Misplaced Pages

Talk:Pamela Geller

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 is an old revision of this page, as edited by L'ecrivant (talk | contribs) at 19:45, 7 September 2010 (Lawsuit against Pamela Geller). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:45, 7 September 2010 by L'ecrivant (talk | contribs) (Lawsuit against Pamela Geller)(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.
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: 10 days 
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
WikiProject iconBiography Unassessed
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics Unassessed
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

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: 10 days 

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2008. The result of the discussion was delete.
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

Previous version

I was googling and found an earlier version of this article. You might be able to use some of it. Flatterworld (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it's conventional to include an {{oldafdmulti}} with a link to the old deletion discussion, right? I'll set that up. (This version of the article has so clearly transcended the concerns in the old AFD, but I think it's just a conventional thing to do.) Andrew Gradman /WP:Hornbook 08:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Michael Oshry

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 at least from 1997 to 2006 although we need a source for that. I'm sure divorces are recorded online somewhere. Flatterworld (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle but this keep in mind that WP:BLP 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 WP:V Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 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. Arjuna (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Clearly not - the charges were filed against the husband, not the subject of the article. And those charges were dropped. Can you get any more blatant example of WP:COATRACK? Active Banana ( 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and just reverted someone's reinstatement of that material. Arjuna (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Misstatements about this are circulating. Just as Misplaced Pages addresses false rumors about Obama being a Muslim, we should address false rumors about Geller being involved in this. I don't agree with her views, but I don't want people practicing 'guilt by association' out there while we do nothing to counteract those rumors. The focus should be on her views and actions, and that means we can't ignore this. Hope that's clarified the argument on this. Flatterworld (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
WP:BLP wikipedia is NOT part of the echo chamber. Active Banana ( 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
That's EXACTLY my point. We are supposed to provide the facts, which is why we DO address the actual facts behind rumors. I'm not pleased you're calling this an 'edit war', claiming there was any sort of consensus. Arjuna isn't a 'consensus', particularly when she has her facts wrong. Oshrey wasn't charged, the company was. Geller was listed as an owner of the company. Whether she knew about it or not, likes it or not, she's involved. That's why, imo, it's important to state she didn't know about. Otherwise, the assumption is that she not only was a part-owner, but also knew about it. Flatterworld (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
{sarcasm on}Yeah, we need more of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" "journalism"{sarcasm off} Active Banana ( 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Meanwhile, instead of imitating an ostrich, I'm trying to find out more facts about this. The District Attorney's office listed those charged. I did not find Universal Auto in the NY Court System site, but I did find this defendant, and his case in ongoing (next court date this October, assuming he's the same person). I was hoping to find a clear resolution one way or the other. Flatterworld (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Flatterworld, please read WP:WELLKNOWN. If an arraignment or occurrence is notable and appropriate it can be included in the article. If it is not reported by reliable third-party sources, it should not be included. Truthsort (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Truthsort, the District Attorney's office and the NY Court System are official government sites. They are considered reliable sites. Flatterworld (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
See here. Do not use court records or public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless there are secondary sources. Truthsort (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
You misunderstood that link. If the documents are posted on the internet, the website is considered a 'secondary source'. What we don't want is people referencing, say, a printed court transcript they happen to have found. Or perhaps someone's birth certificate. ;-) Much of our material about politicians, for example, is found on the government website(s) for their particular position. If we have to search the web to ensure someone else duplicated that information (and hopefully without error!) we would be scoring an own goal. (And yes, I suppose that link should be clarified so others don't repeat your mistake and start deleting every single article that relies on what's in U.S. government websites, including the The World Factbook - and all the UN information and statistics - which would mean deleting all our articles about countries, cities, provinces, politicians.... Flatterworld (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
The first part you wrote is not automatically true. The press release you got from the district attorney is a primary source, regardless of it being on the internet. A government’s documents are direct evidence of its activities, functions, and policies and thus are primary sources. Yes most information on politicians is found on government sources, but we are not discussing politicians. We are discussing whether primary sources can be used to include arraignments like this in a BLP and the answer is no. The last part of your comment is just a slippery slope argument. Truthsort (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Whatever. You're obviously determined to find a way to convince yourself, if no one else. Enjoy. Flatterworld (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw this page on DYK (good work folks!) and I am interested by this uncertainty over the meaning of the policy on not citing to court documents in BLPs. I, too, found the purposes of the policy to be unclear, and asked about it at the talk page. I was also bold and revised the policy to reflect my best guess as to its purposes. I am letting you know this because the policy will now (I hope) be in flux for a bit, and won't be reliable until a new consensus is formed. Cheers. Andrew Gradman /WP:Hornbook 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

Brushing aside the fact that Huffington Post is not a great source for BLP content, the description of Geller there is limited to her being the locus/initiator of the backlash against the Cultural center and "she has co-founded groups dedicated to fighting the "Islamization" of America, sponsored anti-Muslim ads in several cities, and, more recently, become a near daily presence on television news programs." and "Geller's groups, Stop the Islamization of America, and the Freedom Defense Initiative, have bought ads critical of Islam on public buses" to translate what the source actually says to "She is an advocate against violent Islamism" requires way too much interpretation. Active Banana ( 01:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

and while "not every single word needs to have a citation", in a BLP every single contentious claim DOES need to accurately reflect a reliable source. Active Banana ( 01:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"She is an advocate against violent Islamism" is a "contentious claim"?!? That is her whole raison d'etre, and one that she professes proudly! Please read Misplaced Pages guidelines, you seem to be missing something completely fundamental. Please be aware that this kind of editing can be seen as disruptive. Arjuna (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I am very familiar with WP:BLP - are you sure that you have read it? Active Banana ( 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Strongly agree with with Banana. Saying Geller is against violent Islam is like claiming Hitler was only against Jews who didn't make nice bagels. NickCT (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
AB, but did you understand it? NickCT, um, your point is not very clear. Perhaps you saying that the point needs to be cited because she is an advocate against Islam in general? That claim could also be supported, but I don't think we want to go there. Arjuna (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The "violent Islamism" wording was added by Bachcell: . And yes, I agree with AB and NickCT that it's not the best way of wording it. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Apologies for not being clear. "she is an advocate against Islam in general". This was my point. I think the Huffinton stuff would support it no? NickCT (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, look, I think we need to follow BLP on this - although to rational outside observers her actions and statements can be seen to be pretty clearly anti-Islam in general, she has said specifically that she is not and it's hard to prove that what she says is wrong other than to provide examples that provide clear evidence to the contrary (which is, let's just say, quite ample). If I misunderstood your position AB, I apologize - actually I was trying to protect against overstatement (ex. "she hates all Muslims!") and saying that she is "against violent Islam" is stating the obvious - i.e. non-controversial claim. If that's what this is about, then I agree then that we need to get around this by finding different wording, since as Stonemason points out, it was a POV-pushing editor who apparently put it there in the first place. Arjuna (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Arjuna - I appreciate the points you've made about BLP, and largely agree. My own personal opinion is that, Geller is your typical "religous bigot". Unfortunately, WP:OR&WP:BLP only allows us to point out all the religously biggotted things that RS's have reported her doing. Alas, we can't call a duck a WP:DUCK.
That said, I'm seriously against describing her as solely against "violent Islam", b/c I think that is a gross misrepresentation of her positions which would raise all sorts of WP:NPOV issues. So if we can't say "anti-Islam" in general, what kind of neutral language is there? Perhaps, "vocal critic of Islam, and activist in many percieved anti-Islamic causes"?NickCT (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
What we can say is what reliable sources have said. Unfortunately, most of the citations in the article are from advocacy sites and not standard reliable sources. Active Banana ( 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) The Chicago Tribune describes Geller as running an "anti-Islam campaign". Salon describes her as "viciously anti-Muslim"; an "anti-Muslim agitator"; and an "anti-Muslim zealot". The New York Daily News characterizes her organization's bus ads as "anti-Muslim hate", and "hatemongering". The Washington Post refers to Geller's "anti-Muslim blog Atlas Shrugs". Vanity Fair calls her blog a "hate site". Media Matters describes her as "anti-Muslim". The Miami Herald describes her group as "anti-Muslim". And then there's the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Huffington Post, both already mentioned, that decribe her as anti-Muslim. We certainly have ample grounds to characterize her as anti-Muslim, given that these RS do so, despite her media-savvy protests to the contrary.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The man's got a point! More important than that.... he's got RSs! NickCT (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Ohio - great work. On his blog at the Atlantic (which btw, is definitely a RS), Jeffrey Goldberg calls her a "shrieking bigot", "lunatic racist", and "marginal nutbag". We have already conclusively demonstrated that SPLC's "Hatewatch" is a RS as well. Arjuna (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate the kind words, thank you NickCT and Arjuna.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
There's also The Alyona show, on RT, for 03 August 2010. The segment about Geller begins at 19:50. At 26:10, when the reporter is taking exception to her claim that she's not against Islam, by asking about her since-removed blog post of a drawing of Mohammad with his face replaced by that of a pig, this follows:
Geller: First of all, I don't know where it is in America that you can't make jokes or make fun. I mean you had Robert Mapplethorpe put a cross in a glass of a, a ..
Reporter: So you think it's funny to have the prophet Mohammad as a pig?
Geller: Who cares?! What difference does it make? I mean, this is America!
Oh, and besides the above, there's also the Anderson Cooper 360 show on CNN. The show described Geller as a "right-wing anti-Muslim blogger". ( See 2:23 into video. ) I don't know Cooper's show, don't know whether it qualifies as a reliable source, though. I need to learn more about it, and also re-read WP:RS and WP:BLP. The Alyona Show, btw, is also available on youtube, wherein the above exchange occurs at 5:48 into the video. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help clarify?

