Talk:Pamela Geller

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)

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)