" 
 ::::re ""themselves is a data point"" - Granted.  But in this case we have many other data points. 
 ::::re ""all things being equal ..... themselves like to be called"" - I too value ""self-identification"" quite highly, especially when semi-abstract concepts are involved (i.e. relgion, sexual preference, ethnicity, political persuasion etc).  But as you say ""many people prefer to be called by nicer names"", and it strike me that this is pretty obviously true in Geller's case. 
 ::::re ""Fair Witnesses capable "" - Not really sure I understand your meaning here.  Many of the sources we've pointed to are fairly mainstream sources... 
 ::::re ""Rush Limbaugh"" - I think analogies to Limbaugh are unfair.  For every 10 sources that call Limbaugh a racist, I could give 10 calling him a ""conservative wack-job"", or 10 calling him a ""hardcore conservate commentator"" or even 10 calling him ""America's greatest hope at redemption"".  Focusing on the 10 sources calling Limbaugh racist would probably violate WP:NPOV & WP:DUE.  Geller is different.  Almost all the sources available for her discuss her in the context of being critical of Islam. 
 ::::re ""as being ""Anti-Muslim"""" - Note that in proposal A, we're not actually explicitly calling her ""anti-muslim"". 
 ::::re ""Being against the so-called Ground Zero Mosque ... one Anti-Islamic"" - Of course;  but this is only one small part of Geller's history of being against Muslim projects/activities.  
 ::::As a side note, just want to mention that I appreciate the points your making.  Though I obviously disagree with them, it's refreshing to get some reasoned debate, rather than inflexible rhetoric.   "