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.
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 sourcedmust 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 has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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
This 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 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
This 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
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:
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.
Various criticisms including over reliance on primary source (her site)
Re this para:
Critics say that many other claims that Geller has posted in her blog are outrageous. For example, she has published articles that said black South Africans are engaging in a "genocide" against whites; that argued the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of Islam's holiest sites, should be removed; and that defended Slobodan Milošević and Radovan Karadžic, perpetrators of the Bosnian War and genocide against Bosnian Muslims and Croats, denying the existence of Serbian concentration camps and arguing that many Muslim war victims were murdered by their own people in order to bring condemnation on the Serbs. She denies supporting Milošević but has expressed skepticism of some accounts of the camps.
Firstly critics say that many of Geller's claims are false/racist/intentionally provocative and many other, more specific, things, so describing them as 'outrageous' seems bland.
Secondly - the description of Karadžic and Milošević as "perpetrators of the Bosnian War" is strange and vague. Karadžic was found guilty of genocide iro of Srebrenica (Muslims), but was not even so charged iro Croats - though he was found guily of lesser war crimes against Croats. Milošević of course died while being tried.
Thirdly the section seems over-reliant on the primary source of her own blog - this is inherently iffy, more so given the contentious nature of the content. I am not able to access many of the 'atlas' refs, so was unable to fix. Pincrete (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.
Oppose. Her views on these issues are not notable enough to be included in the lede. Geller is not known at all for her views on small government, abortion and same-sex marriage. There are two sentences dedicated to this in the entire body of the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
You're seriously arguing that this is a notable aspect to Geller's biography? Because one or two in-depth profiles of her have briefly mentioned her views on other issues besides Muslims, and despite the fact that only two sentences in the body of the Misplaced Pages article mention this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, as long as we have far-right, however I'd remove the whole 2-sentence last paragraph (so - no "far right", nor discussion on her viewpoint on abortion or same-sex marriage). Geller "is known for her anti-Islamic writings" as we currently in the second lede sentence. She is far less known for her wider political viewpoints. If we are to pigeonhole her as "far right" - then we need to discuss those wider views (which are discussed by the likes of the BBC). However, as Geller is primarily known for anti-Islam - I would advocate sticking to that in the lede, and not opening up a wider analysis on her mainly non-notable viewpoints on other political issues. Icewhiz (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Support The lead should summarize the article and there are several sources for her liberal views. See the sentence that says: She is "socially liberal" in her support of abortion legalization and same-sex marriages, but she believes drug legalization goes "too far".:130 If I remember correctly, the lead singled out the BBC reference because we concluded that we didn't want to express this in Misplaced Pages's voice. It is however in several sources such as the BBC, New York Times and a large section of a book. By the way, you're making many changes before discussing them in the talk. Why not do that instead of edit-warring? Jason from nyc (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. Geller is known for one thing and one thing only, and that's her views and activism in relation to Muslims. For the purpose of the lead section, I don't care what her views are on other subjects. Including Geller's views on these other topics is like including that Richard B. Spencer is pro-choice: a ridiculous distraction. R2 (bleep) 19:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose These comments read like a passive aggressive argument against her description as far right. If we want to present that argument it must be clearly stated and reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The sources provided don't support the idea that this is noteworthy enough to go in the lead; they mention these things only briefly and in passing, not as the main source of her notability. --Aquillion (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2019 (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.
I am not sure either so I have gone ahead and removed the "(5555h 34m)", if anyone disagrees they are welcome to revert me. Greyjoy07:53, 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)
.jpg){kind=small}
