Talk:Pamela Geller - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DannyS712 (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 23 February 2019 (→RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence: close as consensus against (DiscussionCloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:00, 23 February 2019 by DannyS712 (talk | contribs) (→RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence: close as consensus against (DiscussionCloser))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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.

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 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.

Biography: Politics and Government

	Biography portal 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 supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Low‑importance

	Islam portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

New York (state): Long Island Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal 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)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Long Island, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Women writers Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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:

Did you know... that American blogger Pamela Geller has strongly defended former Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic and denied the existence of Serbian concentration camps?

A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2010/August.

Misplaced Pages

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

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

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.

Islamophobia

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.VR _talk 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.213.205.241.129 (talk) 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. Shabeki (talk) 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 BBC, contrast her right-wing support for small government with her culturally liberal 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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

The BBC sources cited doesn't say far-right. It does say - 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.Icewhiz (talk) 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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT Simonm223 (talk) 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. Jason from nyc (talk)

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 WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I suggest you self-revert and put it back. Simonm223 (talk) 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. Jason from nyc (talk) 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 WP:TEND. There's no demonstration of consensus; it's you who keeps reverting this statement out, to the detriment of the flow of the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 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. Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"right-wing extremist"

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. this BBC 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? Icewhiz (talk) 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.Icewhiz (talk) 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, one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right. nableezy - 06:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Independent is possibly usable for American extreme-right. The SPLC does not support the specific assertion.Icewhiz (talk) 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." XavierItzm (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, SPLC doesnt support it, despite this already being quoted on this page

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.

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. nableezy - 16:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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 WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 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).Icewhiz (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the first paragraph we have " The Southern Poverty Law Center has described Geller as "Islamophobic". - which we could modify to "anti-Muslim extremist". Icewhiz (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

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 WP:TEND. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

No, I'm sticking to what the SPLC actually says - which is extremist and anti-Muslim. Icewhiz (talk) 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 BLP. 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 here. VQuakr (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It isnt just possible to source, it already has been sourced. one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right. nableezy - 17:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

By the expression "while it may be possible," I am saying that it is irrelevant. TFD (talk) 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. Simonm223 (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry, I didnt realize source were irrelevant on Misplaced Pages. Silly me. nableezy - 22:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

RFC: "right-wing extremist" in the first sentence

CONSENSUS AGAINST There is consensus against adding 'right-wing extremist' to the first sentence of the article, especially in light of the fact that 'right-wing' is already included. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 02:00, 23 February 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

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.

Should the descriptor "right-wing extremist" be added to the first sentence of the article as proposed here and discussed in the talk page section above?

Previous RfCs relevant to the descriptor of "right wing" and/or the wording of the first sentences of the article include:

05:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

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 BBC note she's been denounced as bigoted, but frame her political stance as - "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. Icewhiz (talk) 10:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That seems to be a dishonest claim, given your comment here that the Independent source that says one of the more controversial ascending stars of the American extreme right is acceptable for "American extreme right". nableezy - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

WP:NPA 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. Icewhiz (talk) 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. nableezy - 22:13, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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".Icewhiz (talk) 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. nableezy - 01:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

People living in glasss houses shouldn't throw stones... Please do not imply I am aligned with Geller in any way. Regardless, the Independent (which is but one source) does not use "extremist".Icewhiz (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There is a level of basic competence required here. A member of the extreme is definitionally an extremist. Again, pedantry, pedantry not in use when the subject is somebody whose politics you are opposed to. nableezy - 18:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Competence is indeed required, and extends to WP:CIV and WP:NPA. I am sympathetic to some of your editorial arguments here, but several of the comments you've made both above and below, implying hidden agendas, dishonesty, and a lack of integrity or intelligence are completely unacceptable--on this project, you are expected to keep your comments confined to the substance of another editor's argument and well clear of speculation regarding your take on their motivations, personal qualities, and general capabilities. From answering random RfC bot notices this last week, I note you are sparring with Icewhiz across multiple spaces right now, and while I will not presume to make the assumption that is all one-sided--obviously both of you have strong (and in some respects, diametrically opposed) beliefs which intersect with the subject matter of the types of articles you both are inclined to edit--I must tell you that, based on the above alone, Icewhiz could easily take you to WP:ANI and you would have a difficult time accounting for your conduct such as to avoid a sanction. Lucky for you, my limited experience of Icewhiz suggests he is quite thick skinned--so much so that I've seen him argue against sanction at ANI for editors who were there for making inappropriate comments to him. But I wouldn't push your luck, because others aren't likely to be so forgiving. Again, argue the point, not the other editor's supposed qualities or intentions as you suspect them to be. An inability to internalize and conform to this principle is likely to get your editing privileges curtailed from certain areas or removed entirely. Snow 05:24, 4 February 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. nableezy - 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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 WP:RS, and we'll be OK. XavierItzm (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Genius, the Independent calls her a member of the extreme right. nableezy - 01:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Genius is hardly an RS for calling someone a right wing extremist. One source that goes out of its way to not have the two in the same sentence is not good enough either. --Emir of Misplaced Pages (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

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. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
No The lead should emphasize the descriptions most commonly used in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 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? Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

We have an essay about the quack test that explicitly reminds us that we don't use it on article content. Especially BLPs. Regardless of whether the label is verifiable without invoking waterfoul, this is a discussion about whether the label is appropriate in the first sentence of the article. VQuakr (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

No I think the earlier RFCs got it right: we shouldn't be making contentious characterizations of a living person in Misplaced Pages's voice, and the proposed characterization is overkill for the first sentence. Proposed syntheses that use similar but imprecise paraphrases from what is stated in RS's are also non-starters. VQuakr (talk) 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. CordialGreenery (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No Absurd label and BLP violation. Besides, opinion columns are not reliable sources for statements of fact; see WP:NEWSORG.--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 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 "Palestinian extremists". The Kingfisher (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
No - against BLP and LABEL, seems not dominant position nor self-proclaimed, and not enough in article to merit LEAD position. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No (summoned by bot) - The WP:RS doesn't support this label even the SPLC doesn't support it(and we used it attributed anyhow).Moreover we should be really careful in WP:BLP and say exactly what source saying --Shrike (talk) 06:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No In a case like this, "extremist" is a value judgement, not enclyclopedic information. Also wp:BLP sets a high bar for such things, and this nowhere near meets it. North8000 (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
No - Summoned by bot. Violates WP:BLP and is far from neutral. Meatsgains 02:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Not easy enough from these sources to slap this particular label on a living person. Plus, one wonders if labels really do justice to this lady's particular particularities. Drmies (talk) 02:19, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
No. It's not the most cut and dry call, but I don't think there's sufficient WP:WEIGHT in the sources to justify this exact phrase in the very first sentence of the lead. As to the rest of the article, there's more than enough opportunity to leverage coverage in the sourcing regarding her extremism (ideally mostly through direct attribution, although some more generalized statements are also probably acceptable in this instance). But as regards the lead sentence, the phrase "right wing extremist" is not only problematic as a WP:DUE matter, it's also problematic for its lack of precision/lack of clinical encyclopedic tone; it gives an emotive effect without really telling the reader much of substance. The question of the subject's extremism can and should be discussed in the article at large, but in proper context. I understand the impulse to call a spade for a spade, but with regard to encyclopedic writing, the demand for specificity and context with regard to particular labels is paramount. Snow 04:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Right-wing" should be okay, since it's accurate about Geller's position on that political axis; but "extremist" is just WP:POV labeling, not encyclopedic wording. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 17:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Right-wing, but not extreme. Several sources support her political position on the right to left wing axis, but "extreme" isn't really encyclopedic. Especially when the sources used to back up "extreme" are shaky and likely not neutral themselves (they may have something to gain by describing her as "extreme" right wing. Calling someone "extreme" makes for a good click-baity title). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 11:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
'Right wing only - Extremist is a bit much however various sources state "right-wing" so I don't see a reason not' to include this. –Davey2010 12:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No (Summoned by bot)the sources don't support "extremist" and it is a bit meaningless as a label. Better to focus on her (dubious), notabilities which are primarily anti-Muslim, anti-Obama and fairly rabid rhetoric against anyone questioning support for Israel (her positions on Obama and Israel, in part being manifestations of anti-Muslim beliefs). Right-wing is justified, "extremist" isn't. Pincrete (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
No (Summoned by bot) given that I can't seem to find many news sources (sample size of 10 random articles about the subject) that describe the subject as being "extreme right-wing". Hickland (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not: that's just POV editorialising, only a step up from WP:TERRORIST. SITH (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
No "extremist" connotes extreme views and direct action, stuff like shouting down speakers, sit-ins, workplace occupations, disrupting meetings, blocking intersections, hacktivism - stuff the NYPD runs you in for doing it. As far as I can tell, Geller talks. She talks a lot. She says some pretty extreme anti-Muslim stuff. But it's not legally defined as incitement. It is not activity. It's just talk.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
No. I can only find reliable sources supporting "right-wing", "far-right", "alt-right", "not moderately right", "anti-Muslim", "possibly not far-right", "Islamophobe". I found sources for "provocateur" (and "agitator"), but that's WP:LABEL (and typical of the mysoginist media). The closest to the proposed wording (which is only supported by The Independent and Chemi Shalev ) I could find is for "anti-Muslim extremist" (or the PC version "anti-Islam extremist"). Also note that Robert Spencer says that calling Geller an "extremist" is a smear , making me less comfortable supporting it. Finally, I only searched for "Pamela Geller", and not "Pam Geller". (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 09:32, 21 February 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.

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)

Categories: