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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:41, 25 December 2013 editTwo kinds of pork (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers3,055 edits →Proposed sources: Reply← Previous edit Revision as of 04:53, 25 December 2013 edit undoMilesMoney (talk | contribs)3,474 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 238: Line 238:
:Like I said, the author's identity isn't particularly important. What makes it reliable is that it was published by a source known for competent fact-checking. Given how litigious the UK is with regard to defamation, we can infer that 4 News felt very comfortable with the characterization. ] (]) 04:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC) :Like I said, the author's identity isn't particularly important. What makes it reliable is that it was published by a source known for competent fact-checking. Given how litigious the UK is with regard to defamation, we can infer that 4 News felt very comfortable with the characterization. ] (]) 04:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
::And as I and Collect have said it ''is'' important. Inferences are not good enough. Take a trip over to RSN. Speculating is rash and sometimes reckless.] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC) ::And as I and Collect have said it ''is'' important. Inferences are not good enough. Take a trip over to RSN. Speculating is rash and sometimes reckless.] (]) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
:::Flat out, the source is reliable and calls her right-wing. If you want to go to RSN over that, feel free. ] (]) 04:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:53, 25 December 2013

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.
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 the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: 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 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.
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.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
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.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIslam
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
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconUnited States
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???This article has not yet received a rating 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.
WikiProject iconAlternative views
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
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Pbneutral

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 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 

Human rights activist.

Gellar speaks about Islamists violations against woman and non Moslems. We should add human rights activist.64.134.64.118 (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Baloney. She speaks against the rights of many others. Binksternet (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Right-wing according to RS

  1. http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/okeefe_npr_pamela_geller/
  2. http://www.channel4.com/news/usa-right-wing-activist-pamela-geller-banned-from-uk
  3. http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/subway-islam-hater-hits-de-blasio-article-1.1496110
  4. http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/07/25/fox-news-has-mainstreamed-pam-gellers-islamopho/183150
  5. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-09-25/national/35494766_1_subway-ads-afdi-pamela-geller Lots of RS for this. QuackGuru (talk) 04:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I think that the Washington Post and NY Daily News are the two best sources, but the rest are reliable for saying the obvious about Pam. I am confident that there is no BLP risk here. MilesMoney (talk) 04:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The Channel 4 reference is also completely reliable for identifying the subject of this article as right-wing. Don't overload the statement with sources; just channel 4 and NY Daily News should be fine. I agree with Miles that there is no BLP risk with this sourcing. VQuakr (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
But far right is not adequately sourced for a categorical descriptor. I'm removing the category. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
But we don't have another category for "extreme far right". QuackGuru (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
So there are certainly some observers who agree with the categorization as far right. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
DO any of these observer find it ironic that Geller has a problem with what they would call far-right? Arzel (talk) 22:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Why would they care? Geller might be putting up a smoke screen against the far right because she does not want to be labeled far right. We don't let Geller choose her position on the political continuum. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Everyone chooses their position on the political continuum. The left, however, feels that only it can verify where that position actually resides. Arzel (talk) 06:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are some. First of all these are basically partisan left-wing writers. Secondly, they are UK writers and their definition of “far-right” may be very different than the USA. If we are going to categorically label Geller “far-right” and not just “right-wing” we would be able to find others on the right that see her as persona non grata. She has written for the venerable journal “Human Events” and has John Bolton giving and introduction to her book. Thus, the “far-right” label is one generated by partisan opponents and not universally accepted. Our category for the “far right politics in the USA” has persons like David Duke who is shunned across the political spectrum. Indeed, most of that category lists anti-Semites. British usage might draw the line closer to the center but in America she hasn’t yet been ostracized from polite conservative circles. It’s too soon for a categorical classification as per WP:CATEGORY “essential—defining—characteristics” criteria. Jason from nyc (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
Yup, in America hating Jews makes you far-right, hating Muslims makes you only right. Sepsis II (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Quack, this selection of sources is risible. None of them (with the possible exception of HuffPo) can be considered reliable for this context. Heck, at least two of them (Express and Media Matters) aren't reliable in any context. Roccodrift (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories and WP:COP are worth re-reading on this topic. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The idea that Geller is only far-right in the UK is disproven by the Gary Weiss quote already in the article. He's American and calls her far-right. MilesMoney (talk) 04:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
We're practically swimming in reliable sources for "far-right", so I don't see any problem with using it. Likewise, the category has individuals in it, such as David Duke, so that's not a reason to exclude her. After due consideration, I'll be reverting the removal of these two items. MilesMoney (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh really? So where are all these reliable sources? Got any that aren't aligned with the far-left? Because that's all we've seen so far. Roccodrift (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You really don't have to like these reliable sources, but they've been listed here and we can add as many of them as you like to the article. Sources do not have to be neutral to be reliable, and if you think the Guardian is far-left, you don't understand the term. I'm going to politely ask you to revert yourself now. MilesMoney (talk) 04:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Remember, context is the key. Sources don't necessarily have to be neutral to be reliable (although it certainly helps), but often times they need to be neutral in order to be convincing. Since the whole world is awash in these reliable sources supporting Geller's placement at the far right end of the spectrum, I'm sure you will have no trouble at all coming up with something better than the usual left-wing hate sites and blogs that you usually bring. Roccodrift (talk) 04:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Huffington post is a hate site now? Seriously, I think an unnecessarily high standard is being applied here, but I suggest WP:RSN to get a broader evaluation. And yes, we do not need to bring blog sources there since we already have mainstream journalists saying the same thing. VQuakr (talk) 04:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Cute straw man, but unhelpful. And yes, the standards are high in a BLP. In any event, the HuffPo story was written by a U.K. author for a U.K. audience, where the subjective notion of left and right is somewhat skewed from that in the U.S. or the rest of the world. (Mind you, in the U.K. somebody like Phil Robertson might very well be in jail right now, because of their delicate sensibilities.) Roccodrift (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Enough. The Gary Weiss shows that she's far-right even in America, and not a single thing you said is the least bit convincing. The consensus does not support your edit. MilesMoney (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Still finding it extremely ironic that being against radical Islam is considered "Far-right" when radical Islam grants women no rights...and in America the left accuses the right of a War on Women. Quite odd indeed to see the left defend a true war on women. Arzel (talk) 06:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention how Islam treats gays, which are hanged, stoned or beheaded merely for being gay in many Muslim countries. Yeah, "ironic" doesn't begin to cover it. But, WP:NOTFORUM, so let's ignore the flagrant (and puzzling) leftist hypocrisy and stick to discussing the credibility of leftist sources. Roccodrift (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
None of your incivility looks like an argument against any of the reliable sources which characterize Pam as far right. MilesMoney (talk) 06:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Gary Weiss is an outlier. There is no general pattern of classifying Geller on the far right on this side of the pond and the category is far-right politics in the United States. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Overall, the prohibition against individuals in bias groups and potentially libelous classifications is the most important point. It's an important BLP concern. Yes, I've seen it violated several times and I personally cleaned up several categories from time to time. These matters aren't policed very well but the rule is established and WP:OTHERSTUFF will have to be dealt with in other articles. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're wrong about Weiss, but it doesn't really matter. The SPLC is American and it's an authority on what constitutes the far right. Along with all the other sources (including Weiss and the Guardian), this is not something that is disputable. When I get a minute, I'll take this to BLP and override the three of you. MilesMoney (talk) 15:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The SPLC has their opinion, but they are not the authority on who is what. Perhaps if they were not so biased they might carry more weight. Arzel (talk) 19:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
But first you might want to read WP:BLP with special attention to WP:BLPCAT and don't forget WP:COP. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
You're going to need to point out what specific sentences from those two links are relevant. Remember, we already have multiple reliable sources for "far-right". MilesMoney (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no debate she is far-right according to RS. QuackGuru (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you are confusing biased people calling her "far-right" versus a neutral point of view of what she actually is. We don't use the opinion of biased people to WP:LABEL others in WP:BLP articles. The designation of "far-right" needs strong consensus. Currently there is no such consensus. Arzel (talk) 19:29, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to delete reliably sourced text. Please stop. QuackGuru (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
None at all. I see no signs of Arzel or Rocco being willing to follow policy on this, so let's just take it to BLPN. MilesMoney (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
What policy isn't being followed? Be specific. Roccodrift (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
NPOV, RS, BLP. Take your pick. Misplaced Pages is not censored; we stick to our sources. MilesMoney (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You are right. For example, there was no original research because the reliable sources said it. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Be specific, Miles. Don't stonewall. Pick a policy and describe how it's not being followed. Roccodrift (talk) 04:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment: At this stage, it sounds like there is a consensus to call Gellar "right-wing" in WP voice, but no consensus to call her "far-right". Perhaps an RfC is in order. StAnselm (talk) 05:04, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
V policy is not being followed. There has been no reason to delete the sourced text. The sources are convincing because the text is sourced per V policy. The text is also strongly sourced in accordance with BLP. QuackGuru (talk) 05:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
If we agree that the claim is verified by reliable sources and there is no BLP violation, then there is no need for an RfC, as there is no basis for arguing against "far-right" when that's what our sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Right, but not everyone agrees the claim is verified by reliable sources. The claim that the Huffington Post calls her "far-right" is verified, of course, but not the claim that she is far-right. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Feel free to dispute that the Guardian and the SPLC are reliable sources for this sort of claim. MilesMoney (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Quack, you appear to be arguing from the assumption that if something can be verified in a source, it automatically gets included. We already know that Miles operates under this fallacy, but quite frankly I'm surprised that a seasoned user such as yourself doesn't know better. At risk of repeating something that I'm sure you've heard 100 times before: sourcing is the only the threshold for inclusion, not a guarantee. You do understand this, don't you? Please tell us you do. Roccodrift (talk) 06:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Do you deny the sources at least indicate she is right-wing? QuackGuru (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
The sources are adequate to call her right-wing, but not far right. The SPLC by the way does not call her far right, that is the description provided by a correspondent in one article. TFD (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

right-wing political activist is adequately sourced

I have no idea why was the text deleted. "Right-wing" is obviously sourced. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, as a disputed recent addition to a BLP, it should remain out until the discussion is resolved. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Well, no. You are using an old addition to the article. Here is the recent addition to the article that is well sourced. You have not make any argument to exclude "right-wing". QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Even if the sourcing is improved, you still need to obtain consensus to include it. Now, I thought we had consensus on this point (see my above comment), but the discussion may not have finished. In any case, User:Two kinds of pork, who reverted you, has not posted here - until they do so, I think the designation can stay. StAnselm (talk) 05:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC) It's clear from below the discussion has not yet ripened. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You are using an old addition to the article. The old diff might confuse other editors. Do you see the recent addition that was deleted from the body? QuackGuru (talk) 05:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The description is accurate and non-controversial. Does anyone think she is left-wing? TFD (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest "has been called right wing" is likely the best wording, unless there is a source for her applying it to herself. Collect (talk) 11:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not clear how she refers to herself. Many Rand-inspired types reject the left-right dichotomy and subscribe to the two dimensional Nolan chart classification. She might consider herself a libertarian. The Village Voice article makes it clear that she takes social liberal positions. However, we can't conclude that she's a libertarian. Most leftist writers reject the two dimensional classification scheme and classify libertarians as being on the right although some libertarians classify themselves on the left. Thus, unless she labels herself, Collect might be correct that the best we can do is "has been called right wing." It's not clear why this should be in the lead since she is basically known for her opposition to Islam, which is an issue-driven activity. That seems to be her defining characteristic and noted in every source. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
But the Nolan chart does have a left-right axis. Nolan merely rejected that he was left or right wing, because he was economically right and socially left. TFD (talk)
Yes, I’m well aware that you know this concept as you’ve been editing many libertarian articles. Geller seems to be economically right and socially liberal. The Village Voice article (that we cite in our article) says she is “a secular Jew, is a pro-choice, pro-marriage-equality Manhattanite” and “Growing up, she was largely apolitical but always championed women's rights. She was particularly disturbed by women under sharia who were treated as second-class citizens.” It seems to argue that her hostility to Islam comes from her feminist liberal side. It also says “She's viewed by "leftists," as she calls her critics, as a monster, the animalistic id of the racist, paranoid right …she has been able to navigate and thrive in the far-right, old-white-man-dominated world …” It appears that she fits the libertarian label, navigates the right-wing, and is labeled "right" by those on the "left". She might not see herself as “right-wing” or at least it may not be exact. Perhaps we should use caution. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If she calls her opponents "leftists" it means that she sees the terms left and right as meaningful and does not see herself as part of the left. The controversy she raises is not her "liberal views" on feminism and gay rights, but her right-wing view on Islam. Surely she does not say that hatred of Islam is a "leftist" view. TFD (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
If she calls her opponents "leftists" it may only mean that she is one of the other 3 possibilities on the Nolan Chart, no? I'm not sure what a "right-wing view on Islam" is. Some social liberals do take issue with fundamentalist Islamic practices. Take the pioneering feminist Phyllis Chesler. My opinion and your opinion on Geller's hostility to Islam doesn't matter. The Village Voice seems to think her social liberal views have something to do with the matter; others think not. Our duty is to reflect the sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You may not know what a right-wing view on Islam is, but Geller knows what the left-wing view is. and she opposes it as vehemently as possible. The Nolan chart by the way places all ideology on either the left or right. But what evidence that Geller users the Nolan chart anyway? If she did, she would rail against leftists. The voyage from radicalism to the extreme right is btw almost a cliche. The fact that someone started as a liberal does not mean one is a liberal now. TFD (talk) 21:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If someone wants to call her "right wing" or any such derivation, then they must find adequate sources stating such. What has been proffered at the BLP board is not sufficient as most of those sources can be reasonably considered by some to maintain left wing principles. The one source which appeared to be neutral, which I removed did not have a byline. In this day and age, we should insist on knowing the name of a person who is making such a statement, unless there is good cause not too. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have read the above discussion and find it quite convincing. We shouldn't have "right wing", but we can have "has been called right wing". (But I wouldn't support "has been called far right", since the number of sources is much less.) StAnselm (talk) 20:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I made this change. What ya think? QuackGuru (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The discussion about that change seems to be taking place a few sections down... StAnselm (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Far right

We've discussed sources that call her far right. After all the quibbling, it still remained the case that these sources are reliable. The description is matter-of-fact; it's used without attribution in non-opinion news articles. There is no reason to believe that anyone disputes her far-right status, nor any reason to reduce it to an "opinion". The conclusion is that we must conform our material to what reliable sources say. MilesMoney (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I found a source which is quite intentionally not using the "far right" label, which is reserved for Larry Klayman:

Last month right wing activists held a rally in Washington D.C., promoted by Larry Klayman, a far right wing activist, along with Larry Pratt, Bob Barr, Pamela Geller, Alan Keyes, Bradlee Dean, Joseph Farah and Zeeda Andrews. All of these people are right wing activists who say that President Obama is either a Muslim terrorist or worse.

StAnselm (talk) 09:56, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Logic does not work that way. If a particular source knew enough about Klayman to use the term but wasn't sure about Geller, this is the most tepid of approvals. Instead, you need to explain why reliable sources do use the term.
In the meantime, there's a truly bizarre whitewashing of "right-wing", a term that is abundantly well-sourced. MilesMoney (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The term was properly cited as opinion with the author named -- and you appear shouting "whitewash"? I daresay that you must truly know how absurd that charge looks here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not an opinion, it's a fact that nobody disputes. Pam is right-wing. Moreover, she's far-right, which is yet another undisputed fact. MilesMoney (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Using RS source

"The Right Messengers: Can the Media Responsibly Cover Race? Only with the Guidance of a More Diverse Audience By: Jefferson, Cord | The American Prospect, April 2011" appears to be a reliable source and noticeboard discussion, it is used to cite opinion as opinion. Collect (talk) 14:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The author is being critical of the media's coverage of Geller and the Park51 controversy. He says it is "example of how the media often craves controversy over substance." He is not citing the Salon piece as respectable coverage but as over-the-top sensationalism. I question the inclusion if the author questions the coverage. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Per RS.N post :
And how would you prove your "consensus" unless she self-identifies with a position? A GoogleNews search shows no RS sources for the claim. ascribes the opinion as such to Salon.com. does not make the claim as "fact" but treats it as an opinion -- ascribed to salon.com. Where reliable sources cite it as an opinion of salon.com, it is not up to us to use the term as a fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. cites it as an opinion of Justin Elliott -- writing in salon.com. Unless you can find her self-describing herself as "right wing" all you really have is reliable sources ascribing the claim as opinion to a writer at salon.com.
Note that several sources used the same basis for the "right wing" claim, no RS sources make the claim, and she does not appear to use that term about herself (which would be great, for sure) -- and Misplaced Pages says we use reliable sources. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you're right that we can only claim that the label "right wing" is an opinion. But whose opinion? Elliott seems to be only one of many in that regard. Although you do show that many cite him and his influence. Perhaps just a sentence that "in the opinion of critics she is on the right wing of the political spectrum" and give a few sources. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, perhaps there needs to be a section on "media coverage" since the "American Prospect" article has criticized the way the media has sensationalized Geller and the issues surrounding Park51. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Have you looked at the Guardian article? The title calls her a far-right US blogger, without any sort of attribution. It's not an opinion column, either. This is a reliable source for an unattributed statement that she is far right. MilesMoney (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I even read it. Headlines are not part of the article, and the article ascribes "far right" to the rally, but the body of the articles does not ascribe "far right" to Geller. As often noted, headlines are written to grab the reader's attention, and are generally not considered part of the article -- they are written by "headline writers." Collect (talk) 21:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
  • For "right-wing": "right-wing activists and organizations abroad, including the Jewish Defense League in Canada and American 'counter-jihadists' like blogger Pamela Geller", from an article titled "Right-wing movements" in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler, Cas Mudde, published January 2013.
I'll let someone else do the honours of adding it. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually it looks like a source for her being a "counter-jihadist" from here. Ascribing adjectives to every element of a list where it may normally be interpreted otherwise is exceedingly week. "Tall George Gnarph and Anne Minuscule went to the dance". You would describe Ann Minuscule as "tall" with the standard you wish to use. Collect (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
You can add "counter-jihadist" if you like. But the sentence precisely gives her as an example of a "right-wing activist". You'll embarrass yourself further if you try to argue otherwise. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The article already describes Geller as right-wing no less than twice. Why are we discussing a third appearance of the term? Seems like piling-on to me. Roccodrift (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Collect, I don't want to focus on your reading comprehension, but I don't understand how you even looked at the Guardian article without noticing that the title read:

Far-right US bloggers banned from entering UK for Woolwich rally

The sub-title is:

Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer forbidden entry on grounds their presence would 'not be conducive to public good'

The only interpretation I can come up with is that Geller and Spencer are the two far-right US bloggers. Do you disagree? MilesMoney (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The "title" as you call it is generally called the Headline. It is not generally considered part of the article, as headlines are written by headline writers and copy editors. Did you fail to see my reference to "headline"? A headline's purpose is to quickly and briefly draw attention to the story. It is generally written by a copy editor... It is not part of the article per se.
Absolutely not reliable sources. Headlines are generally not good sources for articles, for the reasons given above, Headlines are as Bali says, not reliable to quote and are one of the ways newspapers editors assert uncitable claims as is the case in that article and Goodness, no. Headline writers use all kinds of poetic license, alliteration, and attention grabbing tricks, not to mention lack of context.
Generally, I understand that headlines are not to be used even from RS articles. Headlines are problematic for a variety of reasons.  :: (Headlines, on the other hand, are not generally reliable. Is this sufficient elucidation? Collect (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Newspaper headlines and books and article titles are not reliable sources. "Far right" is typical journalese - takes up less space. Incidentally, books on the far right include the EDL and JDL, but I have not seen them list Geller's group. In answer to your question, I do not think they are far right because they do not meet standard definitions - they are not perceived as being so far right that no other group is more right-wing than them, they have no connection with historical fascism, they do not call for the overthrow of democracy and they do not use violence to achieve their aims. Sure they have made connections with the far right, but they have connections with U.S. conservatism as well, placing them in the ideological space between those two groups. TFD (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I agree. Consider this section of another Guardian article:
But while Geller has inserted herself into mainstream politics in America, she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe including the English Defence League in Britain, white supremacists in South Africa and Serbian war criminals.
This is spot on: she aligns herself with far-right causes. While we have sufficient sources to call her far-right, we have an excess for saying she's "aligned" with it. For example, her own words (secondary-sourced by the SPLC):
I share the E.D.L.'s goals. We need to encourage rational, reasonable groups that oppose the Islamisation of the West.
Saying you share someone's goals is an example of aligning yourself with them. As for the whole connection with fascism and racism, that same quote includes her denying that the EDL is racist.
Do you disagree with having the article say "right-wing activist who aligns herself with international far-right causes"? MilesMoney (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Reductio at best --- George Gnarph aligned himself with Roman Catholic causes. Ergo George Gnarph is Roman Catholic. Do you see why Misplaced Pages editors are not allowed to interpolate their own views but must rely exactly and precisely on what the reliable sources state? Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about? It's a close paraphrase of the Guardian, which says:
she has also aligned herself with far-right causes across the globe
If it were any more similar, it'd be a copyright violation. This is direct support. MilesMoney (talk) 01:08, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
STOP. You continue to insist upon calling her a "right-wing activist" despite the fact that the source you reference doesn't say that. I'm beginning to think you are just poking at people.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Please read more carefully. What I'm suggesting is that we repeat what our source says, which is that she has aligned herself with international right-wing far-right causes. Do you have any sort of objection to this? MilesMoney (talk) 01:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Well again, Miles... the article already says that. Twice. How do you propose to justify a third mention? Roccodrift (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Fixed it. MilesMoney (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

At this moment, the article mentions "far-right" exactly once, in a quote by Weiss. I'm suggesting that we say what the Guardian said, in about as many words. This does not require attribution as it is not a matter of opinion. It does need citation, but we have that. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It makes no sense to add an unrelated clause: "Spencer and Geller, who support right-wing causes, were barred from travel to the UK in 2013 for supporting "anti-Muslim hate groups"." The reason for being barred is stated as supporting anti-Muslim hate groups. The parenthetical phrase "who support right-wing causes" is superfluous. Any clause could have been arbitrarily inserted ... Spencer and Geller, who hate the Beatles, were barred from travel to the UK in 2013 for supporting "anti-Muslim hate groups" ... would be equally as silly. The sentence was complete and intelligible as it was. The parenthetical phrase adds nothing required by the sentence to be intelligible. Jason from nyc (talk) 05:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The "unrelated" clause explains why they were barred from travel. In any case, the place to mention her support for far-right causes is in the lede. Besides the direct support from the Guardian article, it acts as a summary for such things as the EDL involvement. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Oh, bullshit, it did no such thing. They weren't barred because they support right-wing causes. Jason, I agree with your reasoning here and I'll add that these repeated attempts to insert this material without consensus are becoming tiresome. Roccodrift (talk) 05:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I guess these sort of clauses should generally be avoided, because of the danger of original synthesis. If we agree that she has been described as right wing (and I think that's where this discussion is leading), then it is probably worth a direct statement in the lead - or failing that, in the career section - perhaps in the second paragraph? "Geller has said that the 9/11 attacks led her politicization. She has been described as a right-wing activist." StAnselm (talk) 05:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Correct: They were barred for supporting far-right causes such as the EDL, not merely right-wing ones. That's what the Guardian says. It's tiring that you're working so hard to suppress this, but don't worry, I have plenty of endurance. MilesMoney (talk) 10:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Were you responding to my comment, or to Roccodrift's? StAnselm (talk) 10:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Bullshit, Miles. We have a source that describes the reason for the travel ban, and it doesn't mention Geller's political orientation:

"According to the Home Office, Mr Spencer and Ms Geller set up organisations “described as anti-Muslim hate groups” and, consequently, they have been told not to travel to Britain."

This is why (almost) nobody takes you seriously: you misrepresent facts. Roccodrift (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Is that from the same article that quotes a Home Office spokesman as saying:
We can confirm that Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are subject to an exclusion decision … We condemn all those whose behaviours and views run counter to our shared values and will not stand for extremism in any form.
But "extremism" can't possibly refer to the far right, eh? MilesMoney (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The question is whether religious disputation falls onto a left-right political spectrum in any rational way. Some consider anti-Christian activity by Muslims to be extreme, and anti-Muslim activity by Christians to be extreme and according to Tom Lehrer "... And everybody hates the Jews." Which groups do you define by religion as being far left and far right? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
See "synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." TFD (talk) 13:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is the loose use of “right-wing” in the media. The two in-depth articles on Geller don’t conclude that she is right-wing. The New York Times and Village Voice both paint a more nuanced picture rather than hide the details behind a label. She’s a social liberal; little is known about her economic policies. If the “right-wing” label is supposed to convey her critical approach to Islam is adds nothing that isn’t make clear by the more exact phrases “ant-Islam” or “Islamophobia” as sources deem important.

The problem is that many here don’t realize that the right is not monolithic when it comes to Islam. There are a broad group of conservatives, particularly social conservatives, that see fundamentalist Muslims as kindred spirits. Dinesh D'Souza leads this group. He argues that Muslims are correctly appalled by the degenerate secular Western culture spare-headed by the left and the left is the reason “they hate us.” He abhors Spencer and Geller as do other important right-wing figures.

Consequently the “right-wing” label doesn’t even imply “anti-Islam” … except for the UK press and left-wing academics. This isn’t universal nor do we need another, more inexact way of saying “anti-Islam.” Jason from nyc (talk) 14:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

We have direct sourcing for "right-wing activist who aligns herself with international far-right causes". MilesMoney (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
There's been no disagreement expressed, so I'm going to make the changes. MilesMoney (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Good edit. She is known for this. QuackGuru (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggest reference 11 could be replaced with this <ref name="guardian"/>. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Ok, done for now. I've been extremely careful to use only the best sources and to stay very close to what they say, just barely avoiding plagiarism. We now call her right-wing, which the NY Daily News describes her as, and we say she aligns with the far-right without saying that she is herself far-right, taking directly from the Guardian.
QG, I'd rather add sources than remove these. For example, the About page on her blog acknowledges that she's right-wing, and is ok under WP:ABOUTSELF. If you want to clean up my messy refs, though, I certainly wouldn't complain.
Obviously, as this is a BLP, if you're highly confident that these sources are unreliable for what we use them for, I can't stop you from reverting, and I will not immediately counter-revert. I will, however, escalate to RSN/BLP/ANI/whatever. MilesMoney (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This <ref name="guardian"/> citation is the same reference as the one you added. QuackGuru (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't find the statement on Geller's website. What was it she said, exactly? StAnselm (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I can't find it either. I do find many instances with "right-wing" and "far right-wing" in scare quotes. And I find an explicit rejection of "far right:" . Jason from nyc (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

The use of "right-wing" was primarily supported by the New York Daily News, which is a reliable, neutral mainstream source. All by itself, it's sufficient. There are also reliable but less neutral sources which apply the term to her, but let's not go there because it's superfluous. Now, on BLPN, the argument was raised that we have to be careful about applying terms that might be seen as pejorative. This is why I linked to Pam's own About page, where one of her hand-picked quotes of supporters calls her "The heroine of the right wing blogosphere". This is where WP:ABOUTSELF fits in; she's considered reliable when alluding to her own right-wing status.

Now, are you suggesting that the Daily News is unreliable? If not, you should restore the phrase. MilesMoney (talk) 02:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You really don't check sources very carefully, do you Miles? Take a look at how the "hand-picked quote" from one of her "supporters" is presented on Geller's "About" page:

"The heroine of the right wing blogosphere. 'We’re all Pamela Geller now!'” -- Charles Johnson, mental patient

Is this something we're supposed to take seriously? Because clearly, Geller doesn't take it seriously. Roccodrift (talk) 02:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
It seems your specific objection is only the source. You can restore the text with a different source. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Controversial right wing activist Pamela Geller rose to prominence during protests against a planned Muslim centre near the Ground Zero site in New York and is a co-founder of Stop Islamization of America with Robert Spencer."<ref name=news4UK/> There are many sources in the article to support this. QuackGuru (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the About source being replaced by the 4 News one. Either way, the NY Daily News source alone is enough to keep "right-wing" in. An additional source is nice but not necessary. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, additional sources are necessary. Per the BLP policy, multiple sources are required to make any claim that is or may be considered contentious. And the 4 reference is somewhat iffy as it appears there is no byline.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Could you please show me where in WP:RS, WP:BLP or some similar policy it says that there must be a byline? Last I checked, a missing byline means it's written by the editor in chief, which makes it less iffy. MilesMoney (talk) 03:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Check again, that's a faulty assumption. No byline means, well no byline. You could raise this issue at RSN and see if this source meets the threshold for use in a BLP. I'm not saying it isn't reliable, but not knowing the author raises questions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I really don't think it raises any questions, particularly since what makes it reliable in this case is the editorial oversight, not the specific author. Regardless, I asked around and verified that it is common practice to omit the byline when it's written by the editor in chief or by the editor of the department. I did ask you for specific references to policy, and I have to point out that you didn't offer any. You're quite free to go to WP:BLPN and ask for feedback, though.
In the meantime, let's just go with the NY Daily News and 4 News. They're sufficient, and if we can improve upon them in the future, that's great, too. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
An example of an additional source: http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/new-york-news/passions-and-perils-pamela-geller. MilesMoney (talk) 03:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Contentious claims require strong sourcing. A single news précis from a tv channel is not in rhe same category as an academic source, or a signed news article. And the idea that no byline means it is written by the editor-in-chief is risible alas. If you wish to cite opinions, they must be cited as opinion. As everyone pretty much has told you. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Another good source is http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409277/Outrage-as-EDL-invites-incendiary-right-wing-American-speakers-to-Woolwich-march, which not only supports right-wing, but far-right. Really, there's no shortage of sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:39, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Extreme right-wing here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050785/Sugar-Land-hotel-Texas-cancels-Tea-Party-event-anti-Islam-activist-Pamela-Geller.html. MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of RS

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.

I do not understand why someone would want to delete non-controversial text. QuackGuru (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't controversial until you attached a crap source to it, at which point it became highly suspect. Inserting Daily Kos was a direct and explicit violation of WP:BLPSPS. I'm surprised that I need to explain this to you. Roccodrift (talk) 18:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
So you knew the text wasn't controversial. You could of asked for a better source rather than deleting the sentence. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
And you could have used a quality source instead of one that is prohibited by policy. You also could have tagged the statement with one of the other sources. Why didn't you do that? I'm not responsible to comb through the rest of the article looking for citations to support your edit. We put citations at the end of the sentence for a reason. It would be helpful if you would do it right the first time. Roccodrift (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous argument and is only an excuse for both sides to take shots at one another. You, you should know better than to use a source like daily Kos in a BLP, and you, just use the damn fact tag next time. We're done here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:47, 24 December 2013 (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.

Proposed sources

It appears the Channel 4 source does have an author after all. One Brian Whelan, a "freelance journalist" whose credentials I could not ascertain. I haven't had a chance to dig through the other sources proposed by MM, but considering past performance is an indication, we should tread carefully about using these new sources until others have had a chance to review them. Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the author's identity isn't particularly important. What makes it reliable is that it was published by a source known for competent fact-checking. Given how litigious the UK is with regard to defamation, we can infer that 4 News felt very comfortable with the characterization. MilesMoney (talk) 04:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
And as I and Collect have said it is important. Inferences are not good enough. Take a trip over to RSN. Speculating is rash and sometimes reckless.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Flat out, the source is reliable and calls her right-wing. If you want to go to RSN over that, feel free. MilesMoney (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Categories: