Talk:Pamela Geller

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)

• "Far right" http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/20/edl-robert-spencer-pamela-geller_n_3472196.html
• "Far right" http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/06/26/pamela-geller-banned_n_3503307.html
• "Far right" http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/26/far-right-bloggers-banned-entering-uk
• "Far right" http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/BREAKING-VIEWS/pamela-geller-and-robert-spencer-to-bring-american-islamophobia-to-uk.html
• "Far right" http://mediamatters.org/research/2011/07/25/fox-news-has-mainstreamed-pam-gellers-islamopho/183150
• "Far right" http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2013/11/12/nuts-and-fruits-department-pamela-gellers-puppy-bombs/
• "Far right" http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409277/Outrage-as-EDL-invites-incendiary-right-wing-American-speakers-to-Woolwich-march

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)

• As for the Category:Far-right politics, I believe that is primarily for organizations and not for individuals. National Front in France is for instance categorized as "far right politics", but Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen are not. Similarly Jobbik is categorized as far right politics, but the party leader Gábor Vona is not in the category. Neither Geert Wilders or his party Party for Freedom are categorized as far right. As for Pamela Geller; Stop Islamization of America is already in the far right category; but by the commonly applied practice, Geller herself shouldn't be included. Iselilja (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent point. Perhaps Wikipedia: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. Wikipedia 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 [1](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"[2] 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 [3]:

And how would you prove your "consensus" unless she self-identifies with a position? A GoogleNews search shows no RS sources for the claim. [4] ascribes the opinion as such to Salon.com. [5] 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 Wikipedia's voice. [6] 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 Wikipedia 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.

[7] 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.

[8] Generally, I understand that headlines are not to be used even from RS articles. Headlines are problematic for a variety of reasons.  ::[9] (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 Wikipedia 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.[21] 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 [10] "... 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 [11] and the left is the reason “they hate us.” [12] He abhors Spencer and Geller [13] 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:" [14]. 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)

• "American right-wing activists banned from entering UK". 4 News. UK. July 26, 2013. Retrieved December 21, 2013.

"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/>[15] 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)

What we have here is a failure to communicate. As the proposer of the source, the burden is on you to obtain support for this source now that is has been challenged.Two kinds of pork (talk) 05:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There's been no challenge. You just disagreed with my commentary about it. If you had challenged it, you would have stated some reasonable basis. MilesMoney (talk) 05:21, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war!

This bit of whitewashing features an inaccurate explanation:

do not edit war for a contested contentious claim in a WP:BLP where strong sourcing is required - not a single newspaper article

I'm not the one edit-warring, and the material he removed contains three citations for reliable sources. Maybe Collect can't count to three. Maybe he's lying. Maybe he just likes to edit war. Whichever, this is unacceptable behavior. Season's greetings! MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Look -- one source is a Daily News editorial commentary (do you think something which calls her a " pro-Israel flamethrower " would be usable to call her a "flamethrower" as a statement of fact?)

Second source is Mail Online where the body of the article does not use the term "right wing" about her -- sources which do not actually bear out a claim are not usable for a claim -- and photo captions are written by copyeditors, not reporters. And the source (Mail Online) has been found problematic as a source for contentious claims about living persons.

Third source [16] from The Jewish Week is also quite editorial in nature, and likely does not meet WP:RS for the claim made.

In short -- insufficient strong reliable sources (as in zero) for the claim, and a singular lack of any consensus for its inclusion over extended discussion. Not a single source remotely near making a claim of fact in Wikipedia's voice. Edit war against consensus is against policy, and the onus is on the person seeking inclusion to obtain consensus. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:00, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Odd, that's three sources, when your edit-war comment said there was just one. But the real problem isn't that you can't count, but that you can't tell when an article is an editorial. Perhaps you don't know what the word means?

The Daily News article is labeled as local news, not editorial. The Jewish Times article isn't labeled as an editorial, and its writer specializes in "Feature writing, political stories, stories about Jewish and Israeli affairs".[17] These are both reliable sources and they both directly state that she is right-wing.

I haven't been able to locate any policy against using the contents of article titles or photo captions. If you can point to one, that would really help. However, even if it turns out that you're correct about this, the 4 News source [18] is a fine replacement, as it mentions her being right-wing in the body, as well as the title.

Collect, your behavior has crossed the line into WP:TE. There's no question about Pam being right-wing and we've got more than enough reliable sources. You need to accept this and step out of the way. MilesMoney (talk) 18:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is clearly still no consensus regarding wording and sourcing in this discussion. Again, I think an RfC would be appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Wording? It's a single term taken directly from multiple sources. No alternate wording has been suggested. The only issue is sourcing, and none of the complaints have held up. Collect made false statements repeatedly. Are you going to join him in this? MilesMoney (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Wording" as in "is right wing" vs. "has been described as right wing". StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

She's been described as right-wing because she is. WP:WEASEL means we can't beat around the bush here. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

There is still a question in my mind whether newspapers, which are generally reliable sources, are necessarily reliable sources when it comes to classifications that require a complex analysis. For example, a reliable news source can be trusted to say Cameron spoke on Tuesday, or dog bites man in Green Park may not be reliable when using an inline classifier with regard to political, religious, or social philosophy. Sometimes newspapers need a quick and dirty label. As we aspire to being an encyclopedia, we should be held to a higher standard. Geller is known for her Islam-critical activities so why not use more exact terminology that the many sources allow? Jason from nyc (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That question is not supported by policy. Policy says newspapers are reliable sources for such things. Let's stick to policy instead of your own particular beliefs. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I do not think they are rs for classifications and we should use academic sources instead. Also, "has been described as" is weasel-wording. We can say that if that is what sources say, but cannot form that conclusion ourselves. No sources though would say "described as right-wing", it is a bit like saying, described as a table. TFD (talk) 21:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Same thing: policy says they're reliable. Feel free to debate to change the policy. MilesMoney (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, RS policy says, "For information about academic topics, scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports. News reports may be acceptable depending on the context." News reports are good sources for what happened today or yesterday, but are not as reliable in as sources for political and other social sciences. TFD (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• The title of this section should be changed, per WP:NPA. I suggest something neutral that reflects the subject of the discussion, e.g. "Daily News source". Roccodrift (talk) 21:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lots of sources for right-wing

In a story last week, the New York Times, which framed the project in a largely positive, noncontroversial light last December, argued that it was cursed from the start by “public relations missteps.” But this isn’t accurate. To a remarkable extent, a Salon review of the origins of the story found, the controversy was kicked up and driven by Pamela Geller, a right-wing, viciously anti-Muslim, conspiracy-mongering blogger, whose sinister portrayal of the project was embraced by Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post.[19]

Please try to improve the article rather than reverting the text. We do not need to add ten sources to the article to verify the claim. One source is enough but I can add ten. But I think ten is too many sources. QuackGuru (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's no shortage of sources for "right-wing", and yet there's an excess of resistance to accepting these sources. Kind of a head-scratcher. MilesMoney (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Obviously many editors aren't convinced of the quality of coverage in the source you provide in light of more in-depth and weightier sources. No consensus has been reached after extensive examination of all the sources and in light of all the appropriate Wikipedia's policies. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:59, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to not describe someone widely described as right-wing (not a terrible thing to be called), as right-wing. The terms far-right and Islamophobe and such that are used to describe her should however be attributed. Sepsis II (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that no one has presented the multitude of sources you seem to think exist. In fact, at least one source states that she associates herself with mainstream politics! And as she does not self-describe as "right wing" we would need strong sourcing from reliable sources that she is "right wing" and not just editorial opinions from Salon.com and the like. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does anyone have a problem with this source: "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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes -- because the wording does not support the claim some wish to make. Consider:

Tall George Gnarph and Ann Tinything were seen at a rally.

Used to support Ann Tinything is tall

Adjectives do not carry on to every element of a list, folks. Cheers -- but English grammar is clear on this one. Collect (talk) 17:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I was asking (implicitly) for sensible and literate objections. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

OOOOH! What a rejoinder! C'mon -- let's follow Wikipedia rules for the proper purpose of this talk page. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:57, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that rejecting reliable sources with handwaving is not a proper purpose. MilesMoney (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two distinct issues. First, we have a brief summary in the lede (lately removed by a whitewasher) which describes her as aligning herself with far-right international causes. The body includes specific examples, such as the EDL, but the summary has direct support from sources, just to avoid synthesis. Note that this does not describe her as far-right (although some sources do).

Second, we have many reliable sources, including the SPLC, Guardian, New York Daily News and more, all saying that she's right-wing. There's been a lot of WP:IDHT in response to these sources, and the previous wave of whitewashing removed all mention from the lede, despite three reliable sources inline.

There is no policy-based reason for either act of whitewashing, and good faith cannot account for the WP:TE from the whitewashers. It's very unfortunate. MilesMoney (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Not that there's any shortage of sources, but this book supports both of these items on the same page. MilesMoney (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I've often put Deepa Kumar opinion in articles to represent the far-left's viewpoint. I think I once quoted her opinion that Barak Obama is an islamophobic imperialist shrill for corporate interests. It lasted about a day and was changed to some more generic criticism of the current regime. Perhaps it's best to quote well respected scholars. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a RS even if you don't like it. They're all reliable. MilesMoney (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anyone else claiming that we lack reliable sources for calling her right-wing. Can we move on to picking which ones are best? MilesMoney (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopedia article written by academics seems like the best one to me. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there an encyclopedia of right-wing bloggers? Seriously, I don't see Geller getting a lot of attention from academics, and what attention she does get is unlikely to come from very neutral writers: consider the Deepa Kumar book I mentioned above.

So while I agree that it would be ideal, I don't think it's realistic. I also don't think it's necessary. Newspapers such as the Guardian, New York Daily News, New York Times and so on are sufficient. MilesMoney (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

"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. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, ok, I admit: I was wrong and you were right. Do you have access to the PDF so that you can post a quote? MilesMoney (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

There's a quote in my post! Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that'll work. MilesMoney (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It also appears that most people are simply tired of discussing this with you. Your continuous TE gets tiring. Arzel (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it appears as though a small group of editors is opposed to this regardless of sources and policy, so it's WP:IDHT the discussion. In fact, you appear to be one of them. Quelle surprise! MilesMoney (talk) 22:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Query: In what world is Haymarket Books a reliable source publisher of peer-reviewed academic works? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. "Haymarket Books is a non-profit left-wing book publisher and distributor." Reliability is questionable in this context. Roccodrift (talk) 23:16, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Just got here from the RSN board, use The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195. Calls her a right wing blogger. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Same question: Do you have access to the book so that you can post a quote? MilesMoney (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no intention to write out a full quote, my word is good. If you are in the UK you can see it on GBooks yourself. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

In a New York Times review of the book, Geller is referred to as "The right-wing blogger Pamela Geller" (page 2, third paragraph). Iselilja (talk) 23:51, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The book mentions her as a "right-wing blogger" on page 195, confirmed through Google Book Search, per DS's suggestion. The NY Times review probably counts as an additional source, as it doesn't ascribe the view to the author and is fact-checked by the NYT. MilesMoney (talk) 00:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I read the book. Nussbaum concedes she hasn't read Geller and has no first hand knowledge. She said she's basing her information on the SPLC, a left-wing think tank and advocacy group, which we already use in the Geller article. Of course, the SPLC has no footnotes and seems to be based on ... Wikipedia a few years back, as it has basically the same content and criticisms we had back then. This is becoming a circular circus. Does anyone actually read the books and articles that we cite? Jason from nyc (talk) 02:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so the two books look like good choices for RS, but it would nice to have a third. How about http://www.salon.com/2010/08/16/ground_zero_mosque_origins/? MilesMoney (talk) 00:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Why Salon? Why not IB Tauris, or any other of a dozen academic books? The one I gave is more than good enough, it is Harvard for christs sake. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's sufficient, but there's been so much dispute over this that I'd hate to allow another edit war for lack of source overkill.

Which is the IB Tauris source? I checked Northcott but came up empty. MilesMoney (talk) 00:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not advisable to have many sources for one claim. The sources are either reliable or not. Lots of sources add nothing and are a distraction. TFD (talk) 00:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

When the claim has been removed again and again, a belt-and-suspenders approach may be necessary. I've seen articles with nearly a dozen sources for a single claim, likely for this reason. But if we're generally agreed that the two books plus Salon are enough, we can stop there. MilesMoney (talk) 01:30, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Only enough that she has been "described as right wing". I don't see agreement on anything more than that. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Our sources don't say, "She has been described as right-wing", they say "She is right-wing". It is totally uncontroversial. MilesMoney (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources that describe her as right-wing are generally sources that mention her in passing. The sources that are about her and go in depth into her background either don’t say she’s right-wing and sometimes even say she has liberal views on many issues (like the Village Voice article). Do we want to say she has been called right-wing and at times liberal? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Right now, we have some high-quality academic sources which describe her as right-wing. I believe this reinforces our mainstream sources, and none that disagree. The Voice said she started as a liberal but transitioned to the right through her feelings about Islam. From everything I've read, in America, being pro-Israel and anti-Islam is right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, that last bit is interesting. I'm not necessarily disputing it, but I would like to see a reliable source for that. If it's true, it's rather sad in my opinion. And it doesn't make any sense. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's interesting but I'd rather stick with unoriginal research. Jason is not nuts: the Voice says she was "raised by liberal parents" and the reporter considers her "socially liberal". However, it also says:

She's viewed by "leftists," as she calls her critics, as a monster, the animalistic id of the racist, paranoid right, a supremacist leader of arguably the most extreme wing in the Tea Party, who knowingly interacts with bigots and xenophobes. She's the face, literally, of the Southern Poverty Law Center's national anti-Muslim hate-group page.

This makes it quite clear that she's not a leftist; she calls leftists her enemies. Nowhere does she identify as a leftist or liberal. I believe this counters Jason's interpretation.

We also have the various other sources which call her right-wing and which are accepted as reliable. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say she is a leftist. The VV says she has liberal views: “Geller, a secular Jew, is a pro-choice, pro-marriage-equality Manhattanite raised by liberal parents. … a pretty, secular, socially liberal New Yorker”. Liberal isn't the same as leftist. I think it would be appropriate to say "she has liberal views" and indeed she does. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

She has some socially liberal views, but only some.

Social liberalism includes religious tolerance, and that's not so much missing as reversed and amplified. What the article makes clear is that, while she may support marriage equality, for example, she feels much, much, much less strongly about it than the issue of Islam. It is an all-consuming hatred that has thrust her far to the right, allowing her to "navigate and thrive in the far-right, old-white-man-dominated world of the Tea Party and the American anti-Islam movement". So, strange as it may sound, she's right-wing, perhaps even far-right, despite having liberal views on some matters.

I'm all for nuance. I approved of stating that she works with the far right without quite saying she's one of them. I likewise approve of saying that, despite being right-wing, she still harbors some social views common among liberals, although she's obviously not as passionate about them as she is about Islam, Islam, Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

"Social liberalism includes religious tolerance" ... it can but many vocal social liberals draw the line at fundamentalism. Geller claims to oppose "political Islam" and "fundamental Islam" so there is no contradiction between her liberalism and not being warm and fuzzy about religious fundamentalism. Now perhaps we should consider a statement that says "she has been labeled right-wing and described as having liberal views." If both of these can be documented we leave it at that. It's not our job to go beyond what the sources say. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

You make it sound as if it's a contradiction, but it's not: she's identified as right-wing by the very same people who say she has a few liberal views. The difference is that she's not marching in the streets for marriage equality (though she says she believes in it). She's strongly opposed to Obama even though he supports marriage equality and his Republican opponents don't, and her stated reason is that he is too soft on Islam. Whenever she has to choose, she chooses the right-wing side.

But, hey, that's just my analysis of the Voice. We should instead stick to the academic sources that are quite comfortable with simply calling her right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

In our article her concern with women’s issues is noted in respect to “honor killings” twice and her defense of freedom of speech is noted twice. Your view or my views are irrelevant. Sources describe her liberal views and explain them. Now most of the reference that use the phrase “right-wing” use it as a label, often as a modifier before her name. It’s not a conclusion from an analysis nor do they describe what is right-wing about her. Thus, we should say they “label her as right-wing” and to be fair say “she has liberal views.” Jason from nyc (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The pages of discussion on this very point suggests that it's not "totally uncontroversial". StAnselm (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because you're not a reliable source. It's totally uncontroversial among reliable sources. MilesMoney (talk) 03:12, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Our sources (or some of them, at least) describe her as right wing. In any case, you still seem a fair way from gaining consensus for your proposed changes. StAnselm (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

All of them describe her as right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 04:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No, they don't. As has been demonstrated, many (most, it would seem) sources don't refer to her in those terms. They don't call her left-wing, either, of course - they just don't address the issue. In fact, I see that many sources just call her "Pamela Geller", as if everybody knows who she is. I see "right-wing blogger", but I also see "author and blogger", "anti-Islam blogger", etc. Having said that, a Google News search doesn't come up with a whole lot of reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We have plenty of very reliable sources calling her right-wing. Whether you can find them with google has no bearing on the matter. MilesMoney (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

• Does this article really need to point out that the subject is right-wing? There are cases where that could be a valuable addition, but this is not one of them: that she is is bright as daylight. The only thing this article needs is some serious pruning: UNDUE should apply to article length as well, and this particular subject isn't worth 53000 bytes, with every little controversy and controversial position highlighted. NOTNEWS, etc. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Apparently it does. It's strange that you and Jason want the same thing for opposite reasons: at least one of you must be wrong. Here's my take on it:

If it's obvious that she's right-wing (and I agree that it is), then there's no harm to saying it. It's obvious from his photo that Obama is considered African American, yet his bio article spells it out early in the lede. On the other hand, if otherwise intelligent folks like Jason and StAnselm are unclear on the matter, then by all means we should spell it out. MilesMoney (talk) 04:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Do you think the lead should point out that she is of the female persuasion, homo sapiens, in possession of a nice head of hair, etc.? We have better things to do, methinks, than pursuing this. Drmies (talk) 04:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Dunno, do Jason and StAnselm think that she's a dude? MilesMoney (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

She can be on the right on some matters and liberal on others. Perhaps it's best to let the reader read the article like Drmies says. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

She's right-wing on the issues that define her in the public eye. We have to follow WP:DUE by sticking to what our sources say, which is that she's right-wing first and foremost, with some lingering liberal-seeming views that she doesn't feel strongly enough to act upon, much less march down the streets for.

I'm all for linking to that VV article and I'm even ok with saying somewhere that she has liberal views on some issues. Balance and nuance are virtues. But we have to put the foreground up front: she's right-wing and that's what literally all of our sources say. All of them. ALL. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's your POV that her liberal views aren't felt strongly. The VV notes them and we have several mentions of liberal social positions in the article. It's your POV that she is right-wing first and foremost. She is "labeled" right-wing for being anti-Islam. Thus, anti-Islam is more exact since she not right-wing on many other issues. If we are going to describe her political leanings it should be a joint statement "She has been labeled right-wing but described as having liberal views." Jason from nyc (talk) 04:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

No weaseling. "She is right-wing with some liberal views". MilesMoney (talk) 06:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Having "liberal views" on some issues does not mean that one is not on the right. I'll bet that none of her liberal views were held by Stalin or Mao, but that does not mean they were not left-wing. TFD (talk) 09:25, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

All of this reminds me of the arguments over people like Keith Olbermann and whether or not he can be called a Liberal. In fact this argument has taken place across several people on WP including Rachel Maddow not being called a Liberal or Sean Hannity...well I guess he is labeled a Conservative or Lawrence O'Donnell not being labeled a far-left socialist, even though he calls himself a socialist. You can see a trend here. We DON'T WP:LABEL people, especially when the label is contentious. And we certainly don't label people if they are on the Left as can be shown time and time again on WP. The proper way to handle this is within the body. Using these sources to makes statements against the person. Since this is clearly an attempt to attack Geller it is clearly a BLP issue. Arzel (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

So you recognise there's no problem with the sources for "right-wing"… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what I wrote? Arzel (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I certainly did, but I didn't see any part where you denied that we've got good sources for "right-wing". I've met a neo-Nazi, White Power skinhead who didn't even see gay marriage as an issue. Does this liberal view mean he's not extremely right-wing? He certainly didn't think so. So let's not try to apply what we think of as common sense to other people's views; it's a waste of time. Instead, we have reliable sources and we should repeat their conclusions. In the case of Geller, this means that we call her right-wing, but may also mention that, on some social issues, her views are liberal. Nuanced, reliably sources, encyclopedic. What's not to like? MilesMoney (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Of course I read it -- that's how I know you don't have a problem with the sources. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. The two books are, on their own, more than enough to provide reliable sources for "right-wing", but we know from experience that there are people who will do their best to remove this phrase, presumably for ideological reasons, so it's best to provide additional references. Rather than choosing our top three, let's just list all of the ones that are reliable. Some will be stronger than others, but any one of them is enough on its own, but for the excessive resistance. MilesMoney (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

That would be a waste of time. TFD (talk) 10:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• Coming in a few days late, but this conversation is utterly ridiculous. Not only is the fact sourced, and not only is it well-sourced, it's better-sourced than many of the facts in both this BLP and in other BLPs. BLP and NPOV don't have a secret "ignore WP:V and WP:RS clause if you really really like the subject of the article"; in fact, "ignore WP:V and WP:RS" are pretty much the opposite of BLP and NPOV. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:30, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed wording

The article is close to being unprotected, and it would be great if we could agree on the wording on an insertion by then. I propose that text be added to the second paragraph of the "Career" section so that it reads:

Geller has said that the 9/11 attacks led to her politicization. She has been described as right-wing.

StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, this is suitable as a minimum. Binksternet (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a violation of WP:WEASEL, and is lying by understatement. It's not that she's been called right-wing, it's that she is. MilesMoney (talk) 03:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. QuackGuru (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• I don't think the New York Daily News should ever be used to make a contentious statement about a BLP subject. As for the rest, well I'm leaning towards "ok" (I'm waiting to hear from others who have been vocal on this), but using language like "she's been called" begs the question as to whom is calling her that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I disagree about that source, but it doesn't matter: we have better sources. The two we seem to have settled on are:

• The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195.
• "Right-wing movements" article in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by Sivan Hirsch-Hoefler, Cas Mudde, published January 2013.

We have many, many more reliable sources, if needed, but these two seem to be the most resistant to excessive scrutiny. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Rather than play three-card-monte why don't you tell us what sources you intend to use to support the statement and go through the sources one by one and argue your case. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm very happy with using Nussbaum; use of Wiley-Blackwell had been disputed above. StAnselm (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Not convincingly. Could someone with access to the Wiley Online library please post the relevant quote? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you please withdraw from this discussion? There are several editors who appear in some form or another to favor inclusion. Your style of communication will only muddy the waters, as evidenced by the above discussions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I didn't include Wiley partly because it was disputed, partly because I don't have access to it, and partly because I already had three citations (which seems to be the right number - any more would be undue weight). StAnselm (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It looks like the quote from Wiley was posted above and it directly supports referring to her as right-wing. There wasn't actually a dispute, just a misunderstanding by someone who read hastily and/or does not have English as their first language and therefore inexplicably failed to understand the plain meaning of the passage.

Three citations ought to be enough, but we can add more, just in case they're unnecessarily challenged. WP:UNDUE doesn't apply to citations and this is a normal practice in such cases. MilesMoney (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Citation overkill, then. But the quote is certainly ambiguous - it could possibly mean "right-wing activists and organizations abroad, including the Jewish Defense League in Canada and also American 'counter-jihadists' like blogger Pamela Geller". That is, there are two separate groups, firstly, "right-wing activists and organizations", and secondly "American 'counter-jihadists'". It's issues like this that have made me start using the Oxford comma. StAnselm (talk) 07:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You are misquoting the passage. It does not include the word "also". The only way it could read the way you are reading it is if it had an additional comma: "right-wing activists and organizations abroad, including the Jewish Defense League in Canada[,] and American 'counter-jihadists' like blogger Pamela Geller." Without that comma the list (of two elements) contains examples of "right-wing activists and organisations abroad". Jesus, you'd think this is fucking biblical exegesis -- or (even worse) the Second fucking Amendment to the sodding US Constitution. Completely ridiculous. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It specifically refers to her as a counter-jihadists so we should use that more exact phrase. The Village Voice article and Jewish Week article both describe her as liberal on many matters. Thus, she is not in general right-wing and without qualifications it would be misleading to call her that. Why not use the more specific counter-jihadi? Jason from nyc (talk) 12:50, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think Jason has summed this quandary up nicely, "she is not in general right-wing and without qualifications it would be misleading to call her that". While it is clear that some of the sources feel that Geller has taken a right-wing stance on aspects of Islam, they label stops there. Adding the wiki link only intensifies the BLP issue. If any labeling is to be done, it must be narrowly focused or not included at all.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What twaddle. The source (an impeccable academic output) gives her specifically as an example of "right-wing activists and organisations abroad". Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I assure you the BLP policy is not "twaddle" or even fiddle faddle. Using impeccable sources to abuse a BLP subject is still abusing a BLP subject.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on having posted without any substantive response to the point made. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think your point was the "example" and as previously stated by myself and others is such examples are misleading if used alone. The year is too short to continue in this vein of rudeness. Happy New Year!Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Twaddle? You don't care to address the concerns raised but let's more on. As to the source, it is a WP:Tertiary source as we have more extensive secondary sources that focus on Geller. They paint a more nuanced picture and explain how and why they use specific terms. The authors of Wiley-Blackwell are writing their encyclopedia and we are writing ours. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it twaddle, but I'd agree with the general sentiment. What we have here is a misunderstanding of a misquote. The original is unambiguous. Jason's misinterpretation is based on the notion that being called a "counter-jihadist" somehow contradicts the broader "right-wing". This is the sort of claim that puts all of the burden of proof on Jason, and I don't anticipate that he'll be able to overcome it. I say this not out of malice but memory.

The basic problem is that Jason is averse to "right-wing" based on some original research that is directly contradicted by source after source. There's simply no place for that sort of WP:IDHT attitude and Jason ought to step back and let editors who are willing to follow policy deal with this matter. MilesMoney (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion has been sidetracked by talking about the Wiley reference. We don't need it, since we already have three (with Nussbaum and without Fermino). The key thing to work out is whether the proposed inclusion is "lying by understatement", to use Miles' words. StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thought that was settled: Wikipedia is not censored. Look at the lede for Meir Kahane, and you'll see that, when we have strong sources directly backing a description, we don't add WP:WEASELing. MilesMoney (talk) 22:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Meir Kahane is not alive, do you have any living examples to support your POV? I have already supplied some living examples that do not. Arzel (talk) 23:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

StAnselm, thank you for your proposal, and acknowledging that the Fermino article may not be necessary. This "lying by omission" argument is without merit, as the Howard article from the VV makes it clear that Geller's beliefs are juxtaposed. Additionally, out of the 3 sources (minus Fermino) the VV appears to be the strongest, because of the richness of the reporting which included an interview with Geller. Though we may say she has been described as wing, she has also been described as liberal on X, Y and, Z. If you don't have a problem with that, perhaps we can start (yet another) section and try again. I'm afraid this one has been hijacked.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

There's no contradiction between being right-wing and having a few liberal views. We don't get to pick and choose which sources to ignore. Instead, we have to follow WP:UNDUE. MilesMoney (talk) 23:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

George Gnarph is right wing except for issues on which he is left wing, but he is also centrist on some other issues -- would end up being a mare's nest of SYNTH and OR. The most you can ever get in the body of a BLP is "Mary Opiner says that George Gnarph is right wing" clearly ascribing opinion as opinion, and that is unlikely to meet any Wikipedia requirements for claims made in the lead of a BLP. Collect (talk) 23:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And perhaps the best thing is not to include any characterization of her politics, whether it be right-wing or liberal. That's as the article stands at the moment, and it does not look like there will be a consensus to make any particular change. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not say she has been described as right-wing, they say she is right-wing. Since no sources contradict this, it would be misleading to use weasel-wording. TFD (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Ya, we know other shit exists, who cares? We are talking about this article, and given the fact I have given a source from Harvard, I figure it is solid, any more waffle forthcoming? Darkness Shines (talk) 23:35, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Second proposal

In addition to the above let me add the following proposal:

She has liberal views on many issues.[1][2] On social issues she is a secular Jew, is a pro-choice, [and] pro-marriage-equality.[1] Prior to 9/11 she leaned left, particularly on abortion.[2] As an advocate of women’s rights she “was particularly disturbed by women under sharia who were treated as second-class citizens.”[1]

[1] Pamela Geller's War Village Voice November 28, 2012 [2] The Passions (And Perils) Of Pamela Geller

I believe the above is supported by the two sources as the quotes show. This proposal is independent of MM's StA's proposal. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm so sorry. I think you meant my proposal, but I forgot to sign. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

"On social issues she is a secular Jew" doesn't sound right at all. "Secular Jew" is not a political position. A "typical" secular Jew? No, that would be even worse. "Like many secular Jews"? Ugh. StAnselm (talk) 04:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does need work. I'm going to bed. Hasta mañana. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

They are self-description, and should be reported as such. Then it does not matter if it makes sense. TFD (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to drop "secular Jew" and use "same-sex marriage" instead of "marriage equality". But we do want the paragraph to make sense, of course. And we want Truth, not just Verifiability. So, does Geller still lean to the left on abortion? Is she still pro-choice? The second sentence seems to contradict the first. StAnselm (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear. The passage seems to suggest that she used to be more left-leaning prior to 9/11. I'm not sure we can use this in its current form. MilesMoney (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The author uses the word "is" not "was" when he lists the items in the second sentence so it's clear that she still is a liberal. Let's clean up the second sentence and drop the 3rd since it repeats "pro-choice" in other words. For the second sentence consider: "Geller, a secular Jew, is pro-choice and for marriage-equality." Both sources confirm her liberal views. Jason from nyc (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Unless we call her far-right in the lede, this is undue. MilesMoney (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe we have already established that "far right" is not supported by reliable sources, is a contentious claim, and thus can not be used in the lede no-how no-way. Cheers. MM -- there is actually a limit as to how many times you can insist on your own personal opinion ruling, and it is quite likely that you have breached that limit. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

It's considerably more supported than "liberal". If we're going to lower the bar all the way down to make room for that, then anything goes. Cheers. MilesMoney (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, since these statements are from Geller herself, not made by reliable thrird party sources, I suggest we attribute them to her inline. We should not claim without a reliable source that her views on any of these issues affects her membership on the right, although we may quote what she says. MM - we already discussed far right above, please do not derail this conversation with comments you know will inflame some editors and have no positive effect. TFD (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Both sources go in depth and they accept that she is a liberal, a social liberal. Her feminist views tie into her abhorrence with Islam that she's known for. Thus, it is not undue. It is well supported and specific. All of this does not address the issue of supporting right-wing foreign policy initiatives of any other right-wing issue. As I said above, this proposal is independent of the other proposal above. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The second reference does not use the word "liberal". The first one does, once, in relation to Geller: she is a "pretty, secular, socially liberal New Yorker". StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The second says she leans left particularly with respect to abortion. The first describes "socially liberal" in detail with several select positions including pro-choice. Thus, we are paraphrasing when we are not quoting directly. Jason from nyc (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether she has liberal views on a few issues that she doesn't feel passionately enough to act on is a great in-depth detail, but it doesn't belong in the lede. The lede should focus on the bottom line: she's a right-wing blogger who works closely with those even further to the right. MilesMoney (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Paraphrasing always dangerous, especially with BLPs. I thought "left" and "liberal" were completely different. See Liberalism in the United States and American Left. StAnselm (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The wikilink you provide, American Left, ends the 1st paragraph with "Americans frequently use the term "left-wing" to refer to radicalism or even liberalism." Apparently Chandler was making that mistake. But that's not the point. Howard in the Village Voice calls her "socially liberal". I add the specifics to make clear what Howard means by the term. He's using it and we should convey what he means by the term. I only include Chandler because be backs up Howard with respect to her liberal view on abortion. We telling the reader what the sources say and mean. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The first sources says she is "socially liberal", while the second source says, "She was mostly apolitical, although, if anything, she said, she leaned left, seeing everything “through the prism of abortion.”" I have no objection to saying she is "socially liberal", but it has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not she is right-wing. There is nothing in the writings of Marx and Engels about same-sex marriage. TFD (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree with you TFD--it has nothing to do with the question of her being right-wing. The right isn't monolithic. That's the problem with using right-wing and not explain what the authors mean by the term with specifics. But that's a consideration for the other proposal. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Wikipedia deals with reliable sources -- not the wonderful fact that you "know" she is an extreme radical far right winger who would kill everyone in her path. And the fact that sources (viz. the Village Voice profile) state she is socially moderate, pro-LGBT and abortion rights, and pro-Israel means nothing since you "know" how evil she is - those views must be mere anomalies <g>. Amazingly enough, there exist a number of people who are not readily pigeonholed into specific categories - and she appears to be one of them. I think her economic views might be worthy of mention, but your persistence here is whelming. Collect (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I know from reading our sources. If you read them, you'd also know. MilesMoney (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone here read the Wiley entry, by the way? It's behind a paywall. StAnselm (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Her economic views are what one one expect for someone who calls her blog "Atlas Shrugged", which is a reference to Ayn Rand's best seller. She toes the party line, which can be seen by her posting on her website quoting Congressman John Carter.[20] Since rs and even her blog rarely mention her economic views, I do not see that it is relevant to her biography. TFD (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the sources establishing her economic views but my proposal has to do with her views on social issues and these views do come up at various points in the article. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Geller's blog is named after Ayn Rand's magnum opus because she's a libertarian in the Objectivist mold. These are right-wing libertarians of the minarchist sort, so they oppose government intervention in our private lives. Such right-libertarian views can bear a superficial resemblance to liberal ones, but the resemblance is skin-deep and the basis is unrelated. Perhaps Geller was a liberal when she was younger, but there's nothing liberal about her current positions, which is why our sources agree that she is right-wing. To say otherwise would violate BLP, NPOV and RS. MilesMoney (talk) 07:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

We go with what the sources say, not your personal theories. The sources say she is socially liberal and sensitive to women's issue. This makes her a strong critic on the plight of women subject to fundamentalist Islamic social mores. Your POV to the contrary is irrelevant. Jason from nyc (talk) 13:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

All of the views you imagine as liberal fit just fine under Rand's sort of libertarianism. What we wind up with is a person who is unquestionably right-wing. It now looks as though, rather than seeking nuance and accuracy, you brought up her supposedly liberal stances on these issues only so that you could try to build an argument against following our sources by identifying her as right-wing. How unfortunate, but WP:RS does not work that way. MilesMoney (talk) 14:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I've continually stated that her being a liberal on social issues is independent of whether or not she is right-wing. I've agreed with TFD on that issue. You give your own theory and ignore what I and others said. The simple conclusion above is that sources say and support the contention that she is socially liberal. That's all I wrote and all I argue with regard to this proposal. Do you dispute the main source, the Village Voice? Jason from nyc (talk) 16:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not want to get into a debate about what the terms "right wing" and "liberal" mean. But in this case we are using them in the way they are normally used and which would be understood by readers. Rand was a liberal btw. TFD (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As far I can tell, you either don't know anything about Rand or don't know anything about liberalism. How this qualifies you to edit this article is beyond me. MilesMoney (talk) 18:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The Liberal International lists her as a "liberal thinker",[21] which is how she saw herself. Before tilting at windmills, you might want to read Hayek's "Why I am not a conservative" or Mises' Liberalism. The LI lists them too, along with Green. Hobhouse amd Naumann. Where do you think the "liberal" in "neoliberal" comes from? TFD (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Geller is American so we're using American terms. What Americans call libertarian is often called liberal in other places. What Americans call liberal is often called progressive. Geller is, in American terms, a libertarian of the extreme right-wing variety. MilesMoney (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you obviously have not heard of them, I will link to T.H. Green, Thomas Hobhouse, and Friedrich Naumann, who hardly met the modern U.S. definition of libertarianism. They are better seen as precursors of New Deal and Great Society liberalism. What all these writers had in common, besides support of capitalism and liberal democracy, was that they were "socially liberal" in the U.S. sense. TFD (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that, in America, libertarianism means right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism goes unrecognized. This might help you understand it better: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/11/the-distinctiveness-of-left-libertarianism/

For the record, I'm not a left-libertarian, but I'm a moderate one as opposed to right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I understand all that. And "American liberals" are not left-libertarians. Do you think the Obama administration supports class struggle, wealth distribution and resisting war, imperialism and colonialism? TFD (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

American liberals aren't libertarians at all. They're hardly even liberals. In Europe, they'd be considered moderates, or perhaps left-leaning moderates. In Europe, the left is socialist; in America, there is no socialism. This is a slight simplification, but what it lacks in precision, it makes up in accuracy. MilesMoney (talk) 21:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Back to the point. It is correct to call Geller "socially liberal on x, y and z". We are not calling her left-wing in any way. PS - in Europe both Democrats and Republicans would be considered liberal, while Geller would be considered right-wing. In fact her "socially liberal" views are entirely consistent with the far right English Defense League, which claims to be inclusive by including Jewish, Sikh, black, and gay members and Geert Wilder's right-wing Party for Freedom. TFD (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's the problem with "liberal"; its meaning varies. In contrast, Geller is considered right-wing all over. MilesMoney (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That is why we are saying "socially liberal on x, y and z". What else could it mean? TFD (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - date formats

In order to fix the Category:CS1 errors: dates in this article and move towards MOS:DATEUNIFY, could someone please make these changes?

• Reference 18 - change date to "May 25, 2011" and add origyear=2010
• Reference 47 - change date to "December 8, 2009" and accessdate to "September 14, 2010"
• Reference 90 - change date to "September 27, 2012"
• Reference 92 - change accessdate to "September 21, 2012"

Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Here is what will happen

Once protection expires, I will use the Harvard ref given above, the article will then read, "right wing blogger" per the source. Anyone wishing to argue this can of course go to the RSN board, and given the source, I figure they will get short shrift, any arguments? Darkness Shines (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Such an act would be "edit war" ab initio -- the concept of WP:CONSENSUS is that contentious claims must have consensus to be inserted into any BLP. Period. Your concept of unilateral action without getting a consensus is against Wikipedia policy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And as soon as you have a source which disputes the one from HUP we can revisit the issue, as this is not a contentious claim at all, only among a few editors, and the opinions of a few editors to not matter as we have WP:V. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue, for some editors, is not whether some sources use the label right-wing but whether it is a contentious WP:LABEL. Our own article on the American right, i.e. American conservatism says it is a category "marked by tensions and competing ideologies. Fiscal conservatives and libertarians favor small government, low taxes, limited regulation, and free enterprise. Social conservatives see traditional social values as threatened by secularism; they tend to support school prayer and capital punishment and oppose abortion and same-sex marriage. Neoconservatives want to expand American ideals throughout the world and show a strong support for Israel. Paleoconservatives advocate restrictions on immigration, non-interventionist foreign policy, and stand in opposition to multiculturalism. ..." If we have a strong source that tells us unambiguously that she is conservative/right-winger and what type, we'd have something solid. But a vague label is a WP:LABEL. BLP compels us to go beyond mere RS and V. This type of fact is not the same as seeking a source that water boils at 100C at atmospheric pressure. That's a simple fact. This is an complicated fact stated with an ill-defined word that can have many meanings. If a source says she's a neocon because of the role that Israel plays in foreign policy, I'd opt to go with neocon (the more specific) than right-wing (which may or may not include neocon). Let's explain what the sources say rather than pluck a vague label out of context. Spell it out. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The source is specifically about religion ... And thus is not RS for an off-hand political spectrum adjective. The source on page 53, for example, equates Muslim circumcision practices with US male circumcision. I suppose we could as easily assert that as "fact". In an article. In short ... Books on religion may be RS for claims about religion, but are not RS for other claims. Collect (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is correct. Once the fact that she's right-wing is strongly sourced, any contention about it is merely an instance of WP:IDHT. Threatening to revert Darkness Shines' proposed edit is, by the way, edit-warring from the get-go. No amount of spin can undo the fact that our sources confirm that she is right-wing. MilesMoney (talk) 14:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

A book on religion is not a strong source on political spectrums and secondly your absolute certainty that Rand was "right wing libertarian" would itself require some sourcing other than your own knowledge of the topic. And I would note your use of "threatening" is rather non-collegial utterly. Cheers and Happy New Year. Collect (talk) 14:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Using the word "threatening" is a whole lot more collegial than actually threatening, which is what you're doing. There will be no edit war because you will not revert reliably-sourced material. I know this is true because you hate getting blocked. MilesMoney (talk) 15:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also non-collegial, in a rather egregious way, is the incessant accusation of "whitewashing", here as well as across multiple articles and noticeboards. Roccodrift (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a better term for removing sourced material because it embarrasses you? I'd love to hear it. MilesMoney (talk) 15:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Here is what should happen

There is still time before protection runs out. If an impeccable source is available that nobody will disagree with, agree on a wording and make an edit request. Saying you're going to make an edit no matter what once protection expires might be what will happen...but it's not the way to go about it. --Onorem (talk) 01:16, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I agree that swearing to make changes regardless of consensus is inappropriate, but sourcing is not the problem: weaseling is. We have many reliable sources supporting her right-wing status, but there are a few editors who oppose its inclusion regardless of policy. There's no reasoning with them, so there's no reason to try to. Opinions that contradict policy have no influence on consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think we will need to get some outside help in determining the consensus of the discussion. If you're right, you have nothing to worry about. StAnselm (talk) 01:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be nice if we could avoid ringing in the new year with an edit war. MilesMoney (talk) 01:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You are half (Ok...not exactly, but my point stands) of what makes that possible. Don't edit war. You've helped prevent one. Good job! :) --Onorem (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

If I see editors reverting to whitewash the article, I'll ask for protection. MilesMoney (talk) 03:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And if you state that as the reason for the request, your request will be declined at best, and you laughed at worst, with probably a stern talking too in between.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As noted in several places, some people call her "right wing" as a matter of opinion, and generally based on her being anti-Islamic terrorism and pro-Israel. The problem is that she is clearly libertarian per sources (which is arguably not easily placed on a left-right spectrum) and pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights. Neither of which is inherently right wing. This is not "whitewashing" anything - it is following the policies and precepts of the project. Collect (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The sort of libertarianism espoused by Ayn Rand is right-wing libertarianism, or for short, right-libertarianism. It's libertarianism, but it's also right-wing. In contrast, there is such a thing as left-libertarianism, but that does not seem to be the default meaning in America. In the rest of the world, things are a bit different. MilesMoney (talk) 14:53, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing of a claim by assertion that you know what is true does not actually count for a lot. Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that she's right-wing is reliably sourced in multiple ways. I'm simply explaining to you why your argument against using those sources is pure spin. MilesMoney (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

And you will be immediately reverted, and hopefully blocked for adding text you know will be disputed amongst editors, for violating BLP and for stirring the pot. The BLP policy states "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times", and by omitting any explanation of the juxtaposition of Geller's beliefs, described in the arguably the best RS on Geller we have (Village Voice) is certainly unfair. Without providing the necessary and required balance labeling Geller with the same adjectives used to describe (and implicitly associate too) the KKK, Apartheid, the American Militia Movement is ridiculous, yet that is what some editors are loathsomely attempting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should have a chat with Rocco. By his standards, your remarks are uncollegial and unbecoming. Or do we have a different set of standards for those who keep saying WP:IDHT, threatening to edit war, and ignoring our sources? Let me know. MilesMoney (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Restoring comment removed without explanation by MilesMoney: ::::::::::Sourcing of a claim by assertion that you know what is true does not actually count for a lot. Collect (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney -- removing posts from a talk page without noting the fact is improper, and violative of talk page guidelines. Please do not do this again on any talk page. Collect (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

AGF. If you have a diff for this, I'd like to see it, as I don't remember intentionally removing anything. Perhaps it was an edit conflict. MilesMoney (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

[22] Of course "if you have a diff" is weird since my post was there for eleven minutes before your edit, which is generally beyond "edit conflict" range, and you had made and saved an intermediate post by yourself as well without having an edit conflict with yourself. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I can't reconstruct precisely how the error happened, but it's clearly an error. The diff you linked to adds a response to another comment (starting with "Using the word") but reverts my previous edit (where my response starts with "The fact that she's right-wing") and even what it's responding to.

I suggest that the right way to handle such errors is to quietly restore what was accidentally removed. Bold-faced accusations are a violation of WP:AGF and a waste of time. MilesMoney (talk) 20:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quietly restored. MilesMoney (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Unlike the term conservative, the term right-wing merely means opposed to the Left. Anyone question whether Geller opposes the Left? TFD (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I question your faulty definition of "right-wing". Roccodrift (talk) 00:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And? I suggest that on any given issue a lot of non "right wing" people can oppose "the left" but you seem to like a tautological claim that "anyone who opposes any part of the left is ipso facto right wing." I demur on tautological definitions as a rule. Geller is pro-choice and pro-LGBT rights, and the primary basis for asserting she is "right wing" appears to be the "Anti-Islamic" charge and the concomitant "pro-Israel" charge. As I see no reason to believe "anti-Israel" is left wing nor that "pro-Islamic" is left wing, the tautological claim seems to vanish. Cheers -- but feel free to assert that "left = anti-Israel" of course. Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You bring up a good point. I have long suspected that she's labeled right-wing because of her opposition to Islam and her Zionism. However, writers who label her right-wing don't tell us why. I wish they would because then we could accurately report "X say Geller is right-wing for her opposition to jihad, Zionism, ..." If X, Y, and Z say that, we could report what these people consider right-wing and why they classify Geller in that category. Otherwise the word is too broad. By the way, the Wikipedia article on right-wing starts "In left-right politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position ..." Jason from nyc (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It is only tautological if the left is defined as opposition to the right, which it isn.t. Not every source about right-wing politics will explain why each and every person may be considered right-wing, any more than articles about liberalism, conservatism or socialism will explain why each and every person should be considered to belong to them. Reliable sources call Einstein a scientist, but they do not normally explain why he should be considered one. Geller allies herself with the EDL and CPAC, which places her on the right. TFD (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but a scientist would not object to Einstein in their category. They may balk at the label being applied to some quack. Just like most Muslims would object to saying bin Laden is a Muslim and leave it at that. Our article on him identifies him as the founder of a "Sunni militant Islamist organization." Note it says Islamist and not Islamic. If the broader category was used, "he is an Islamic leader," you risk objections from moderate Islamic leaders who do not see him as one of them. Now why do I bring up this example? Geller is accused to using the broader category "Islamic" instead of the more exact "Islamist." This is the basis of much of the criticism. She explicitly states that she is against "political Islam" but "political" often disappears in her rhetoric so people question her sincerity. If we believe she is some type of right-winger we should be specific and seek sources that are specific or we are going what Geller is accused of doing. If she's a neo-con on foreign policy we should state that and source it. What type of conservative is she? Where are the sources that tell us? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

She vehemently opposes the left and claims the Islamists are in alliance with them. And she allies herself with the Right, speaks at Tea Party events and called Palin the "perfect candidate" whom McCain threw under the liberal bus. She is a follower of Ayn Rand It does not matter what she would score on the Nolan Chart, she is part of the U.S. right. That does not mean she is a "conservative", she could be a liberal like Ayn Rand. TFD (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What we could reasonably do is state that "she has been called pro-Israel and anti-Islamic and that xxx called her 'right wing'" in the body of the article - and not try parsing it all out in the lead, where it would be proper to also include the "pro-LGBT rights" and "pro-choice" sources, and likely also a "libertarian" source. And not place her into any contentious categories on the basis of the sources given. Sound reasonable? Collect (talk) 04:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

That or something close does sound reasonable. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be like saying the Socialist Workers Party has been described as a left-wing. Not only is it weasel wording, but it is describing a fact as an opinion. Back to Einstein has been described as a scientist. TFD (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

And the earth has been described as round. The fact is that this is exactly where Wikipedia as a project is at the moment: unable to state obvious, basic, undeniable facts due to an inability to curb political partisanship. — goethean 01:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What do you guys think of this line in the lead of Bill Clinton: "Clinton has been described as a New Democrat." This has been in the lead for over 7 years. The article has 970 editors (watchers) who obviously fine this acceptable. (I still think we should just describe the views.) Jason from nyc (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You convinced me a while back, Jason. At the start of this discussion I was in favour of a straight designation of "right wing", but I think your arguments are stronger and have not been refuted, only contradicted. The whole "But we don't say she is described as a woman" thing is a false analogy, since "left" and "right" designations are much more subjective. As far as I can tell, we have one neutral, objective, authoritative source unambiguously calling Geller "right" - that's not enough, in my opinion. StAnselm (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another interesting example: The George W. Bush article doesn't say he's right-wing, but these reliable sources [23][24][25] say he was. StAnselm (talk) 03:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually none of your sources say Bush is right-wing. And yes sometimes conservatives or right-wing liberals are referred to as right, as for example speaking about the UK's "center-left" coalition government. However, people to the right of mainstream liberals and conservatives are always called right-wing, because there are no other terms, such as liberal or conservative, to describe them. TFD (talk) 03:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Socialist Workers Party (United States) is an organization not an individual. Let's stick to individuals. Recently I seen several conservatives call NYC mayor Bill de Blasio far left. I looked at our article on him and it doesn't call him left let alone far left. The only mention of leftist tendencies is in the headline of a NY Times article (in the footnotes) that says he was once a young leftist. Here is a major politician and our article doesn't classify him: not left, not progressive, not liberal, nada. All it does is describe his positions and achievements as it should. We should do the same here. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason it does not call him left-wing is that he is not considered left-wing in reliable sources, although he might have been thirty years ago. The article does mention his politics however - he is a Democrat. What is Geller? The best description is right-wing. TFD (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's his Party. Geller is anti-Islamic or Islamophobic depending on the source. I don't see any discussion of her politics. Do you? Jason from nyc (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"She is a supporter of the English Defence League (EDL)....Geller, who has spoken at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) convention in past years, finds she is no longer welcomed. She has attacked the American Conservative Union’s board members, Grover Norquist and Suhail Khan, alleging ties to the Muslim Brotherhood." The Democrats btw are a political party, just like the Republicans, hence saying someone is a Democratic or Republican Party politician is usually enough. It is possible btw to be anti-islamist or islamophobic while being left-wing. TFD (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In the beginning of the discussion I too, like StA, was leaning towards right-wing but ruling out far-right. But then I realized I was using my definition and original research. I’m sure if you and I (and a few others) were to do the research we’d agree that X, Y, and Z are good signs that she’s a certain type of right-leaning individual. I just don’t see the sources explaining the “how and why.” And as you note, being anti-Islamic (for which she is know) has nothing to do with right-left. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

RSN

The take-home from WP:RSN about Nussbaum is:

This sources is reliable for the description of Geller as "right-wing".

Given this, I believe a block would be in order for anyone who violates this by removing "right-wing". MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

As stated here, and on RSN, BLP policy requires fairness to BLP subjects, which in this case requires balance' to the right wing moniker, which is provided by sources, notably the VV. RSN does not handle such issues.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

That would be forum-shopping: I already took this to BLPN and it didn't go your way. MilesMoney (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you opened topics at both RSN and BLPN, according to your interpretation of "forum shopping" you yourself are guilty. But that's besides the point. Your view that things at BLP didn't "go my way" is a novel read of the thread. In fact the predominant view appears to be against your position, but that's just my read on things. Furthermore the balance issue was raised briefly and never disputed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it was Collect who opened a topic on RSN just now, but he didn't get what he was looking for, either. As for your read on things, it's as inaccurate as your memories of RSN. MilesMoney (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked a specific question about a specific source -- which is what RSN is for -- and your precis is inaccurate and malicious here. As is your harassment of me via "thank"ing me to show that you are, indeed, now stalking my edits. Cheers -- now STOP THE STALKING. Thanks. Collect (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:AGF. Then consider a few things:

1. I have BD2412's and AQFK's talk pages on my watchlist from before. There was no need to look at your contributions (which still isn't stalking), as these edits showed up automatically.
2. The posts I thanked you for were about me or addressed to me, so I wasn't butting in where I didn't belong.
3. A thank you is not an insult.
4. If I hadn't noticed your edits myself, Calton's courtesy post would have alerted me to the fact that you were making trouble for me behind my back.

In the future, if you must make false accusations, do it on my talk page instead of cluttering this one. MilesMoney (talk) 18:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

You should note I made no "false accusations" and your claim that I did is egregious. I asked a polite question and was answered politely, and I made no false statements there at all. Meanwhile, it is clear that unless you used tachyons for Calton's post -- it occurred well after you "thank"ed me. And your multiple other "thanks" after that can only have occurred by stalking my edits. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)(unstriking as no attack was present) Collect (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Attack redacted. MilesMoney (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

another source

[26]

How a Group of Christians Smearing Muslims Benefits the Jewish State Washington Report on Middle East Affairs By Cathail, Maidhc , Magazine article from Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Vol. 31, No. 8

Notwithstanding Goldberg's terse dismissal of an Israeli connection, the Jew-libeling Christians actually turned out to have close ties to the pro-Israel Islamophobia network led by Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer

SION, whose similarity to Zion is hardly coincidental, stands for "Stop Islamization of Nations," a group co-founded by Geller and Spencer

As with most of the mainstream media's coverage of the post-Bacile story, the McClatchey report made no mention of Morris Sadek's ties to the Geller-Spencer Islamophobia network or his extreme pro-Israel views

I am sure this would make an interesting addition to the BLP. Collect (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

With quotes like "SION, whose similarity to Zion is hardly coincidental" and ending with "it's not too difficult to speculate as to the most likely source of that income" it seems like a hoax or conspiracy theory. Jason from nyc (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no opinion, but we should probably evaluate http://www.wrmea.org/about-wrmea.html MilesMoney (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS for sure -- noted journalists writing for it etc. Actually a better source than a book on religion conflicts which does not delve deeply into the topic at hand. And it would clearly show the nature of some of the opinions being presented. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It may well be reliable, but it's not as good a source as the Harvard book, which is written by an academic expert in the field, not just a journalist. MilesMoney (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-defamation league

I don't see Geller or her organizations labeled "hate groups" by the Anti-defamation league. I check the citations and did a search of their website. Please check that I did not miss the passage. They do say that she and her organizations support "anti-Muslim bigotry" and that is appropriate to mention. It's the SPLC that has a "hate group" list. Jason from nyc (talk) 03:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

She says the ADL designated the group a hate group[27] They list Stop Islamization of America in a report to a senate subcommittee "Selected ADL Resources on Extremism and Organized Hate Groups in America."[28] [Here] is a link to her group's page on the ADL website, which is used as a source for the article.[29] I do not think they keep lists, so perhaps we could re-phrase the statement. TFD (talk) 04:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Another source: Liyakat Takim

Liyakat Takim[30], The Ground Zero Mosque Controversy: Implications for American Islam Religions 2011, 2(2), 132-144; doi:10.3390/rel2020132[31] p136

It will contain a Muslim prayer space that has been referred to as the "Ground Zero mosque", though it is not intended to be a mosque nor is it to be located at Ground Zero. In fact, the term “Ground Zero mosque,” which was coined by right-wing activist Pamela Geller, is a misnomer since it depicts the distorted impression that the center is to be constructed on the actual site of the 9/11 tragedy and former World Trade Center.

— goethean 16:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

And of course the really great quote: In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Christian fundamentalist groups, and the pro-Israel lobby were responsible for inciting and encouraging the anti-Islamic rhetoric.

Once again -- the villain is the "pro-Israel lobby."

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict forced Muslims in America to reconsider their apolitical posture

Your great source mentions Geller only once en passant, is not about Geller, and seems primarily to dwell on the nasty pro-Israel lobby. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the source cannot be used? If so, please specify the Wikipedia policy which you are referring to. I don't think that there is a policy against using sources which mention a pro-Israel lobby. — goethean 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you object to claims by such sources including the "pro-Israel lobby" language in the claims to make clear what the full nature of the source is? Collect (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I would think that mentioning that it is a peer-reviewed[32] academic journal on religion would be more generally descriptive of the source and more useful to a general audience. — goethean 23:54, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Excellent source; Wikipedia should make more use of good academic sources like this. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

  I'm perfectly happy to use this source, as well as several of the others proffered. To be frank, now that the adults are the only ones left in the room we can move forward, no? It is clear to me that we may use "right wing" (though of course it isn't mandatory). However I'm still greatly concerned about pro-forma appearance of lumping Geller into a category of individuals known for lynchings, bombing churches and the wholesale subjugation of an oppressed majority. This is still BLP territory. Two kinds of pork (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to "right-wing", or "far right"? I support "right wing", not "far right". — goethean 13:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I support "described as 'right wing' by Liyakat Takim" as clearly describing who used that description, and adding that "Takim places her with the 'pro-Israel lobby'." When one uses a source, one ought not pick-and-choose single sentences where context may be important to the reader. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But isn't that exactly what you are doing? Why not tell the reader that this was written in a peer-reviewed academic journal of religion? — goethean 14:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Takim places her with the 'pro-Israel lobby'."

Um, where exactly does he do this? — goethean 14:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

He places Geller as being guilty of anti-Islamic rhetoric and clearly states In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative wing of the Republican Party, Christian fundamentalist groups, and the pro-Israel lobby were responsible for inciting and encouraging the anti-Islamic rhetoric. As I doubt she is a "Christian fundamentalist" and she does not appear to be a "conservative Republican" that either leaves her as part of the "pro-Israel lobby" or not covered at all <g>. Take your pick -- we could mention all three of course. Collect (talk) 14:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you point me to a more exact quotation where Takim states that Gellar is part of the pro-Israel lobby? Because I'm not seeing it. Thx. — goethean 15:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That quote is being taken deeply out of context. It is referring quite specifically to groups of the 80s and 90s, and not post-9/11 activism, or describing groups stated in the 2010s. It's certainly not a sentence that actively "places" Gellner with that earlier era's groups. It makes a clear argument that anti-Islamic rhetoric flowed from more sources that the three you quote, and nowhere is it suggested that anyone using anti-Islamic rhetoric must belong exclusively to one of those three groups. It states: "The 1980s and 1990s witnessed increased animosity towards Arabs and Muslims in the United States. In all probability, domestic groups like the conservative..." __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. This is a passing reference of unknown origin in an article that gets much of its material from Wikipedia (see the footnotes). We know nothing about how this assessment was made and where he got his information, nor what he means by the phrase. The same is true for Nussbaum. There's no consensus for recent inserts. Let's reach a consensus here instead of edit-warring. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The journal is peer-reviewed, but I guess that you know better than they do. You are right. This is getting ridiculous. — goethean 16:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is not about Geller. The sentence is not about Geller. It's passing reference and if you believe reviewers verified every modifying phrase then you have no idea of the nature of academic review in the social sciences: here's a telling example. The article has to be accepted as a reliable source on the subject of the article. If Wikipedia editing has been reduced to a google search for pair-wise combination, like "Geller" + "right-wing", we might as well close up shop. Jason from nyc (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Should the article describe Geller as right wing per the sources, or should the article say "her critics call her right wing" And would it be a violation of BLP to do soModified after request below

This sources states she is a "Right wing blogger" It' addition was removed. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously, per the source, which the RSN board also said was fine for this edit. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Either But either also require additional context or this becomes a BLP VIOLATION. As explained by the most thorough source we have on Geller, the Village Voice, she has contrasting views on many subjects. Labeling her in such a matter as to equate her with the KKK is highly contentious, and unfair to a living person. Out of all the sources, the VV is the king of the hill, and to that we should defer.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:33, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Who is equating her to the Klan? Darkness Shines (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The Klan is described as "far right", which is not what is under discussion here. So it seems that User:Two kinds of pork is confused. — goethean 16:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. There are dozens if not hundreds or thousands of RS that refer to the Klan as right wing.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, what? Sources (unspecified) call the Klan x (although Wikipedia does not call them x, it calls them y), therefore if we follow sources and call someone x, we are associating that person with the Klan? I don't think that argument works. — goethean 17:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone "right wing" is extremely contentious. I doubt anyone could disagree with that. Sources or the hand of god annointing her on the head notwithstanding, even if it's true, it's contentious. Do you disagree?Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

We are not calling her right wing, RS are. And no, it is not contentious, except among a few fans on this talk page, hell I am right wing. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Progress at last. Perhaps we should start a new thread on the BLP board. I'll live with whatever consensus we get there.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It depends on the person. Neo-Nazis and the KKK and their leaders are far right. That seems uncontroversial (although there are some people, e.g. Neo-Nazis, who would and do dispute the label). Geller is a founder of the Birther movement and is known for being a proponent of anti-Muslim sentiment. So simply saying where she stands on the political spectrum? No, it doesn't seem super duper controversial to me. — goethean 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

DS and goethean, thank you for the comments. I'll think on them for a bit. However if you could stipulate for the moment it is contentious, then you think my position is reasonable, or is there another issue?Two kinds of pork (talk) 18:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure exactly what your position is. You say that we need more context. What further context would work? I object to Collect's suggestion that we say that it is Nussbaum and Talik who call Geller right-wing because that's not really accurate, as Geller's right-wingedness is well-known and widely attested. — goethean 18:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support "right-wing" per the sources with no distancing clause. Multiple, highly reliable sources for this well-known, undisputed, uncontroversial fact, including a peer-reviewed academic journal of religion and universally acclaimed, unimpeachable philosopher and cultural critic Martha Craven Nussbaum. — goethean 16:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

What is the source from the journal of religion? StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose using Wikipedia's voice for a disputed label -- allow using opinions cited as opinions and including her other political opinions (pro-LGBT rights etc.) in lead as balance per NPOV Collect (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Can you point me to the sources that say that she is not right-wing? — goethean 16:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well I suppose you could call a person who favours LGBT rights and is pro-choice, and who has other not-very-right-wing-views "right wing" but that is sorta like calling a person who thinks the Pope is Satan a "good Roman Catholic". In fact, I suspect she has a few thousand views which are not "right wing" but why would you oppose balancing the lead with heer pro-Choice and pro-LGBT positions? Collect (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I asked for sources. — goethean 17:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

VV was enough I trust for pro-LGBT and pro-choice. [33] NYT has a long article on her - and does not call her "right wing" though she says liberals of the 50s cold be considered "right wing nuts" today in what appears a jocular comment. Sorry -- if "right wing" is used, so should "pro-choice" and "pro-LGBT." WP:NPOV is pretty clear on that. Collect (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

But you have no sources which dispute the well-sourced characterization of her as right-wing. — goethean 17:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

One source != "well-sourced. I showed another source on this page which you appear not to like. Using a single source for a contentious claim where it is no big deal to properly ascribe it as opinion seems quite contrary to WP:BLP. And you also seem not to want the NPOV balancing material about her being pro-LGBT rights and pro-choice in the lead. Any reason why? Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Using WP vioce for the statement. This is not done for BLP's across WP for contencious statements, and frankly don't understand why this particular BLP should be treated differently. I have no problem attributing that she is called right wing, even in the lead. I think WP:LABEL and WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV should be guiding factors in these decisions. Furthermore, there is plenty of article which already goes into detail about how much people don't like her. Arzel (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support "right-wing" in WP voice according to numerous reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Never edited this article, don't even know who the women is. Just ended up here just via the ANI page (actually due to QuackGuru). But as Collect stated, you can use the sources to support that she's right wing, but the article shouldn't put that in wikivoice. Since it's an opinion regarding her political leaning - a description, it must be attributed in some way, particularly in a BLP. Let me add that I don't necessarily think you have to phrase it as "her critics call her", if that's a contention point, if she is generally described as right wing, you can just say "she's been described as right wing" - that still attributes it outside of wikivoice. Morphh ^(talk) 19:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: This RfC is defective, in that it pretty obviously takes a stand on how the proposer thinks it should be decided. Scrap it and start over with a neutral statement of the controversy. As it currently stands, this RfC will not yield a result that could be considered credible. Also, the wording of the RfC isn't entirely grammatical or coherent. Roccodrift (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - RfCs are meant to be neutrally worded. I don't understand what the "And would it be a violation of BLP to do so" means in the RfC statement. StAnselm (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP RfC

Can someone start one for that, or modify the current one? That is the real issue, and unless it is addressed (BLP) here, this will come around full circle and be a waste of time.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you explain that clearly please. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, on the mobile now. Can you please modify the question so that it asks if either of those statements violate BLP and/or add a third which qualifies Geller as x,y,z (primarily whatever for the VV). Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Done, hopefully. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

When I get back to a terminal, I might take a stab at adding a blurb, but that's a good start. Thanks!Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)