Talk:Helen Thomas/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Further edits

Perhaps fixing the hyperlink in note # 4 would be helpful. -- Benji

Couple things I think can improve this article:

Current version now says "Thomas has come under criticism by some, including conservatives and traditional journalists...". Per this section of the NPOV article , can we have a few names?

And since her recent quote about killing herself just won't go away, I'd like to suggest some changes. Note first the article in The Hill News - you have to scroll down a bit. Compare this to the text of Matt Drudge's article which reads

"Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president.

The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday.

"The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar."

Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does." "

Note that the current version here on Wikipedia borrows heavily from the Drudge piece, apparently taking her comment as a genuine suicide threat rather than hyperbole, for which we should seriously consider getting her medical help. Drudge's POV is far from N; it looks like his treatment is meant to delight those in his audience who would love to dismiss her as a crazy old lady.

So how about making the last paragraph more apeasing to the liberal left, like this:

"An incident in July 2005 illustrates both Thomas' own opinions and her critics' response. Following up on previous remarks about Vice President Dick Cheney's power, she expressed her personal distaste with the possibility of a Cheney presidential bid, comments which were quoted in The Hill. [1] Her comment “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself” was presented in the Drudge Report as an actual vow to commit suicide, quite possibly to paint an unflattering portrait of Thomas' sanity."

Comments? Phaseolus 05:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see where the account in The Hill is substantial different than what Drudge reported. From the article in The Hill:

But asked this week if she is promoting a Cheney candidacy, Thomas made it clear she isn’t. “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told The Hill. “All we need is one more liar.” Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.

Neither Drudge, nor the current state of the article, make any comment if Thomas' comments to The Hill are a genuine suicide threat or hyperbole. Nor for that matter does the original Hill article.

More so, this article is not about Matt Drudge, and there no need to comment on his motives of why he regurgitated The Hill's item about Thomas. There is no reason to attribute motives to him, just as there is no reason to take Thomas' comments for anything more than she said.

I believe the current form of the article to be satisfactory.

— Linnwood 09:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The current edit, while not the way I would write a Helen Thomas encyclopedia entry if I were god (I'd omit the whole paragraph) makes my point very nicely: Drudge's version is substantially different than The Hill's precisely because Drudge isolated a few sentences, presented them without any context, and presented her statement as a "vow" and a "startling claim". Since practically no one is startled by someone using hyperbole, Drudge is making a statement about what Thomas said by his choices of words. The earlier language in the article replaced "vow" with "went so far as", but copied Drudges' "startling claim" language.

I speculated on Drudge's motives here on the talk page because I thought it was germane to the discussion of whether this episode belonged in the article. Thomas apparently let her guard down while talking to a fellow journalist, and Drudge took the opportunity to make some hay. I believe Drudge's airing of the story is the only reason that several Wikipedians have added this episode to the article, so yeah, I brought him up.

My question is, why does this even belong in the article? As controversies go, this one's more manufactured than genuine. It's akin to including Bush's bicycling problems and dropping the dog on the tarmac, or Clinton's chatting up female college track athletes or remarking about the attractiveness of mummies in their respective Wikipedia articles. Sure, the stuff actually happened and with a little work can be spun into minor controversies, but that kind of stuff simply isn't very important. Phaseolus 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

"I'll kill myself" Quote

I removed the last edit that had added "conservative sites claimed" regarding the quote. The Hill is a physical "dead-tree" paper and is not "cobservative." In fact The Hill is noted for it's nonpartisan tone. — Linnwood 15:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

More comments on the "I'll kill myself" Quote

Evidently "The Hill" quoted Helen Thomas engaging in a bit of hyperbole, and Matt Drudge thought it would be a hoot to tell his readers that she's threatening to kill herself if Dick Cheney was elected President. She's not seriously threatening suicide; that bit doesn't belong here. Also -- I'm new here, feel free to slap me down if I'm wrong, but "Thomas has come under criticism by some, mainly conservatives..." is more factually accurate and more NPOV than "Thomas has come under criticism by many, including conservatives...", is it not? Phaseolus 05:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

She said it, that's all there is to it. You can't debate the neutrality of someone's exact words. It's a simple fact, she said it. AriGold 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, she said it, but it's a question of editorial judgment, so you can debate the neutrality of including something in an article, in a particular context, phrased a certain way.