This hit from google news isnt really clear to me. Is it Campus Watch reprinting one of Gellers Atlas Shrugs post? And did Geller really say Arabic "is explicated the language of Islam so in that sense it is part of the Islamic religious imperial project. Radical Islam advances through the Arabic language." Active Banana ( 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there's a link to the original at the top of the page, you can click through to see what Geller really said. To save you the trouble, the short answer is "Yes, in boldface". Campus Watch appears to be similar to MMFA in concept, linking and reprinting articles from media and the blogophere to comment on and advance their views. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Except that Campus Watch actually supports Gellerites. She actually said "Radical Islam advances through the Arabic language"? Talk about paranoid....it's amazing there are actually editors on here trying to claim she isn't a conspiracy theorist. "Radical Islam" is like her New World Order or North American Union. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Stonemason89, please remember to not use the talk page as a forum. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not whether you think she is "paranoid". Truthsort (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

fundraising for a gravestone - not accepted

Here is another intersting event but I am not sure how to properly condense it. Active Banana ( 17:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a tragic thing, but in the scope of Misplaced Pages, it's trivial/not encyclopediac, and Geller's role is not worthy of inclusion in the article. We all do (or should) nice things, but not because it will merit inclusion in our biography in an encyclopedia. Arjuna (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (Amended Arjuna (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC))
Arjuna, I wonder if you'd consider reverting that statement? Or replacing it with a more policy-based one that can't be interpreted as dismissive or disrespectful? I don't think you meant to communicate either of those things, but those are what I come away with on reading your comment. If you can honor the request, then would you also please delete this post of mine, as well? I'd be very grateful for both favors. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Please note: Arjuna has kindly revised his previous statement, above, which makes this request now obsolete.  – OhioStandard (talk)
With respect, Ohio, I don't understand why I would need to. Because I didn't use a complete sentence? Because I offered summary judgement? I was writing on the fly, not being disrespectful or uncivil. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. I didn't think you meant to be disrespectful or uncivil, that's just the way the response is most immediately construed by my own admittedly fallible brain. And I have no objection in principle to brief replies, despite my apparent inability to make them myself. :-) My objection was partly due to the pathos of the girl's unremembered life and death. It's my opinion that Geller was trying to gain political capital by her offer, but I still don't think a story involving a child's murder and her family's disregard can fairly be called "trivial". And "unencyclopedic" doesn't really convey any information to me. Besides, the story brings up an important question: How many so-called "honor killings" have taken place in North America? ( Presumably if Geller's organization had found more than one, she would have offered to remember or memorialize all victims in some way. ) If only one, then is her motive for running ads on buses all over America really to help potential victims? If she were primarily concerned with helping potential victims, then wouldn't she have used her money to pay for efforts to prevent the killings in countries where they are less rare? Back to your wording, to close: I suppose I also would have been less likely to object if it had been unequivocally clear that it was the story itself that you were characterizing as trivial, and not ActiveB's post. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Ohio. Certainly the event is a tragedy and just speaking personally I find it completely appalling. When I said "not encyclopediac", I was referring to the fact that not everything that happens in the world is worthy of being on Misplaced Pages - as per Misplaced Pages's guidelines and policies. As the policy says, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", and "even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." That is what I was referring to - in shorthand - and my regrets to you and to AB if that was not clear. I will amend my comment above to make it clear that I'm not being insensitive. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
"Jolly decent of you", Arjuna, as the Brits say; thank you. Feel free to delete anything I've written so far in this thread, if you think that cutting away the underbrush would be helpful. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind if I were to do so, to leave just ActiveB's original post, followed by your now-revised reply? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ayn Rand

I was wondering why Pamela Geller is such a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and then I saw this; note the paragraph about Ayn Rand. Might be worth adding some mention of that to provide background of Rand's views and how they compare to Geller's. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Though interesting, that would be pure original research and synthesis unless some reliable source has drawn a connection. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps that link belongs in the Ayn Rand article. Many articles link to it, but Ayn Rand's isn't one of them. Flatterworld (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Interesting, although I agree with Fat&Happy. Arjuna (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Leading tag(s)

Let's use this section to discuss the placement and removal of leading templates or "tags" at the top of the article.

The one I want to focus on at the moment was just placed by user Active Banana. So, Active Banana: I see you placed a refimproveblp tag at the top of the article, which generates the text: This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful. Possibly I missed some, but I've gone through the article line by line, and I haven't found a single statement that's not supported by a citation. So can you please copypaste the individual sentences below that you think are "unsourced or poorly sourced", so we can discuss them? Otherwise we'll have no way of knowing what you're really objecting to. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FAR far too many of the "sources" used in this article are 1) advocacy/opinion sites and 2) primary sources. The article is in desperate need of reliable third party non-opinion sources. Active Banana ( 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You have a right to make the statement, but no one can evaluate it properly if you refuse to be more specific about which sentences you object to. Again: please show us exactly which sentences you're claiming are unsourced or improperly sourced. It's a short article; it won't take you long. I went through it line by line, and looked at every cite; it won't take you long to do the same and let us know exactly what you're objecting to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I DO NOT have to identify "particular" sentences which I object to when my concern is that the article OVERALL relies far to heavily on opinion pieces, advocacy sites and primary sources. Active Banana ( 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
No need to shout, I can read lower case just as well. The problem is that I have no idea what you're talking about. That's why I'm asking you to be more specific. Geller's blog is a primary source in an article about her. Is that what you're objecting to? Are you saying newspaper articles are primary sources? Or that a newspaper article about her is an opinion piece? Or that you dispute, say, The Huffington Post as a reliable source? If you won't be more specific, you're basically saying that you have your own reasons for placing the tag but you won't tell the rest of us what they are. There's no need at all to construe this as some kind of conflict, we just need to know what you object to more specifically than you've disclosed so far in order to have a conversation about the tag, that's all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I second Ohio's request for specifics, which is a perfectly legitimate request. AB, please be advised that repeated objections to material while refusing to answer questions about what specifically an editor finds objectionable is disruptive editing. I hope we continue to maintain standards of civility here - no need for shouting. Arjuna (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Media Matters - advocacy site. Huff Post / Salon opinion - editorial sites (generally respected opinion sites, but opinion sites nevertheless. Misplaced Pages editors selecting Primary sources blog posts (WP:OR). Additional primary sourcing from her opinion piece in Arutz Sheva, and quoting her appearance on RT and CNN. The NY POST fer gods sake. Another opinion piece in the Chicago Trib. We have the NYT - verifying a claim that her exhusband remarried and then died and a Wash Post quoting her that her blog is inspired by Rand. Leaving the Guardian, NY Observer, two references from NY Times, and a passing reference on NPR as standard reliable third party sources supporting encyclopedic content about this woman. In an article this long, that is bad. Active Banana ( 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Active Banana, that makes things much clearer for me. I'll think this over, review the policies that apply, and get back to you after I've had the chance to carefully consider what you've said here. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, AB. Arjuna (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit against Pamela Geller

Of interest? , -- L'ecrivant (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories: