Talk:Pamela Geller/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

"Controversial", and "false" claims

User:Truthsort has twice reverted my edit of the following material (my additions are in bold):

Eric Boehlert, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, concurred with Hooper's sentiments, remarking that "she's been instrumental, she has whipped up hatred in the right-wing blogosphere and now that's spilled out into the wider community." Media Matters has suggested that "Geller's history of outrageous, inflammatory and false claims, particularly when it comes to issues related to Islam, demonstrate that she cannot be expected to make accurate statements and should not be rewarded with a platform on national television." (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting)

and

Controversial postings on "Atlas Shrugs" have included a number of false claims, including that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan (who is Jewish) supports Nazi ideology (accompanied by a fake picture of her in a Nazi uniform) (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting), video suggesting Muslims have sex with goats, a doctored photo showing President Obama urinating on an American flag (for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting), and false claims that Obama's mother was involved in pornography and that Obama dated a "crack whore".(for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting) Geller has also used her site to accuse President Obama of anti-Semitism and doing the bidding of "Islamic overlords," while posting an essay suggesting, without any evidence, that the President is the "love child" of Malcolm X.(for talk page purposes I am removing the provided reference to preserve formatting)

On my talk page and the edit summaries, User:Truthsort has made various accusations that this edit is WP:OR, that it is my "personal analysis", a "novel synthesis" of previously published material, and that it is "uncited". I take exception to his claims. To point out that Ms. Geller is "controversial" seems, well, not very controversial. That her claims cited in the article are "false" is also a demonstrably true statement, and provides necessary context for the naive reader. Finally, the material on the Media Matters statement is indeed well-cited.

I have no wish to get into an edit war, however Truthsort seems intent on keeping out relevant, well-cited, and acceptable material. I hope s/he will refrain from further disruptive editing. Arjuna (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna has added unsourced content calling her postings as "false", and being "without any evidence". The sources that are used in this section are the Huffington Post and from her website. The Huffington Post makes no mention of these postings being "false". This is clearly a violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability in that this type of content needs to have a reliable source. I removed the MMfA content he added because it is undue weight. There is already criticism from MMfA in the article and more content from here will just give a disproportionate amount of weight. Truthsort (talk) 05:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have already addressed much of this above (it would have been more useful if you had added this into the section I created, but since you are relatively new here and may not have understood the need for convenience, I will do it for you). The false nature of these claims is self-evident, and thus needs no citation in the article (I mean seriously: Kagan, a Jew, supports Nazi ideology?). Does a sentence characterizing the claim that "the sun rises in the west" as "false" need to be cited? Can you possibly be serious in suggesting this? That would be very post-modern, indeed. Arjuna (talk) 06:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The essay WP:Truth explains this perfectly

Truth is not the criteria for inclusion of any idea or statement in a Wikipedia article, even if it is on a scientific topic (see Wikipedia:Science). The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true.

Truthsort (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. First, I note that the material is still there today, so other editors in the last 24 hours don't seem to find "false", etc. to be objectionable. I believe that most, but not all, of the actual statements attributed to Geller are cited. I agree that those that aren't should be (I didn't contribute that material). The next issue is how to verify the claim that those Geller statements are indeed "false", which is a trickier proposition. Say, for example, that I am a bomb-throwing demagogue who makes the unsubstantiated claim on my blog that Beloved and Notable Public Person X is actually a heroin dealer, wife-beater, and pimp. Because that person is a public figure, libel laws do not apply. The claim is so absurd that no respectable news outlets will even dignify such a statement enough to bother refuting it. (Also, scientifically speaking it is impossible to prove a negative.) The only media sources that do note its falsity are other blogs, which are not appropriate sources of citations on Wikipedia. But to (effectively) re-publish that material without the context that they are self-evidently absurd is a disservice to the Wikipedia enterprise and the reader. What to do? At some level, common sense and decency should apply - i.e. such statements are self-evidently untrue and should be characterized as such. But to be honest, I have not had time to go through WP:BLP yet to see what if any specific policies may apply here, but this should prove instructive. If those guidelines don't clarify how to approach this, I think we should take this to the Admins at BLP, not because I'm trying to pick a fight with you, but because I genuinely think it's a gray area that needs to be clarified. So if we do need to do that, as far as I'm concerned it's an amicable process and hopefully you will see it the same way. Agree? Arjuna (talk) 03:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Are we allowed to point out — in the absence of reliable sources — that the photo of Obama urinating on an American flag is doctored? Should we point out that the picture of Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform is fake? The somewhat absurd implication of User:Truthsort's reading of policy is that we cannot. — goethean ॐ 04:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna, your entire argument is nothing more than straw man. Unfortunately, you still do not seem to understand WP:OR, WP:Verifiability and WP:Truth. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Original research refers to content that is not published by reliable sources. If there is not a source for something you want to include in Wikipedia, it is then original research. To show that you are not editing in original research, you have to cite reliable secondary sources that are precisely related to the subject matter of the article, and that straightforwardly back the material as shown. Sure, Geller's post might be false, but in the end, the threshold for admittance in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. As far as the photo of Obama urinating on an American flag and the picture of Elena Kagan in a Nazi uniform, that information is provided in the Huffington Post source and that content is not what I'm discussing. Truthsort (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have somewhat mixed thoughts on this topic. I don't like leaving readers with the idea that patently false statements may be true because we haven't refuted them. But I wonder, if it's so obvious a statement is false that its falsity doesn't need verifiability ("Throughout the world, the sky is usually a beautiful mixture of green and orange stripes."), why do we need to state it's false? If that's not the case (e.g., some Jews undoubtedly do support Nazi ideas – for various reasons), shouldn't normal rules of verifiability apply?

Arjuna, you give an example where "the claim is so absurd that no respectable news outlets will even dignify such a statement enough to bother refuting it." A corollary to the old "if a tree falls in the forest and nobody hears it..." might be "if a blogger makes an outrageous statement and nobody comments on it..." is it undue weight to mention it in Wikipedia in the first place? Geller writes a blog, and not much else. If she's notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, some reliable sources somewhere must have written something about her. If they haven't, we shouldn't be either. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fat&Happy, thanks for your comments, they are helpful. Indeed, it is not hard to find articles from reliable sources painting Geller as a loathsome demagogue, but I haven't found any yet that specifically refute her more wacky charges. I don't find this surprising for the reasons I already outlined. Simply to re-publish them gives them a hearing they do not deserve and is beneath the dignity even of the mainstream media (which is saying something, if I may editorialize a bit). Your point about including such statements at all, in that doing so may give them undue weight, is an interesting one. Fair point, and I think this deserves consideration. However, at the same time the vile nature of her claims is sufficiently well-known (indeed, as a sensationalist with little else to say, perhaps this is her claim to fame, but in this I most certainly am providing original research!). So it seems relevant to include examples of her outlandish claims, and as I have already argued, not to state that such charges are false or unsubstantiated seems an injustice to the spirit - and perhaps letter - of Wikipedia.

As for examples of the difficulty citing refutations, have a look here. Media Matters doesn't specifically come out and say that Geller's charge is false. It is so self-evidently absurd that it is accurately described as an "outlandish, offensive smear", which is a version of "false" but not that exact word. So at some point, dickering over such things becomes wikilawyering. Trust me, I've dealt with this sort of stonewalling before, and we don't want to waste our time with that kind of disruptive editing. Other examples of good reliable sources characterizing Geller (indeed, there is a wealth of material here that probably merits additional inclusion in the article but I will refrain for now) can be found here and here. Note that they don't discuss the specific Geller claims in question, and I'm not saying they do - in fact the point is that Geller is portrayed as such a fringe character that her actual views can hardly be taken seriously by serious journalists. I suspect that they feel to repeat certain statements as "false" gives such memes a dignity they do not deserve. (As an aside, it is interesting to note that human psychology is such that making a charge, even a demonstrably false one like "Obama is a Muslim" has a 'stickiness' that makes it hard to refute in terms of aggregate opinion. Corrective statements that "Obama is NOT a Muslim" are actually not that effective, since the meme gets stuck there and people tend to forget the "NOT" part. In any event, it is for this reason that I think it's important to make sure that Geller's statements' falsity be clearly acknowledged.)

