Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pamela Geller: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:44, 22 January 2019 editIcewhiz (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users38,036 edits →Discussion← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:38, 16 November 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,322,292 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 8 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "B" in {{WPBS}}. (Fix Category:Pages with redundant living parameter)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(69 intermediate revisions by 50 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)


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)
::::Im sorry, I didnt realize source were irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Silly me. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)</small>


== 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 --> ]&nbsp;<sup>]&nbsp;]</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>
::::: Holding extreme positions and being an extremist are not the same. The former is required for the latter, however the latter implies active advocacy and promotion of the former often via resorting to extreme actions as well. You did more than merely quote me - you alleged dishonesty, which you should strike. I will note that in English the connotation of nouns, verbs, and adjectives often varies - as an example if a RS says "X terrorized her co-workers, instilling an atmosphere of terror in the office" it would not be sufficient sourcing for us to say that "X is a terrorist".] (]) 04:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
::::::The Independent does not say she holds extreme positions. It says member of the extreme right. Note whatever you wish, but Ill note your argument is both pedantic and in direct conflict to arguments you make regarding people whose politics you are less aligned with. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)</small>
::::::; People living in glasss houses shouldn't throw stones. Regardless, the Independent (which is ine source) does not use "extremist".] (]) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
*'''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 it does not. You are drawing your own conclusions. The SPLC does not say anywhere (that has been presented here) that Geller is «right-wing extremist». Not to mention Misplaced Pages is exposed to liability by defaming people based on one particular, highly biased entity's assessment. Bring a prevalence of ], and we'll be OK. ] (]) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
:::Genius, the Independent calls her a member of the extreme right. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 01:12, 22 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)
* '''No''' The cite is shaky at best and using Misplaced Pages's voice in this way seems misleading and counter to NPOV. ] (]) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''' Absurd label and BLP violation. Besides, opinion columns are not ] for statements of fact; see ].--] (]) 05:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
* '''No''' At best the Independent comes close, but doesn't even label or support "right-wing extremist" as proposed. For a label as inflammatory and POV as this, should have several RSs to support it. But hey, if this flies, then I guess so will "". ] (]) 17:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:38, 16 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pamela Geller article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
A fact from Pamela Geller appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 August 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/August.
Misplaced Pages
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography: Arts and Entertainment / Politics and Government
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconAlternative views Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconIslam Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York (state): Long Island
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York (state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.
WikiProject iconPolitics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen writers Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconJewish Women
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.


Archives (index)

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9


This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.


"$100,000 (5555h 34m)"

Not sure what this means... AnonMoos (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure either so I have gone ahead and removed the "(5555h 34m)", if anyone disagrees they are welcome to revert me. Greyjoy 07:53, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

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.--Phil of rel (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

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. Shabeki (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change “The Morning Toast” to “The Toast, formerly “The Morning Toast”, taken in and produced by Dear Media network since 2023.” 2601:183:427E:F50:C986:4FD:FBD2:D5E6 (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rusty4321  05:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 12:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Categories: