning of the 1st para., supported by an SPLC cit., and then at the end you have another, different epithet, supported by the same SPLC cit. It's as if Misplaced Pages has decided the ultimate arbiter of human thought is the SPLC. Sad. Anyway, the SPLC clearly says Geller is Islamophobic, but nowhere does it say she's a "right-wing extremist." ] (]) 07:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Yeah, SPLC doesnt support it, despite this already being quoted on this page<blockquote>Through her website, Geller has promulgated some of the most bizarre conspiracy theories found on the extreme right, including claims that President Obama is the love child of Malcolm X; that Obama was once involved with a "crack whore"; that his birth certificate is a forgery; that his late mother posed nude for pornographic photos; and that he was a Muslim in his youth who never renounced Islam.</blockquote>And also on this page there being another source that explicitly supports what you removed. I dont believe we put in quotes "right-wing extremist", making the argument that the SPLC does not say "right-wing extremist" a straw man. SPLC very clearly supports that, but regardless, when protection is lifted, Ill add the Independent source. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::::::The page '''is in a category called extremist files''' it has the word '''extremist''' on the left margin. The text of the article uses the word extremist an additional 12 times. The source '''quite clearly''' supports the statement and the argument against looks a lot like a POV motivatged ]. ] (]) 16:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::: It just doesn't support "right wing extremist". It supports extremist. It supports anti-Muslim. It support spreading conspiracy theories. Nowhere does the SPLC say Geller herself is right-wing - and they probably are careful since she actually isn't that easy to pigeonhole on the US spectrum (e.g. given her abortion stance).] (]) 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::: At the end of the first paragraph we have {{tq|" The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Geller as "Islamophobic".}} - which we could modify to "anti-Muslim extremist". ] (]) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{tq| is also a contributor to the far-right Breitbart News.}} Right there in the source. Which calls her an extremist over and over again. As I said, your argument against the characterization of the source is the ''definition'' of ]. ] (]) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::: No, I'm sticking to what the SPLC actually says - which is extremist and anti-Muslim. ] (]) 17:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I'm not really seeing justification for adding such a strong value judgement into the first sentence of the article, in WP's voice, in a ]. I think we'd be better off getting SPLC back into the last paragraph by improving the wording of the content that was edit-warred out . ] (]) 17:03, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think what is important is explaining what she is known for, which is her views on Islam. She may be a right wing extremist and it may be possible to source that, but it does not really help readers. Her perceived extremism mostly relates to her views on Islam. So anti-Islamist or similar wording is more descriptive. ] (]) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::It isnt just possible to source, it already has been sourced. . <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
:::By the expression "while it may be possible," I am saying that it is irrelevant. ] (]) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Except in that it demonstrates and example of how extreme right groups have used islamophobia as cover for normalizing their views. Geller is complicit in that process, and by refusing to characterize her as a right-wing extremist Misplaced Pages would be too. ] (]) 13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence == |
|
== Does this article need twelve citations following a sentence? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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) |
|
{{rfc|bio|rfcid=6AA346E}} |
|
|
|
: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 == |
|
Should the descriptor "right-wing extremist" be added to the first sentence of the article as proposed and discussed in the talk page section ]? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Pamela Geller|answered=yes}} |
|
Previous RfCs relevant to the descriptor of "right wing" and/or the wording of the first sentences of the article include: |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|answered=yes}} |
|
=== Discussion === |
|
|
|
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) |
|
* '''No'''. As a source for "right-wing extremist" has not been presented (we do have the SPLC calling her an anti-Muslim extremist, and some sources calling her right-wing, while others such as the note she's been denounced as bigoted, but frame her political stance as - {{tq|"In favour of abortion and same-sex marriages on the one hand, she is an enthusiastic supporter of right-wing small government - including cutting taxes and reducing budgets - on the other."}} - mixed). Geller is mainly known for her anti-Muslim advocacy (and not for her general political opinions) - and that's what we should be stressing. We do already quote the SPLC at the end of the first paragraph - it may be possible to tweak language there somewhat, or include a bit more of what the SPLC says. ] (]) 10:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' please provide ] that support the change you want to be made.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
::That seems to be a dishonest claim, given your comment that the Independent source that says is acceptable for "American extreme right". <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
::: ] please. ''The Independent'' supports extreme right - not extremist. As for right/left - other sources disagree (or paint a more complex picture) - e.g. the BBC. What all sources agree on (and what this subject is notable for) - is anti-Muslim. ] (]) 11:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Lol, sure, theres a personal attack in quoting you. Do you know what the word "extremist" means? It means somebody on the extreme. This pedantry has reached new levels. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''Yes''', the SPLC supports it, but even if one were to make the pedantic argument that it does not say both "extreme" and "right wing" in the same sentence, the Independent very clearly explicitly supports right wing extremist. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
*'''No''', We already have a sentence calling her "far right." There is little added by calling her "right-wing extremist" as there would by calling her alt-right, Neo-right, or Trumpeter-Right. "Far" and "extreme" are essentially the same thing. The lead would say "right" three times when two would do. There's no need for a triplicate reiteration. No one is objecting to using the SPLC as it occurs several times in the lead. I agree with the consensus that describing her as anti-Islamic (or equivalent) is more specific, exacting, and sums up the criticism in the article. ] (]) 12:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' The lead should emphasize the descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. ] (]) 13:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Yes''' Multiple reliable sources exist for Geller's right-wing extremism. No compelling reason has been presented to whitewash this person's political stance. Let's call this thing that quacks a duck and call it a day, shall we? ] (]) 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''No''' I think the earlier RFCs got it right: we shouldn't be making contentious characterizations of a ] in Misplaced Pages's voice, and the proposed characterization is overkill for the first sentence. Proposed ] that use similar but imprecise paraphrases from what is stated in RS's are also non-starters. ] (]) 16:17, 17 January 2019 (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)