Truthsort, I'm disappointed in your response. I am trying to be constructive in acknowledging that this is a gray area, and that perhaps we should solicit the advice of BLP admins. Yet all you seem to offer is an accusation that I "don't understand" Wikipedia guidelines. All I can say is that while my understanding of every single Wikipedia guideline and policy is certainly far from perfect, I have been around for quite awhile and am pretty well-acquainted with Wikipedia policies. You seem to have read my reply but I'm not sure you understood it. I don't know how I can be more clear. I'm sorry to say that I don't really find your response very helpful.

I will add the Media Matters citation to the "Nazi" claim, and will look at Politifact, Factcheck.org, and Fact Checker (WashPo) to see if they have anything, though I doubt it for the reasons I have already given. Honestly, I suspect this is something that the BLP admins will have to provide guidance on, and that is something I am quite willing to initiate. Best, Arjuna (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I made some significant changes, including addition of several references to reliable sources supporting the claim. I also added reference to the mainstream perception of Geller, which I was careful to base on the Jerome Corsi article so as to avoid potential WP:BLP issues. Arjuna (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:BLPN about this. Truthsort (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is warranted. Arjuna (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Major EW violation

I have reported a user (Altivia) for unrepentant edit warring on this article; most of Altivia's edits were done under an IP, then the IP was warned and the account "Altivia" was created, however it's obvious that they are the same person. For more details relating to the discussion, see here. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This user seem quite vitriolic. Let's hope for a quick ban. NickCT (talk) 20:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced POV

This looks a lot like an anti-Geller pig pile, not much mention of the valid research she's dug up on radical Islamist terrorism. She was one of the first to correctly declare Fort Hood a case of violent Jihad, which has still not been acknowledged by any official in the US government or military. Many of the persons and organizations quoted against her are precisely the parties she (and jihad-watchers) has accused of siding with Islamists. Bachcell (talk) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are the one who is trying to push a POV here. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets remember no personal attacks. We can work together to create an article that represents an accurate reflection of what the reliable sources have to say. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with ActiveBanana that the article must scrupulously meet [WP:BLP] standards, and I think it is both necessary and possible to make the article accurate while meeting those standards. Unfortunately, most of Bachcell's edits were highly POV (in addition to mis-citation of sources) and don't come close to passing muster. Arjuna (talk) 00:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, lets try to stick to content and not contributors. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, when I said Bachcell has been trying to push POV, I was referring to his recent canvassing attempt: [1]. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason, good catch. AB, note that the subject of my sentence is "edits", not "Bachcell". Cheers Arjuna (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Good Lord Almighty - this article is getting worse and worse! There are all kinds of POV pushing, typos and mis-use of citations going on in the "Atlas Blog" section. This thing is a total mess. It was already quite sloppy but it's a disaster now. Arjuna (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting blog entry

According to this blog, she writes for VDARE, has spoken at a Bloc Identitaire event, is Jewish, and ironically has attracted a large number of white nationalist, white supremacist, and even neo-Nazi supporters. If we can find a better source for any of these statements, they'd be worth adding. I know that blogs aren't reliable sources, but there have got to be better sources out there that we can use for these statements. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Is that really a blog, or a report by the SPLC? Fat&Happy (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that an organizational blog or a journalist blog is acceptable as a reliable source. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Arjuna (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Blogs of professional journalists are acceptable if under the auspices of a reliable source. SPLC is and advocacy site not a neutral third party news source. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 02:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's news to me; the SPLC is used as a source for many articles on Wikipedia dealing with hate groups, including at least one featured article. I believe the reliable sources noticeboard has repeatedly arrived at the consensus that the SPLC is a reliable source. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is definitely my understanding as well. This seems a pretty settled issue. (And a good thing too - Good Lord Almighty, if SPLC isn't a reliable source about hate groups and extremists, then who would be?) Arjuna (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That blog is clearly an opinion piece and the author Heidi Beirich is not notable in her own right. Citing controversial BLP content to that blog is not acceptable. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 03:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

ActiveBanana, you're moving the goalposts here. First SPLC is not acceptable because it's an "advocacy organization". Now it's not acceptable because said blog is an "opinion blog". My reading of WP:RS is that this is pretty clear-cut: a moderated organization blog by a reliable source (i.e. it's not Heidi Beirich's personal blog - SPLC stands by that material). From WP:RS: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion." Clearly that does not apply here. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Quick follow-up: The "blog" is actually called "Hatewatch", which is in the words of SPLC, "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center." It is not a personal blog. Arjuna (talk) 03:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

1) it is not a newspaper. 2) it is an advocacy site 3) it is opinion 4) she is not notable expert in the area and 5) so why would we use her opinion? You can attempt to call it "moving the goalposts" or you can see that there are just more and more and more reasons why we cannot use this for controversial BLP content. Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion and WP:NEWSORG Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 03:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As was stated before, it's not Heidi Beirich's personal blog. Please don't make this an ad hominem issue about Beirich. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was her personal website. Where have I made any ad hominem comments about Beirich? I have simply why we would want to include her opinions in an article when she doesnt meet our requirements for expert opinions. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 03:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that nobody has yet created a Wikipedia article about Heidi Bierich (not quite the same as claiming she is not notable, BTW), we would not exactly be the first to use her articles as sources. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but apparently something didn't get through: "Hatewatch is written by the staff of the Intelligence Report, an investigative magazine published by the Alabama-based civil rights group Southern Poverty Law Center." It is not a personal blog. Intelligence Report is prominently mentioned on the SPLC article thusly: "Two articles published in Intelligence Report have won Green Eyeshade Excellence in Journalism awards from the Society of Professional Journalists: "Communing with the Council" written by Heidi Beirich and Bob Moser took third place for Investigative Journalism in the Magazine Division in 2004". Frankly, AB, I don't think you have a leg left to stand on. Sorry. Q.E.D. Arjuna (talk) 04:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is not about Ms. Bierich. She is a reporter for said publication. Just because a journalist for AP or the NYT doesn't have an article doesn't mean that articles written by them aren't RS. The source Hatewatch is a RS. That is all that needs to be said. Arjuna (talk) 04:09, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

So what is it exacty that is being proposed to be entered into the article sourced to this blog? "In a blog post on Hatewatch, Heidi Bierich notes that Gellers posts from Atlas Shrugged are being reposted on white supremicist forums" How is that encyclopedic in any way? (note contrary to the original post in this thread, this blog does NOT state Geller posts on VDARE- that was another Jewish woman blogger who was reposted by the same skinhead who linked to Geller.) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 19:07, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're right about VDARE; I didn't parse the sentence in the article correctly. Geller has, however, posted articles on AmRen. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:COATRACK

This edit should be reverted. Geller is mentioned in the source article. Therefore, the content is related and can be added to this aticle. — goethean ॐ 15:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You might want to express your opinion in, and possibly even move your post to, the ongoing discussion of the issue here. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Birther

See [2] and [3]. In the former link, she misspells "birther" as "nirther". Stonemason89 (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Snopes reference

The use of the Snopes reference looks like synthesis. Snopes doesn't say Pamela Geller made false claims. For living persons, we need to cite a source that directly mentions the subject, otherwise, leave it out. Yworo (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead sentence

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

and while "not every single word needs to have a citation", in a BLP every single contentious claim DOES need to accurately reflect a reliable source. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"She is an advocate against violent Islamism" is a "contentious claim"?!? That is her whole raison d'etre, and one that she professes proudly! Please read Wikipedia guidelines, you seem to be missing something completely fundamental. Please be aware that this kind of editing can be seen as disruptive. Arjuna (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am very familiar with WP:BLP - are you sure that you have read it? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree with with Banana. Saying Geller is against violent Islam is like claiming Hitler was only against Jews who didn't make nice bagels. NickCT (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AB, but did you understand it? NickCT, um, your point is not very clear. Perhaps you saying that the point needs to be cited because she is an advocate against Islam in general? That claim could also be supported, but I don't think we want to go there. Arjuna (talk) 01:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The "violent Islamism" wording was added by Bachcell: [5]. And yes, I agree with AB and NickCT that it's not the best way of wording it. Stonemason89 (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for not being clear. "she is an advocate against Islam in general". This was my point. I think the Huffinton stuff would support it no? NickCT (talk) 01:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, look, I think we need to follow BLP on this - although to rational outside observers her actions and statements can be seen to be pretty clearly anti-Islam in general, she has said specifically that she is not and it's hard to prove that what she says is wrong other than to provide examples that provide clear evidence to the contrary (which is, let's just say, quite ample). If I misunderstood your position AB, I apologize - actually I was trying to protect against overstatement (ex. "she hates all Muslims!") and saying that she is "against violent Islam" is stating the obvious - i.e. non-controversial claim. If that's what this is about, then I agree then that we need to get around this by finding different wording, since as Stonemason points out, it was a POV-pushing editor who apparently put it there in the first place. Arjuna (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Arjuna - I appreciate the points you've made about BLP, and largely agree. My own personal opinion is that, Geller is your typical "religous bigot". Unfortunately, WP:OR&WP:BLP only allows us to point out all the religously biggotted things that RS's have reported her doing. Alas, we can't call a duck a WP:DUCK.

That said, I'm seriously against describing her as solely against "violent Islam", b/c I think that is a gross misrepresentation of her positions which would raise all sorts of WP:NPOV issues. So if we can't say "anti-Islam" in general, what kind of neutral language is there? Perhaps, "vocal critic of Islam, and activist in many percieved anti-Islamic causes"?NickCT (talk) 14:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What we can say is what reliable sources have said. Unfortunately, most of the citations in the article are from advocacy sites and not standard reliable sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

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

The man's got a point! More important than that.... he's got RSs! NickCT (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Ohio - great work. On his blog at the Atlantic (which btw, is definitely a RS), Jeffrey Goldberg calls her a "shrieking bigot", "lunatic racist", and "marginal nutbag". We have already conclusively demonstrated that SPLC's "Hatewatch" is a RS as well. Arjuna (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words, thank you NickCT and Arjuna.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

There's also The Alyona show, on RT, for 03 August 2010. The segment about Geller begins at 19:50. At 26:10, when the reporter is taking exception to her claim that she's not against Islam, by asking about her since-removed blog post of a drawing of Mohammad with his face replaced by that of a pig, this follows:

Geller: First of all, I don't know where it is in America that you can't make jokes or make fun. I mean you had Robert Mapplethorpe put a cross in a glass of a, a ..

Reporter: So you think it's funny to have the prophet Mohammad as a pig?

Geller: Who cares?! What difference does it make? I mean, this is America!

Oh, and besides the above, there's also the Anderson Cooper 360 show on CNN. The show described Geller as a "right-wing anti-Muslim blogger". ( See 2:23 into video. ) I don't know Cooper's show, don't know whether it qualifies as a reliable source, though. I need to learn more about it, and also re-read WP:RS and WP:BLP. The Alyona Show, btw, is also available on youtube, wherein the above exchange occurs at 5:48 into the video. – OhioStandard (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP issue. If an RS discusses her as something, you can reflect it in the body with attribution. But it is not proper under BLP to brand her as x, and do so in the lead sentence, where it is only a view of some and not a fact.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

What? Not a fact according to who? Dude, we have multiple RS saying this is so. Additionally, it includes mainstream news outlets. That's enough. NickCT (talk) 00:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

We have RSs that say different things. First of all, what they say is opinion, not fact. Second, much of what was said is not a comment on her but on the blog or the group. BLP is very clear about this sort of stuff. We avoid attract criticism or legal attacks of others when we avoid conflating opinions (especially opinions about a blog or a group) into "facts" that a subject could feel disparages them. This is a very important issue on wikipedia. As I said, there is no problem in the body reflecting the opinions of RSs as just that -- opinions of RSs (though we should stick to the clear RSs for that, and hue to precisely what they say). That would avoid any BLP/disparagement issues.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I have to agree with Epeefleche on this one. She is "anti-Islam", I have no doubt, and I think we need a section in the article to address that more fully, using reliable sources. But I have to agree that a lead is a place for non-controversial, matter-of-fact statements. I won't comment here again, because I don't think we're supposed to edit archives. You guys might want to either copy this whole section back to the current talk page and delete it here, or add any further comments to the current talk page, with perhaps a link to this section, indicating that it's a continuation of an archived discussion. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Can someone help clarify?

This hit from google news isnt really clear to me. [6] Is it Campus Watch reprinting one of Gellers Atlas Shrugs post? And did Geller really say Arabic "is explicated the language of Islam so in that sense it is part of the Islamic religious imperial project. Radical Islam advances through the Arabic language." Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Since there's a link to the original at the top of the page, you can click through to see what Geller really said. To save you the trouble, the short answer is "Yes, in boldface". Campus Watch appears to be similar to MMFA in concept, linking and reprinting articles from media and the blogophere to comment on and advance their views. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Except that Campus Watch actually supports Gellerites. She actually said "Radical Islam advances through the Arabic language"? Talk about paranoid....it's amazing there are actually editors on here trying to claim she isn't a conspiracy theorist. "Radical Islam" is like her New World Order or North American Union. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Stonemason89, please remember to not use the talk page as a forum. The talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not whether you think she is "paranoid". Truthsort (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ayn Rand

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

Though interesting, that would be pure original research and synthesis unless some reliable source has drawn a connection. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that link belongs in the Ayn Rand article. Many articles link to it, but Ayn Rand's isn't one of them. Flatterworld (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, although I agree with Fat&Happy. Arjuna (talk) 19:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Previous version

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

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

Michael Oshry

The former marriage does belong in Personal life. As she was listed as an owner, the investigation also is relevant. She appears to have been married at least from 1997 to 2006 although we need a source for that. I'm sure divorces are recorded online somewhere. Flatterworld (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree in principle but this keep in mind that WP:BLP policies apply and so this material needs to be approached with extra caution to avoid unfair guilt by association. All this material must be extremely well-cited using WP:V Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 04:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

On further reflection, I agree with other editors that this material doesn't belong in the article unless it becomes a more salient issue in the media and can be well documented and cited. For now, it's guilt by association and unfair. Arjuna (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not - the charges were filed against the husband, not the subject of the article. And those charges were dropped. Can you get any more blatant example of WP:COATRACK? Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 04:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and just reverted someone's reinstatement of that material. Arjuna (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Misstatements about this are circulating. Just as Wikipedia addresses false rumors about Obama being a Muslim, we should address false rumors about Geller being involved in this. I don't agree with her views, but I don't want people practicing 'guilt by association' out there while we do nothing to counteract those rumors. The focus should be on her views and actions, and that means we can't ignore this. Hope that's clarified the argument on this. Flatterworld (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP wikipedia is NOT part of the echo chamber. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That's EXACTLY my point. We are supposed to provide the facts, which is why we DO address the actual facts behind rumors. I'm not pleased you're calling this an 'edit war', claiming there was any sort of consensus. Arjuna isn't a 'consensus', particularly when she has her facts wrong. Oshrey wasn't charged, the company was. Geller was listed as an owner of the company. Whether she knew about it or not, likes it or not, she's involved. That's why, imo, it's important to state she didn't know about. Otherwise, the assumption is that she not only was a part-owner, but also knew about it. Flatterworld (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

{sarcasm on}Yeah, we need more of the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" "journalism"{sarcasm off} Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 15:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. Flatterworld (talk) 16:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, instead of imitating an ostrich, I'm trying to find out more facts about this. The District Attorney's office listed those charged. I did not find Universal Auto in the NY Court System site, but I did find this defendant, and his case in ongoing (next court date this October, assuming he's the same person). I was hoping to find a clear resolution one way or the other. Flatterworld (talk) 15:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Flatterworld, please read WP:WELLKNOWN. If an arraignment or occurrence is notable and appropriate it can be included in the article. If it is not reported by reliable third-party sources, it should not be included. Truthsort (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Truthsort, the District Attorney's office and the NY Court System are official government sites. They are considered reliable sites. Flatterworld (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

See here. Do not use court records or public documents to support assertions about a living person, unless there are secondary sources. Truthsort (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstood that link. If the documents are posted on the internet, the website is considered a 'secondary source'. What we don't want is people referencing, say, a printed court transcript they happen to have found. Or perhaps someone's birth certificate. ;-) Much of our material about politicians, for example, is found on the government website(s) for their particular position. If we have to search the web to ensure someone else duplicated that information (and hopefully without error!) we would be scoring an own goal. (And yes, I suppose that link should be clarified so others don't repeat your mistake and start deleting every single article that relies on what's in U.S. government websites, including the The World Factbook - and all the UN information and statistics - which would mean deleting all our articles about countries, cities, provinces, politicians.... Flatterworld (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The first part you wrote is not automatically true. The press release you got from the district attorney is a primary source, regardless of it being on the internet. A government’s documents are direct evidence of its activities, functions, and policies and thus are primary sources.[7] Yes most information on politicians is found on government sources, but we are not discussing politicians. We are discussing whether primary sources can be used to include arraignments like this in a BLP and the answer is no. The last part of your comment is just a slippery slope argument. Truthsort (talk) 01:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. You're obviously determined to find a way to convince yourself, if no one else. Enjoy. Flatterworld (talk) 02:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw this page on DYK (good work folks!) and I am interested by this uncertainty over the meaning of the policy on not citing to court documents in BLPs. I, too, found the purposes of the policy to be unclear, and asked about it at the talk page. I was also bold and revised the policy to reflect my best guess as to its purposes. I am letting you know this because the policy will now (I hope) be in flux for a bit, and won't be reliable until a new consensus is formed. Cheers. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

fundraising for a gravestone - not accepted

Here is another intersting event [8] but I am not sure how to properly condense it. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 17:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is a tragic thing, but in the scope of Wikipedia, it's trivial/not encyclopediac, and Geller's role is not worthy of inclusion in the article. We all do (or should) nice things, but not because it will merit inclusion in our biography in an encyclopedia. Arjuna (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC) (Amended Arjuna (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC))

Arjuna, I wonder if you'd consider reverting that statement? Or replacing it with a more policy-based one that can't be interpreted as dismissive or disrespectful? I don't think you meant to communicate either of those things, but those are what I come away with on reading your comment. If you can honor the request, then would you also please delete this post of mine, as well? I'd be very grateful for both favors. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC) Please note: Arjuna has kindly revised his previous statement, above, which makes this request now obsolete.  – OhioStandard (talk)

With respect, Ohio, I don't understand why I would need to. Because I didn't use a complete sentence? Because I offered summary judgement? I was writing on the fly, not being disrespectful or uncivil. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I didn't think you meant to be disrespectful or uncivil, that's just the way the response is most immediately construed by my own admittedly fallible brain. And I have no objection in principle to brief replies, despite my apparent inability to make them myself. :-) My objection was partly due to the pathos of the girl's unremembered life and death. It's my opinion that Geller was trying to gain political capital by her offer, but I still don't think a story involving a child's murder and her family's disregard can fairly be called "trivial". And "unencyclopedic" doesn't really convey any information to me. Besides, the story brings up an important question: How many so-called "honor killings" have taken place in North America? ( Presumably if Geller's organization had found more than one, she would have offered to remember or memorialize all victims in some way. ) If only one, then is her motive for running ads on buses all over America really to help potential victims? If she were primarily concerned with helping potential victims, then wouldn't she have used her money to pay for efforts to prevent the killings in countries where they are less rare? Back to your wording, to close: I suppose I also would have been less likely to object if it had been unequivocally clear that it was the story itself that you were characterizing as trivial, and not ActiveB's post. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Ohio. Certainly the event is a tragedy and just speaking personally I find it completely appalling. When I said "not encyclopediac", I was referring to the fact that not everything that happens in the world is worthy of being on Wikipedia - as per Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. As the policy says, "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion", and "even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be." That is what I was referring to - in shorthand - and my regrets to you and to AB if that was not clear. I will amend my comment above to make it clear that I'm not being insensitive. Cheers, Arjuna (talk) 07:50, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jolly decent of you", Arjuna, as the Brits say; thank you. Feel free to delete anything I've written so far in this thread, if you think that cutting away the underbrush would be helpful. Or perhaps you wouldn't mind if I were to do so, to leave just ActiveB's original post, followed by your now-revised reply? Thanks again,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Leading tag(s)

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

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

FAR far too many of the "sources" used in this article are 1) advocacy/opinion sites and 2) primary sources. The article is in desperate need of reliable third party non-opinion sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You have a right to make the statement, but no one can evaluate it properly if you refuse to be more specific about which sentences you object to. Again: please show us exactly which sentences you're claiming are unsourced or improperly sourced. It's a short article; it won't take you long. I went through it line by line, and looked at every cite; it won't take you long to do the same and let us know exactly what you're objecting to.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I DO NOT have to identify "particular" sentences which I object to when my concern is that the article OVERALL relies far to heavily on opinion pieces, advocacy sites and primary sources. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No need to shout, I can read lower case just as well. The problem is that I have no idea what you're talking about. That's why I'm asking you to be more specific. Geller's blog is a primary source in an article about her. Is that what you're objecting to? Are you saying newspaper articles are primary sources? Or that a newspaper article about her is an opinion piece? Or that you dispute, say, The Huffington Post as a reliable source? If you won't be more specific, you're basically saying that you have your own reasons for placing the tag but you won't tell the rest of us what they are. There's no need at all to construe this as some kind of conflict, we just need to know what you object to more specifically than you've disclosed so far in order to have a conversation about the tag, that's all.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I second Ohio's request for specifics, which is a perfectly legitimate request. AB, please be advised that repeated objections to material while refusing to answer questions about what specifically an editor finds objectionable is disruptive editing. I hope we continue to maintain standards of civility here - no need for shouting. Arjuna (talk) 22:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Media Matters - advocacy site. Huff Post / Salon opinion - editorial sites (generally respected opinion sites, but opinion sites nevertheless. Wikipedia editors selecting Primary sources blog posts (WP:OR). Additional primary sourcing from her opinion piece in Arutz Sheva, and quoting her appearance on RT and CNN. The NY POST fer gods sake. Another opinion piece in the Chicago Trib. We have the NYT - verifying a claim that her exhusband remarried and then died and a Wash Post quoting her that her blog is inspired by Rand. Leaving the Guardian, NY Observer, two references from NY Times, and a passing reference on NPR as standard reliable third party sources supporting encyclopedic content about this woman. In an article this long, that is bad. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Active Banana, that makes things much clearer for me. I'll think this over, review the policies that apply, and get back to you after I've had the chance to carefully consider what you've said here. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, AB. Arjuna (talk) 00:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawsuit against Pamela Geller

Of interest? [9], [10] -- L'ecrivant (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally I don't think so. Anybody can file a lawsuit for anything; if we included lawsuits based on the simple fact that they've been filed, our articles about major corporations would be 50 pages long. Once it's concluded, then maybe it'd be appropriate here, but not until then. — e. ripley\^talk 20:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with E. Ripley - no. Arjuna (talk) 20:16, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

English defence league

Explain to me how mentioning the most notable thing about this group is against wikipedia policy. I am familar with those two policies and I don't see this exact issue mentioned. How is it synthesis? Am I trying to draw a conclusion about Geller or the organisation? Nope, I am stating a fact about them, which is the most common association made with the EDL, because it is what primarly makes them notable. The EDL are very obscure for people outside of the UK so the information quickly shows you why her association to this organisation is notable,. ValenShephard (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wording

"a video suggesting that Muslims have sex with goats, a doctored photo showing President Obama urinating on an American flag" does not fit logically in 'false claims'. Saying "all muslims have sex with goats" would be a definite *false claim*. Posting a video insinuating that some do is not *making a claim*. Posting a photoshopped picture is not making a claim, either. Luckz (talk) 13:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is. Its not an insinuation, which is a subtle thing, her videos are extremely clear over what she is trying to say. ValenShephard (talk) 13:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not what we think that matters but what WP:RS say about it. And if it's just a link to a photo or a video, then it can only be described as what it is - assuming it can be described at all if no WP:RS thinks it's notable enough. Just giving you policy which we should follow whatever our feelings about subject of a bio. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:32, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right actually. Its hard sometimes not to just try to offer rational arguments, but it doesn't actually matter. Like you say, we include what reliable sources have to say about things which we believe (and them to0) are notable. ValenShephard (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I raised the same issue not too long ago about users going by WP:Truth and not WP:Verifiability. Some users added their own opinions into the article calling some of her blog post "false" because it was so damn obviously false that it had to be added in there. So what is the result of this? A BLP disaster. Truthsort (talk) 20:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see what is disasterous about the present form of the article. In fact, failing to stipulate that Geller's claims are false is a BLP issue against Elena Kagan and the other figures attacked by Geller. — goethean ॐ 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not an overwhelmingly crucial issue, and if it's going to set off another round of acrimony and reverts I think we'd do much better to just leave it alone. ( Can we please all agree on wording here, beforehand, if it's felt necessary to modify the paragraph? ) But Luckz is correct in that making false claims and posting ridiculing images to her blog aren't the same thing. I'd prefer a more accurate distiction between the the two, but not if it's going to take a month of fighting over it to get there.  – OhioStandard (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if a source already in the article is being used in the external links, is that ok or is it redundant and unnecessary? Truthsort (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

if anything other than the subjects official site is used as a source within the article, it should not also be in the external link section WP:EL Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the external link I'm referring to is a SPLC link that mentions her with racial nationalism. Truthsort (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

None of the blog posts should be identified unless they have already been analysed and discussed by third party reliable sources and we use the third parties description. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 20:29, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

( ← outdenting ) The policy page you're citing does not, as I see it, support the idea you're promoting, ActiveB. It says we don't engage in original research by presenting our own analysis of primary sources here, it doesn't say we can't use primary sources. Specifially, it says, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

"Objectivism" isn't a political movement, but a philosopy, and it's already mentioned in the article's lead that Geller subscribes to it. For those reasons I don't think it's appropriate or needed in the infobox field for "political movement", and have reverted that very recent additon.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing

Alterdoppelganger (talk · contribs) has come in with no edit history to completely whitewash this article to remove any possible criticisms of Geller. Their edits read as if Geller herself were writing this article, using weasel words and non-consensual edits. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Most definitely. It is quite possible that SalahuddinSmith is also a sockpuppet. Arjuna (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

criticism section

after this whole park51 saga and most of her comments and statements on her atlas shrugs blog, i believe the article needs a criticism section . since she is now a notable person and almost a household name among most americans ,she must be held accountable as much as other notable figures and have some of her statements put here so people can have a clear image of what she stands for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanschagrins (talk • contribs) 05:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged

Atlas Shrugs is a reference to the title of the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugs (the blog title) only by derivation is a reference to philosophies espoused or perceived in the novel. Please refrain from characterizing the novel's contents when making what should be a simple reference to a work of literature. The sentences that follow detail Geller's interpretation and application of Rand's Novel and philosophy relative to the blog, characterizing inspirational qualities not in evidence suggests bias regarding Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and/or Pamela Geller. A clear and objective voice without bias should be maintained. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.113.175.15 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

MLK quote

This article includes Geller writing that Dr. Martin Luther King did not suffer liars that declared that they don’t hate the Jews, just Zionism. Dr. King brilliantly dismantles such rhetoric: 'When people criticize Zionists, they mean Jews. You are talking anti-Semitism.' The problem with this is that Dr. King never wrote those words. I suggest either removing this line or including the well-sourced fact (even admitted by CAMERA) that this line is a forgery that King never wrote. nableezy - 04:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If it were to be included with a ref to the "well-sourced" fact, what RS ref would you propose using (that discussed it in regard to Geller)?--Epeefleche (talk) 04:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Ill come back to this another time. nableezy - 04:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not related to Geller's take on the quote but here's the ref in question. CAMERA claims the quote originates from a 1969 magazine article which is also disputed (by some law school student, probably not RS but interesting) as the two reporters of the comment give different locations, etc, etc. But I'm having trouble thinking of a policy reason to remove the quote. Even if he didn't say it, Geller did mistakenly quote him as such. Which is stupid. Sol (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are a number of books that attribute the statement to King.[11] Which, as with the CAMERA ref, are also synth/OR.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Wording of lead

( secton renamed for NPOV and anchor provided to IP's original of "Bigoted political slurs", by Ohiostandard at 03:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC) )

That Geller is "called "right-wing" by The Jewish Week and "extreme" by The Guardian" and similiar examples in this article, should be removed. It's not factual information, and as it stands, it's a misrepresentation. It is Doug Chandler that makes that comment in The Jewish Week, not The Jewish Week, and it's Chris McGreal in The Guardian, and not The Guardian that uses that epithet. And to my mind, the use of the image "Pamela Geller with former IDF chief of staff, Moshe Ya'alon" is manipulating journalism too. It creates misleading impressions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.21.61 (talk) 14:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, except for the pic caption.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Brew, you're probably more familiar than I am with the Manual of Style that you cited in your edit summary. Could you point me to the MOS section that supports the second and third change you made in this edit, i.e. that says we should explicitly attribute articles to specific reporters in the body of an article, rather than just to the publications they work for?

Also, I don't want to get into any kind of extended political disscussion, which would be useless in this context, not to mention disallowed. But can you help me understand this offense taken at press criticism of Geller? I'm not saying it's wrong, or that I think you shouldn't feel that way, just that I don't get it. Don't answer the question if you'd prefer not to, but I'd like to understand your reaction, if I can. How is it that so many Jewish people can support Geller, who has, for example, promoted images that explicitly and purposely insult Muslims in the deepest possible way? If someone posted blog images of, say, Moses or Abraham as a pig, the ADL would raise the roof and that person would be shunned by responsible people of all faiths. Ditto if some prominent blogger expressed his feeling about Christianity or Buddhism by posting an image of Christ or Buddha as a pig. So why is it okay that Geller does things like this; how can people be offended by a characterization of such behavior as "extreme"? I'm not stupid: I of course know there are radically bitter feelings on both sides of the I/P conflict. Maybe it's because I've never been to the Mideast, but I just don't get this aspect at all, and I'd like to understand this small part of the conflict, if I possbily can. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The "mosbio" edit summary referred to this edit. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty roundly recognized that Geller represents the extreme right in terms of views on Muslims. We're not here to defend her or make excuses for what she's saying. Personally I think we should exchange

“ The blog has been criticized by progressive Media Matters for America,[6][7] and called "right-wing" by Doug Chandler of The Jewish Week[2] and "extreme" by Chris McGreal of The Guardian.[8] ”

for

“ Both Geller and the blog have been criticized by a number of sources as extremist and anti-Islamic[2][6][7][8] ”

Would anyone take issue with this edit? NickCT (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It should be attributed. Per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Two random op-ed writers to not make a "a number".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I just realized why I have something of a sense of deja vu about this discussion. We already had it, or one very close to it, anyway, in August of this year. See "Lead sentence" in the archives, where I wrote:

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

I understand you guys really like her, and I want to be sensitive to that. I certainly understand that no one likes to hear their champion abused, but there is, imo, a pretty overwhelming consensus of opinion in the mainstream English-language media that Geller is extreme. The refs above don't hit that note precisely, but there are a dozen other refs that could be found to support NickCT's proposed edit. I even saw one the other day - I think it was the NYT, I'd have to find it again - where they directly addressed Geller's dislike for being characterized as anti-Muslim. They said, in an update to their online article, as I recall it, essentially, "That's too bad, but she is." I know this riles her supporters, and I'm sorry for it, but this view of her is ubiquitous in the mainstream press.  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please try to avoid giving your personal reflections on editors' political views. "Comment on the content, not the contributor." It does nothing to further a resolution here. Also it would be most unfair to a BLP to ascribe views made by a writer to the publication in which he or she was published.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 23:42, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You're perfectly right in your first suggestion; I've struck out the remark that I infer you found objectionable. Since seeing your objection, it also has occurred to me that I likewise find it objectionable to have to discuss views that seem reasonable to me under the POV section title "Bigoted political slurs" that the IP chose. I think the mainstream media characterizations of Geller are accurate, in other words, and there's no reason I should to have discuss this as if I were out to support "bigoted political slurs". So I've changed the heading for this talk page section to a neutral one for this reason, as you'll see above.

Re your second assertion, that it's unfair to a BLP to ascribe views made by a writer to the publication in which he or she was published, I see your point: you think doing so lends too much weight to the characterization. But doing so is an extremely common practice, both on Wikipedia and in the larger media. It's actually much more common, from what I've seen, than calling out individual authors. I think people realize they have to look at a footnote to find the author's name or have to follow a link to find it in the original article if no author name is listed. ( Author name is an optional parameter in the "Cite" templates, after all. ) Is there any policy you're aware of to support your preference in this case?  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@brew - Crew, we all have political views. Taking so much offense at OhioStandard pointing this out is a little melodramatic.

@OhioStandard - I think you've provided a wealth of mainstream RS supporting your viewpoint. I might suggest that you go ahead and rewrite the lead, citing those references heavily. NickCT (talk) 05:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Nick -- No need to engage in personal attacks by characterizing Brew as melodramatic.

@Ohio and Brew -- I'm following your conversation, and just not butting in as I feel you are getting somewhere.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ohio. When the publication is cited by itself without the author in Wikipedia articles it is typically in the nature of news events, where the author is usually unknown and is employed directly by the publication. However, the articles that are being used to describe Geller are not regular newspaper articles, but op-ed like articles. Op-ed like articles that the publication "accepted" for publication should be ascribed to the authors who are typically somewhat well known. Indeed, at times at the bottom of the opeds there is a disclaimer that the views of the author do not represent the views of the newspaper. The point I am getting at is that if they were newspaper anonymous opeds it would obviously fair to ascribe the views to the newspaper. Otherwise, opinions on Geller should be attributed to the opinion piece author, not even the publication.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche - Feigning hurt at accusations of melodrama is melodramatic in and of itself. If you feel that's an attack on your person, please report me.

@brew - Your point about Op-ed pieces not being treated like news is taken and is sorta self evident. Problem is though, OhioStandard has offered a variety of non-Op/Ed mainstream news sources. Frankly, I think you call these pieces "Op-ed like" b/c you don't like what they report.

Out of curiosity brew, if you don't think PGeller could justifiably be labelled as "anti-Islam", who do you think could be? Or do you perhaps think it's the case that anti-muslim bigotry doesn't exist? NickCT (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

@brew: That's a helpful, well-reasoned argument. Let me think some about what you've said... Not sure I can accept the "opinions on Geller should be attributed to the opinion piece author, not even the publication" part. That seems pretty far removed from existing policy to me, at first glance, but you do raise valid points that I want to think more about.

@Epeefleche: About the "melodrama" thing. You're right that no one likes to be told of it, but if we're candid I think each of us would have to admit that we can become melodramatic, can overstate the case, when it seems like we're not being heard. I can, in that situation: it's an extremely frustrating experience, and soooo easy to attribute it to bad faith on the part of an interlocutor... I think half the problem on Wikipedia is that the opponents never get the chance to know each other apart from the conflict, never have that great moment that opposing counsel in a legal battle sometimes have when they put aside the arguing and go get a drink together after a case, for example. Here, the interaction is always about the conflict. If it were up to me I'd banish opponents from a controversial topic, two by two, every fourth month, and require that they collaborate together to create a good article on a completely unrelated, non-controversial subject before they can return to the fray. It'd give us all an opportunity to develop some respect for each other in an area where we didn't feel our personal interests were on the line.

@NickCT: I'd be more likely to propose a modification to the lead here, first. I don't feel passionate enough about this to lose any skin from my knuckles, really. ;-) So let me think about whether I want to propose anything right now. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock

We're looking at two versions:

• A) Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, one of the holiest sites in Islam, should be removed.
• B) Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was built on top of the Jewish Temple, should be removed.

It once said 'holiest site' (or something similar) and was changed at some point to 'Jewish Temple'. I looked for a discussion on it and found none, and changed it back to 'holiest site' with this reasoning in the edit comment: what it was built on (or how it was built, etc.) isn't relevant here; it's status in Islam is. Epeefleche reverted my change with only this comment, per the ref.

I'm not sure what that comment means; I didn't say it wasn't true, so having a reference isn't an issue; I just don't think it's relevant to Pamela Geller. It definitely should be in the Dome of the Rock article. But I could be convinced to include it here, if someone can provide a reasonable rationale of how it's relevant to Geller.

However, I don't see why 'holy site' statement was deleted; it is significant, identifying the Dome of the Rock for readers and showing the magnitude of Geller's claims. Epeefleche's per the ref statement isn't relevant to the deletion. I suspect it was just reverted because that was easier than editing, but let's all respect each other's efforts. Again, if someone can make a reasonable argument for including the 'Temple' statement, I won't oppose adding it to the 'holy site' statement. guanxi (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Version B is what the RS ref says -- not the OR version of Guanxi. We follow the RSs. Not Guanxi's OR, or POV. Geller argued version B, not version A.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no RS cited for the statement. The source is Geller herself, you are attempting to insert as encyclopedic fact what Ms Geller thinks she knows is true. You are using this article to assert as fact things based on Geller herself. This article suffers from major POV issues, issues I hope to address in the near future. For example, we include that Geller wrote that MLK wrote that oft-cited line about people criticizing Zionism, but we dont include the documented fact that the MLK never wrote that line, that it is a hoax (see here). The article is being used as a platform for Geller's views, using her blog as the source for those views and including them as if they were fact. nableezy - 21:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's not make assumptions about anyone's motives, let's just address the content. I agree it shouldn't be a platform for anyone's views, pro- or anti-Geller, and obviously a topical article about a controversial figure can attract that kind of content. However, we can address it by discussing what the best NPOV edit is, and bypass the accusations of bias (which gets ugly). guanxi (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche - I'm confused by your points: 1) My comments don't question your sourcing, but I did bring up another issue. Would you address it? I'd appreciate it. 2) What statement is POV or OR? I would be surprised if you're talking about the Dome of the Rock being one of Islam's holiest sites, but I don't know what else it could be.

I've tried to create some room for agreement in my comments above. Please take the time to read them all (my first comments too) and let's try to get it done!

guanxi (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I posted a compromise edit, which incorporates both statements. I'd ask that nobody change it until we come to some agreement. Here are my concerns. Epeefleche - please let me know yours; I would like to see that they are addressed (and of course, please address mine).

1. On what site the Dome of the Rock was built -- it's not relevant to the Pamela Geller article. I know that it's Geller's argument, but we can't really include the debates, just the claims.
2. We need to identify the Dome of the Rock to readers, and to explain why this argument of Geller's is important to the article. It's status in Islam is the explanation.
3. (new concern): I don't think the claim is true. The Second Temple was destroyed by the Romans around 70 AD. The Dome of the Rock was built around 691 AD. To say the Dome is on the site of the Second Temple is a stretch -- the Temple hadn't been there in 600 years. We could qualify it as 'Geller's argument', but I'd be uncomfortable with that.

guanxi (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Her blog is a reliable source for what she herself said. Frankly, there is not a more reliable source -- it would be someone repeating what she said.

The statement is what she said -- not the truth of what she said. Nab understands the difference between verifiability and truth. Also synthesis. This sentence is a sentence reflecting what her stated position was. She did not mention in her statement whether it was a holy site in Islam. That, in the absence of a RS doing so relative to her statement, is classic synthesis. Synthesis is not allowed. It is to be deleted, especially in a BLP. She did, however, make a statement as reflected in B.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Others see the sentence differently; it's too bad you're unwilling to resolve it. I feel like I've made many attempts to resolve this issue, but you continue to ignore others' concerns and choose conflict. It's too bad that we have to waste so much time and effort on these issues rather than improving the article. Your lack of respect to others is especially disappointing. guanxi (talk) 04:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem not to understand. The article is about Geller. The sentence is about Geller's view on Dome of the Rock. This is not the place for synthesis or original research. Please see the guidelines on both. If this were the article on Dome of the Rock, you would of course be in the right to add information about the Dome of the Rock -- whether it relates to Geller's views, or not. In her article, where we are simply discussing her views, that is not the case. See wp:or and wp:synth. To avoid any interpretive issues, I've turned the sentence into a direct quote of her view.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Support A - We include information that is WP:NOTABLE to Geller (i.e. the fact that she wants to remove a prominent mosque). Whether or not it was built on a Jewish temple isn't really relevant to Geller, or her desire to remove the mosque. Epee is just trying to make an irrelevant point. As such, B fails WP:NOTABLE, WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAPBOXING. NickCT (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm .. no. Nick knows better. This is an article on Geller. We are reporting as to what Geller said. A is pure synthesis, plain and simple. B (as revised, to the quote) is precisely what she said. This isn't a forum for POV-pushing; that's why we have the wp:synth guideline. I would ask not to make personal attacks, presuming to tell people what I am trying to do. Personal attacks are not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm no. You can use her blog to report what she said, you cannot however pretend that what she said is fact as you do in the article in several places. nableezy - 06:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

And here is a source discussing this very thing and removing any synth concerns: CNN featured virulent Islamophobes on a number of occasions. Geller—who has called for the destruction of Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock, one of Islam’s holiest sites, and whose website depicted Muhammad with the face of a pig (FAIR Blog, 8/18/10)—appeared on the network twice (5/26/10, 8/17/10) to talk about her opposition to the project. Here is another: She believes the Dome of the Rock, an important Islamic holy site, "has got to go." And another: On September 27, 2009, Geller posted an image of Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy sites, and stated, "On Erev Yom Kippur, Muslims attack Jews in Jerusalem. The dome has got to go. It is sitting atop the great Jewish temple. The dome has got to go. It's time to push back and stop indulging evil. Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction (paraphrasing Rand)." nableezy - 06:25, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• Well, first of all, Nab of course started off with an untruth. The article contained a reference to what she said. Her own writing was used to support it. And that it did, unequivocally, and it was wrong for POV editors to delete what she said (because they disagree with it). Or to add their own synthesis. This is wikipedia 101. I expect Nab understands it. Now that Nab has provided sourcing for what otherwise be synth, to an RS, I have reflected the "the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy sites" language from the RS in the article, with the appropriate RS reference. I've also expanded the Geller language to contain the further language Nab quotes above, which the RS quoted.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Multiple noes. I did not say there was no reference provided, I said there was no reliable source. This slight misrepresentation of my comments is most tiresome. Yes, her blog is a RS for her own views, it is not a RS for anything other than that, such as where the Dome of the Rock is built. You wrote in Wikipedia's narrative what Pamela Geller thinks is true as though it actually were true. What you have done here is typical of the rest of the article, you quote at length what she thinks but dont include what the very sources you now cite say about her. That this quote is an example of what a "virulent Islamaphobe" says. Instead of including this, you quote at length these views. Having witnessed you say that the website of a journalist who has been published by academic presses was not a valid source for their alma mater, and make edits such as this, to now use this woman's blog to state unattributed facts, assertions that are proven false by actual reliable sources, is so ridiculous that it is actually funny. But since you said I "started with an untruth", kindly retract that "untruth". nableezy - 06:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• You're wrong. Again. This has always been about what Geller said. Not what the facts are about the Dome. And, from the beginning, the article said that she said x, and the ref (her statement) supported that she said x (her statement). Your friend sought to introduce unsourced synth, not supported by the ref in the article. You've been around long enough to know that is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Repeatedly saying something that is untrue approaches saying a lie. The article said the following; Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was built on top of the Jewish Temple, should be removed. The phrase on her opposing the other mosques, including the Dome of the Rock, is indeed phrased as her view. The clause on it being built "on top of the Jewish Temple" is however written in the narrative voice of Wikipedia, and for which you dishonestly said was sourced to a "RS". Please stop saying things that are untrue about me, especially after they have been shown to be untrue. nableezy - 07:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything after the words "Geller ... argued" was what she in fact argued. It was not the narrative voice at all, but her voice. She was saying "the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was built on top of the Jewish Temple, should be removed." Perhaps you were mis-reading it. In any event, quotation marks were supplied a number of revisions ago, which made it crystal-clear whose "voice" it was, and you still belabored for some reason that escapes me--even at a point where the text could not possibly have been mis-read by you, no matter how confused your were previously. Fitna?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what that word means or do you depend on Ms Geller to translate it for you? nableezy - 16:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

A point of order. The disputed text can't be cited to firstread.msnbc as a secondary source:

She wrote in September 2009, under an image she posted of Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy sites: "On Erev Yom Kippur, Muslims attack Jews in Jerusalem. The dome has got to go. It is sitting atop the great Jewish temple. The dome has got to go. It's time to push back and stop indulging evil. Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction (paraphrasing Rand)."

This text, introduced in this edit, and given (way) above on this talk page as coming via firstread.msnbc was copy-pasted to the comments section on a firstread.msnbc page by some random user who took it from Media Matters. This would have been an easy mistake to make, given the way the firstread comments section is formatted. The original (i.e. wp:secondary source) Media Matters page can be found here. You'll have to search the page for the text, or scroll down to find it there. I'm not going to touch the article over this, but all y'all need to fix the cite if the passage sticks.  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Outside opinion

It appears that Epeefleche is being wilfully ingenuous disingenuous and disruptive in their approach here. Suggest that they remove themselves from this article and find ways of improving Wikipedia, not trying to push a particular point of view. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ummm ... ingenuous? Why yes. I am being "wilfully ingenous". Thank you for the observation.

Better than your being disingenuous in your above post, no?--Epeefleche (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo, which I have corrected. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Consensus?

Is it safe to say we have sufficient consensus for version A? I know Epeefleche doesn't agree, but he/she hasn't persuaded anyone and others feel there's a lack of cooperation. Time to move on? If so: 1) I'm not wedded to the exact wording of A, but I don't think her Dome of the Rock statement is notable enough to be worth much space. 2) I think identifying the importance of the Dome is needed for readers to understand the significance of her argument (i.e., if it wasn't so important to Islam, this statement wouldn't stand out from her many other writings). guanxi (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• C) Geller has opposed other mosques and argued that the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, which was built on top of the Jewish Temple and is one of the holiest sites in Islam, should be removed. Markus Schulze 20:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Markus. I could live with that (I even wrote it in the article as a temporary compromise), but I'm not a fan of mentioning the Second Temple. Two concerns: 1) The Second Temple hadn't been there for six centuries when the Dome of the Rock was built. I don't [typo, sorry] think it's misleading as is; and at least would want to restate it. 2) Is it relevant enough to Pamela Geller to include it? If it's her reasoning (I'm assuming that; someone should verify), do we include her reasoning, and then the facts and debate, for every statement in the article? Where do we draw the line? I think it's better to omit the debate and just mention her opinion that the Dome should be removed -- in other words, option A. Again, I'm flexible. guanxi (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• You missed that Nab didn't support your wp:synth -- specifically, your adding commentary unrelated to any RS article on Geller's statement. Nab didn't support doing that. But failed to admit that the reason he didn't is that synth is not allowed.

And that he mis-read what was Geller's statement, and what was the narrative voice. Which was addressed by using a quote, so it is clear what is and what is note the narrative voice.

You are complaining about what is now in quotes. It is what Geller said. It is properly sourced. It is what Nab quoted above ("She wrote in September 2009, under an image she posted of Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy sites: On Erev Yom Kippur, Muslims attack Jews in Jerusalem. The dome has got to go. It is sitting atop the great Jewish temple. The dome has got to go. It's time to push back and stop indulging evil. Evil is made possible by the sanction you give it. Withdraw your sanction (paraphrasing Rand).")

And you missed that I sought to use the language in his cite, to expand that (as you wanted to), but that is under attack by Ohio as not an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I did not misread anything and the fact that you continue to dishonestly misrepresent both what I have written and the text of the article does you no favors. You continue to use this article as a platform of Geller's views without including what sources call those views. You are wrong, and anybody with a high school level understanding of English can see you are wrong. The text did assert in the narrative voice that the Dome of the Rock is built over the Second Temple, and Markus's version does the same. I provided several sources that say, in the context of Geller's "argument", that the Dome of the Rock is one Islam's holiest sites. Do not continue making purposely false statements about what I have written or what the article said. nableezy - 03:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I stand on what I said before. It's crystal clear. You "read" quotation marks into some of the phrase, but not the rest of it. If we have sources that are RSs speaking on her views, feel free to add them. If it is just "what Nableezy knows, but not from an RS article dealing with Geller", then consider wp:synth.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

You are stretching that synthesis prohibits, but that is a question I can ask others to comment on. Which Ill do in a bit. nableezy - 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

"Under attack", Epeefleche? Seriously? Wow, that really floors me. You know as well as I do that text copy-pasted to a public-comment section of a news site isn't a proper citation, and I even gave you the secondary source that could be appropriately cited. Without the least offense intended, if you really perceived that as an attack then you absolutely need a wikibreak to regain some perspective. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

By under attack, I mean disagreed with. I've not said that your disagreement is ill-considered. Nor, at first blush, do I think it so. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Sorry if I took your comment too literally. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 08:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Perhaps (and understandably) your reaction was because the phrase "personal attack" is a no-no. Attacks on whether an edit is appropriate under the guidelines, in contrast, are fair game, and -- as I said in my last post -- in this instance, likely well-founded. I was just making the point that it was under attack so that the other editors did not think that that change had been accepted by all.--Epeefleche (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why it also being built on top of a Jewish Temple would not be included. Isn't that why she thinks it should be removed? I could understand if the wikilink in the quote went to the correct page but for some reason it doesn't. Is that on purpose?Cptnono (talk) 04:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, Cptnono, although I think it's only fair to disclose the 600-year delay after the destruction of the Second Temple, too, if we want readers to have a fair context in which to try to understand Geller's comment. But would everyone please take notice that there is a legitimate difficulty behind the contention over this passage? Leaving Geller completely to one side, for a moment, suppose some notable author we have an article about is quoted in a secondary source as saying something that either needs explanatory context to be well-understood or that needs contradiction because it's incorrect. What's the right thing to do in such a situation? Leave out the quotaion altogether? Provide a reliable secondary source that (for example) discloses the statement as incorrect? If we do that, do we need to have a secondary source that identifies not only the information itself as incorrect, but also says that the particular author's assertion of it was incorrect? Editors can, in good faith, differ in their answers to these questions... I know some will cry "OR!", but what would everyone think about just addding a very brief explanatory footnote to the quotation? Something to very briefly explain the context necessary to understand it? I won't push the idea, since I'm mostly a passer-by here, but could that help resolve this dispute?  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYN; the examples are directly on point.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think both Cptnono and Ohiostandard have good points. I think they address the broader issue I mentioned above: We can say, safely, that Geller advocated the removal of the Dome of the Rock; that's beyond dispute (and we only need the Atlas Shrugs footnote, AFAICT). If we get into the question of 'why', then we include her argument for it (its location, and is there more?), the facts (600 years, plus is that really the same location, etc. etc.), counter-arguments, etc. I don't think this issue is worth that much space in the article. That's why I'd leave it at version A. guanxi (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The best way to avoid interpretation of what she said is to quote her. That's what the article does at this point. As to any reaction to her comment, we can reflect any reaction that is in an RS that focuses on her comment (though not, per wp:synth, an RS that is not discussing Geller's comment ... that is the poster child of synth).--Epeefleche (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the earlier direction to wp:synth, Epeefleche; I'd been aware of the policy, but it was helpful to re-read it. The intro to the quotation reads, at present,

• She wrote in September 2009, under an image she posted of Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock, one of Islam's holy sites:

What would people think of modifying that intro to something like,

• Of the location of the Muslim holy site, the Dome of the Rock, which location is also held as holy by Judaism as the site of the Second Temple before its destruction, Geller wrote the following in September 2009, under an image she posted of Muslims praying at the Dome of the Rock:

Such an intro, while perhaps a little wordy, would seem to me to cover the objections and represent a fair compromise, one that wouldn't need a cite since it's so matter-of-fact. Could both sides live with this, or something close?  – OhioStandard (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what RS sourcing you are using, referencing Geller's statement. What we have now, which covers the issue, only seems to suffer from us finding the proper RS (as you pointed out, there is an issue with the current ref). If we have an RS that avoids the synth issue, this would seem to be the text that would tease out the issues that all editors sought to have covered.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand. Are you objecting to the Media Matters link I provided above, or are you saying you object to the intro I propose for some reason? Or do you think a primary-source quotation with the intro I've proposed above is improper? Please clarify.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could both sides live with this. No, I could not. I think the clear consensus to remove the quote and insert something like version A or Markus' version C. Only one editor supports keeping the quote or believes WP:SYN applies, and many think that editor is being disingenuous and uncooperative. We don't need to continue this discussion to suit one editor. guanxi (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

And I think it'd be more productive if you'd just state your own opinion and would stop trying to tell us all what everyone else thinks, what the "clear consensus" is, in your view. If there were a "clear consensus" there'd be no need to keep telling us so. I can live without the quote, but I consider (A) and (B) to pretty sharply fail NPOV. That leaves Markus' version (C). I'd be content with that if it's properly wikilinked as per Cptnono's comment.  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my message above is too sharp. I really do see that you are making an effort here. Thank you. I don't see how A represents a POV (besides Geller's, of course), but it's not worth debating. If you agree on C, I'm willing to live with it (again, I prefer A, but life is too short), and so is everyone but one editor. I think we've got it wrapped up. Hoorah. Only on Wikipedia is so much time spent on one sentence! guanxi (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

At last

Per the consensus above, I used Markus' version C (which was also my earlier temporary compromise edit). I also addressed other concerns people brought up: I fixed the link (thanks Cptnono), the questionable 'First Read' footnote is gone (no longer relevant), and I addressed the concern I raised and other agreed with about the 600 year difference: Writing '600 years' looked too argumentative and explaining it took too much space, so omitted the number but I think I made it clear that they were not contemporaneous. Finally, I reworded it a little to fit with the following paragraph on other non-Park51 advocacy. Most importantly, I think I made it as unprovocative and encyclopedic as possible. Now to my real job! guanxi (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)