Phaseolus 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting up this quote, "I'll kill myself" add as much as encyclopaedic knowledge to wikipedia as if i go add the quote by Harry Belafonte about Condi Rice being a house negro. Project2501a 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The quotes add real knowledge to the articles. They are words spoken by the principals themselves. Truth, when she stands naked, can be alarming and frightening. 69.19.14.28 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

She is under criticism by conservatives BECAUSE of her clear bias towards conservatives is the point of the sentence. Your logic of rephrasing that sentence doesn't make sense and is not a NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.168.166.93 (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is a non-issue. If idiots want to take hyperboles literally, why stop them? Because journalists aren't entitled to artistic license offstage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

More edits

Regarding the conference room seating: Without any links to supporting documentation from the WH press office, both reasons given are speculation, I've labeled them as such. The thing about administration spite for unfriendly opinions will always be speculation; if the other reason is supported with official word from the WH we can upgrade it to 'rationale' or something.

I removed that clause from the 'Thomas has come under criticism...' sentence. If we have links to a journalist's (or opinion columnist's) criticism, let's consider putting 'em in. And if she's being criticized for being biased to the left, it's pretty much a given that conservatives would be doing most of the criticizing. Omitting the whole clause makes it tighter & doesn't detract from the paragraph.

I removed the loaded language from the 'kill myself' paragraph, now it's more neutral & more tightly written. As I've edited it, it doesn't seem to fit under the "Criticism" heading, I moved it to the main section.

...and a minor stylistic tweak here and there.

Phaseolus 15:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Worst President Ever quote

Anyone know a source for her quote that George W Bush is the worst president ever?

Everybody says that. Its sort of like a buzz word, that and IMPEACH. You see the signs everywhere you go and you hear people shouting the slogans out to each other on the street and at public events. As far as I can tell its sort of like a national fad. Google it for an image and you get more than 7470 hits Federal Street 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes your statement is true but there is a matter of weight: if I, Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou, China say that, it's worth perhaps an ounce and a half, but if Cheney, Putin, Hu Jintao or the Dalai, we are thinking in tons, not pounds avoirdupois.

Ms. Thomas is the doyen of the White House press corps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 13:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Former Reporter...

Helen Thomas can no longer legitimately be called a reporter. She is, for all intenents and purposes, a columnist. Reports are, at least superficially, unbiased in their reporting. When was the last time that Thomas wrote a news article?

Surely a former reporter should know how to spell "intents." This is slanderous and doesn't belong here in wikipedia.

Columnist...?

"Helen Thomas can no longer legitimately be called a reporter. She is, for all intenents and purposes, a columnist. Reports are, at least superficially, unbiased in their reporting. When was the last time that Thomas wrote a news article?"

Uh, just about every publication, online & in print, has an opinion page. It's been a legitimate part of "reporting" since its inception as a media form. Just because she tends to have a more liberal opinion in her writings doesn't negate her legitmacy as a reporter. Look at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page: conservative to the core. The editorial section of the SINGLE paper in my home town is quite conservative as well. If Thomas is too liberal then the only way to level the field is to eliminate editorial sections from every publication in the country. Not happenin'!

She no longer works as a reporter. An opinion column is only commenting on news, not reporting it. A columnist is not the same as a reporter. If that is all she does now she is correctly to be labeled a -former reporter- or -retired reporter-.

"Helen Thomas (born August 4, 1920) is a former/retired news service reporter, a Hearst Newspapers columnist, and a member of the White House Press Corps."

There is no disrepect meant by it. Bush 41 is former president Bush, Bill Clinton is former president Clinton. It's just accurate, even though the original post was meant as a jab at the political leanings of her writing.

She reports her own point of view. Aren't you interested in what she thinks?69.19.14.28 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

If the little lady is not salaried by anybody journalizing, then she ain't no reporter; if she is syndicated anywhere, or given a column on a regular or irregular basis, she is a columnist. Columnist is a nobler title than journalist anyhow.

It is obvious to the sensitive reader that "ex" or "former" have spin and imply the person is a "has been".

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Who interrupted who...?

"Her question concerned the war in Iraq and the president's justifications in waging it. During his response, Thomas also fired off several follow-up questions prompting the president to interrupt her frequently."

- This statement could be phrased in a better way. She didn't 'fire-off' follow up questions. She was interrupting the president, rather than the president interrupting her.

Questioning the President...

"Around the third week of March 2006, she was discussed a lot in the news after asking the president in an extremely harsh and attacking manner questions about the War in Iraq."

Talk about a biased sentence. Her questions were not extremely harsh, nor were they particularly attacking. Why not just write, "Around the third week of March 2006, she was discussed a lot in the news after asking the president questions about his motivation for the War in Iraq." Or, just scrap the sentence because the issue is dealt with more specifically in the preceding paragraph.

---

Uh huh... how about rephrasing that into "As of a White House press conference held on (month, day) 2006, she was attacked in the media after attacking the president with questions about the war in Iraq." ? — Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou Preceding

Questioning the President...

I agree, that sentence is extremely biassed. It's probably best to simply Quote Thomas, and let the reader decide if what she asked was harsh or attacking.

This is what she said: "I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your cabinet -- your cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

The president's response was to get agitated and talk around the question. A transcript can be exchanged here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603270001

Furthermore, the right wing pundits like FOX News's Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC's Don Imus and Tucker Carlson, and others, referred to Thomas as "An Old Bag" (Imus), "reporter turned propagandist" (Carlson) and saying "I would have laid into that woman, and I don't care how old she is" (O'Reilly). Leave it up to Bill O'reilly to fantasize about beating up on an old lady.

Questioning the President...

Here is what I would suggest:

ON March 21, 2006, at a press conference, President George W. Bush called on Helen, after years of ignoring her. Helen asked "I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your cabinet -- your cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?" The President never answered her question to her satisfaction, there was a lively exchange between the two, with President Bush and Helen Thomas interrupting each other. Bush moved on to another reporter's question, but not before commenting (about his exchange with Thomas) "I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it." The Conservative media wasted no time in attacking Thomas for allegedly being disrespectful. Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, from Fox News, said "I would have laid into that woman, and I don't care how old she is... I would have laid her out, saying, 'How dare you?'" Other conservative commentators and pundits had much less flattering things to say about her, as well.

Too much stew from one oyster. What's wrong with what's in the article at the present moment:

On March 21, 2006, during a White House press conference, Thomas was called upon directly

by President Bush for the first time in three years, leading to a spirited exchange

between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bush.

This includes a link to a transcript of the press conference; the reader can follow that and read the entire exchange, and draw their own conclusions -- rather than cluttering up an article with a lengthy description of a soundbite that will most likely be forgotten in a month or two. Brandon39 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

That's perfectly fine. I was responding when the section was altered by some freeper and was way too biassed.

I was wondering, though, isn't it relevent to mention how much she's now being attacked by the right for the question she asked? Listening to the morning talk radio, watching MSNBC, CNN, and the unfair and unbalanced FOX news, they're literally engaging in mostly ad hominem attacks, but the reaction from them is very vicious and disrespectful to her. It should at least be mentioned in passing, such as "The Exchange prompted many Bush administration loyalists and conservative commentators in the media to attack her insultingly for the next week."

Or is there a reason why the reaction shouldn't be mentioned?

Mostly, it still seems like making a lot out of a little. A more accurate reporting of the reaction would probably be something like, In the days following her exchange with President Bush, Ms. Thomas was the subject of considerable criticism by conservative commentators and considerable praise from liberal commentators. But that doesn't really tell us much that we couldn't already guess, does it? It just seems to me that this story is a nine day wonder, and that we've already got (more than) enough on it. The only reason it's notable at all is that Bush hasn't called on her in a long time, while in years past she had been a fixture at W.H. pressers. Normally, a two minute exchange between a liberal reporter and a conservative president who disagreed with each other, and made no news at all, wouldn't even rate a mention. That's my view, anyway. Brandon39 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Helen Thomas receives wonderful gift of roses from the DemocraticUnderground.com...

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, members of the DemocraticUnderground.com delivered a large gift of roses as a token of their appreciation for Helen Thomas's life long accomplishments and recent efforts to demand the truth from President Bush.

To read the story about the delivery of the roses, click here:[2]

To read a thank you message from Helen Thomas to the DemocraticUnderground.com, click here:[3]

"Photo of the Day" of Helen Thomas with roses from TheHill.com: [4] Photo by Sara Henderson

At the Hearst Newspapers Bureau, Helen Thomas is surrounded by roses sent to her by well wishers who enjoyed her recent exchange with President Bush in the White House Briefing Room. --TheHill.com[5] Friday, March 31, 2006.

Status of the article

Are you guys kidding me? The article was in deplorable condition... It's got a basically one long chunk ... and all you guys worry about is the quote? Try to cleanup the article first then argue about politics. Mineralè 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Helen Thomas reduced to her relationship with the current President and her ethnicity? Do they make the woman, do they tackle the issues? I saw an interview with her last week; here in Australia she was not that prominent before. The most important bit of that interview was her question 'What have we done to them that they ..... ' (from memory) are so hostile? That question is what matters. As far as I am concerned, it started with the Shah and Mossadegh - never resolved, no apology. I had a friend whose father decided in 1958 to leave Iran 'because one day this will blow up badly and I do not wish to subject my daughters to that.' If we never investigate Helen Thomas's question, can there ever be an improvement? Why does nobody listen to what a person with experience has to say? 121.209.49.78 (talk) 05:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ethnicity

It may or may not be important but Helen is Arab-American, something I found interesting. I know of no other Middle-Eastern reporters covering the White House (male or female), certainly not continuously since 1960.

It keeps getting changed back and forth between Lebanese and Syrian. Does anyone know with certainty which it is? Kasreyn 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For quite some time I thought she was Lebanese because that is the most prevalent of claims. However, an editorial review at Amazon.com of her book Front Row at the White House : My Life and Times says that she was born to Syrian immigrants. If someone can retrieve this book and confirm this information then this dispute would be solved. But what is interesting is that Khalil Gibran was Lebanese but he referred to Lebanese people as Syrians, and that Lebanon in his time was known to Westerners as Syria; he lived from 1883 to 1931, Thomas was born in 1920. So, I'm puzzled as to what her nationality is, but I think that it is safe to put Syrian for now. --Inahet 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing it up, Inahet! Kasreyn 09:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

In 1920 both Lebanon and Syria was under direct control of France, besides I'd say that nowadays her nationality is US. Raphael1 11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Her nationality is certainly American, but her ethnicity appears to be Syrian. These are not incompatible. Kasreyn 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It frightens me, that after all those years of her career as a journalist, her ethnicity suddenly became an issue, because it has a parallel in history when ethnicity resp. race was an issue in Europe. Raphael1 11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is making a big deal of her ethnicity, but in an article about her life, I think it's interesting to note that she is the daughter of immigrants. Also, her parents' nationality might explain some of her views on American foreign policy. Europe's Nazi history has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A.V.

Not quite true. My interest in determining her ethnicity comes from my involvement with the article on Ann Coulter, which I am heavily involved with. Among Coulter's many outrageous remarks is a fairly cut-and-dried slur against Thomas's Arab ancestry. In order to cite Coulter's bigotry, I had to determine if what she said about Thomas was even true. So at least one person is making "a bid deal" of it: Ann Coulter. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, apart from a biographical entry on Ms. Coulter, is she really a baseline for neutrality?

Arabia, i.e. the whole peninsula, was divided up into artificial states along borders that suited the needs of Western powers. It corresponds to no ethnic reality. If you absolutely need an ethnic label for the woman, then call her a Mediterranean.

If you need a legal definition, then you take the name of the country governing the city in which she was born on the date of her birth.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou (I think I'm gonna end up registering here) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 14:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions for Bush

The article says that in March 2006, President Bush called on her for a question for the first time in three years (ie, he must have taken a question from her in late 2002/early 2003). In the trivia section, though, it says that he's only ever taken one question from her. Can someone verify which of these is true and delete the false one? Deusnoctum 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bush administration

I've rearranged some stuff, chopped out most of a lenghty transcript, and made all this stuff a subset of her career as correspondent. We don't need a seperate section for every offhand comment she makes. This stuff also needs to be fact checked and sourced, as some of the source links have disappeared, apparently as the result of a poor cut and paste job. Gamaliel 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Syrian or Lebanese?

Thomas' ethnicity was just changed from the latter to the former, with this used as a source. First of all, we should not be using Amazon.com book advertisements as informational sources for an encyclopedia. Second, while the Amazon review says she is Syrian, if you scroll down to the review from Kirkus, it says she is Lebanese. Also, the following reference works state that she is Lebanese:

• Contemporary Heroes and Heroines. Vol. 3. Gale Research, 1998.
• Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, Vol. 19. Gale Group, 1999.
• Current Biography, H.W. Wilson Co., 1993.

I hope this will settle the matter. Gamaliel 20:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Gamaliel! This article has been going back and forth on that one for some time now. Kasreyn 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you provided sound sources, so I guess the matter is settled. But it can't hurt to see what her autobiography says. --Inahet 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No wonder she loves Hezbollah so much. Couldn't resist. But rather than being totally subjective, that comment may just be an exaggeration. Minutiaman 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement would be better if she was Syrian, not Lebanese.--2ltben 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement works whether she is Syrian or Lebanese. I'd like someone to prove me wrong that more Lebanese support Hezbollah than Israel in this war. Minutiaman 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Support for Hezbollah was low amongst the Lebanese until Israel started destroying the infrastructure and the civilians started to die, and it rose sharply after Qana. It wasn't until Israel starting attacking the Lebanese, not Hezbollah, that support rose, and at the beginning of the war the Lebanese were blaming Hezbollah, not supporting them.--2ltben 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I never said that Lebanese support for Hezbollah was ever or always high, but I still doubt that the Lebanese people (the country on average) ever had higher support for Israel than Hezbollah. I very much hope I'm wrong, since it would make me sad if the country with the "Western capital of the Muslim world", diverse people (at least religiously - I don't know about other factors), and a relatively moderate government supports a terrorist group endangering their security and indentity (it is a state within a state) more - even if the support is not wild - than a democracy that only fights in self-defense (granted, when given the opportunity, its attacks are "disproportionate" but if it appears weak its neighbors may gear up to try to destroy it; they'll tried several times already - but I disgress). Minutiaman 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (darn, sometimes I forget to check whether Wikipedia signs me out)

At the time her parents immigrated to America, the country they were living in was the Ottoman Empire, in a part then called "Syria" but that now belongs to Lebanon. It's silly to argue about whether she's of Syrian or Lebanese ancestry, since until the end of World War I, everyone we would today call Lebanese was considered Syrian. —Angr 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This last comment should settle it: write up her city of birth and add ", Ottoman Syria, now Lebanon".

AB in ZZ

"heated exchange"

I'm lost about the significance of the "heated exchange" at the bottom of the article. It seems to be pushing POV, and although full balance should be given with regard to viewpoints, this is an encyclopaedic article, not a forum for editors to air warring opinions. Can anyone explain the significance/reasoning behind it? /Blaxthos 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The exchange is verbatim. For that reason, it does not reflect the point of view of anyone except for the two speakers. It is an instructive example of dialogue, as is the inclusion of the earlier exchange between Thomas and Bush, which was not seen as "pushing POV." We may conclude from User:Blaxthos's characterization of it as "pushing POV" that User:Blaxthos is not happy with the exchange.69.19.14.28 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

Fidel Castro

Approximately 10 years ago I heard a radio report of a question asked of Fidel Castro. He was asked the difference between him and the US President. He said that '...he doesn't have to take questions from Helen Thomas". If this can be found, I think that it would be an interesting addition to this article.75.82.208.152 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Inadvertently logged outLorenzoB 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This is available on Thomas' Wikiquote page. L (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I believe it: that's the sort of backhanded compliment Dr. Castro loves to throw :-))

AB/ZZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Colbert Video Missing

Part 1 of the Colbert clip is no longer available on the page that is linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.116.224 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the link to the version now available at ColbertNation.com L (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Resignation from UPI

No one on Wikipedia has more surviving edits which highlight criticisms of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church than I do, but one reason may be that I think a minimum standard for an encyclopedia ought to be accuracy (and thus fairness), and references should back up what is asserted. The 2 references to the Thomas resignation from UPI make no claim that her resignation was accompanied by statements that could be interpreted as protest, and there is not even any direct claim that it was in protest. One reference cites a colleague commenting on the timing. We should stick to what the references actually say. -Exucmember (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite proud of the sentence I ended up molding that information into: I added a quote that suggests both the motivation behind her choice and her reluctance to denounce the change outright, along with some reorganization (notably, into a separate section—for aesthetics, mostly, if anyone has any objections). In other news, I hope that sort of tragedy never touches the New York Times. Wikimancer (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks good! Thanks for tracking down a good reference and rewriting the passage. -Exucmember (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Media Links

I removed the links to clips of Thomas with Colbert as the domain they were linking to had expired and was now parked. (138.38.217.52 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC))

The Colbert Report now has a (mostly?) complete archive online; I've added a link to the clip from when it was featured in the show. L (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Name

What was her name at birth?Lestrade (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Recent Edits

A few things. Why was the MRC citation removed? Certainly as a fan and strong advocate for the use, at times the sole use, of media Matters, wouldn’t you (Gamaliel) agree that MRC is a reliable source as well, and there is no reason to remove it. Secondly, Greg Mitchell’s comments belong in the Tom Shales article as they are more about Tom Shales than Helen Thomas, see WP:COATRACK for more. CENSEI (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I do not agree that MRC is a reliable source. And Greg Mitchell's comments are directly about Tom Shales' attack on Thomas. If you are going to single out Shales' commentary as having encyclopedic value, then you have to present them in context. Personally, I think singling out his commentary violates WP:UNDUE. Gamaliel (talk) 15:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You dont agree that MRC is an RS? Color me shocked! To introduce Mitchell's attack on Shales is a WP:COATRACK issue as the attack is more about Shales, and belongs in that article, and less about Thomas. CENSEI (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack? Seriously? I'm sorry, if you want to introduce an attack on a BLP, you must also mention that the attack was discredited. Gamaliel (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I hardly call Mitchell's rant discrediting. The entire idea behind COATRACK and other guidelines and policies is so the articles don’t turn into he said she said and he said she said he said. CENSEI (talk) 16:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

So you think it's appropriate to mention an attack on a BLP without mentioning that others have discredited the attack? Gamaliel (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not an attack (although that’s defiantly your opinion and if you ever get to be notable enough, it can be included in this article) it is his “opinion”. Secondly he didn’t discredited anything. Its one argument against another, no factual information worth mentioning here. You have also not responded to my comments on the differential treatment you give MRC and MMFA. Lemme guess, its because one is from a “respected” outfit and the other is from a “right wing smear machine”? CENSEI (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not an attack (although that’s defiantly your opinion and if you ever get to be notable enough, it can be included in this article) it is his “opinion”.

So put it on his page. — goethean ॐ 17:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

" ...was the first woman officer of the National Press Club, was the first woman member and president of the White House Correspondents Association, and the first woman member of the Gridiron Club... "

UGH!

Female is a descriptor, woman is not! She was the first FEMALE officer, not WOMAN officer. She is a female reporter, not a "woman reporter," just as a reporter who is a man would be a male reporter and not a "man reporter." I was just struck by how many times this incorrect usage is used on this page. I'm going to clean up the first section, but I just don't have the energy to comb the entire page looking for this mangling of English. If anyone else notices this usage anywhere else, please, do our language a favor and correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RyokoMocha (talk • contribs) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I agree with you, but there are apparently many who do not. See this Safire article from March 2007: Woman vs. Female. L (talk) 08:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

"Female" has a zoological ring to it, which "woman" does not. Indeed, "woman" defines a member of the human race and an adult one at that.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.150.142.250 (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Noteworthy?

This article contains a number of statements, especially in the Bush section, that simply aren't noteworthy enough to be included in an encyclopedia article. I'm not familiar enough with Ms. Thomas to undertake a clean-up, but (at a quick glance), it looks like most of that section should be chopped. This is not a review of her editorial positions on the Bush administration, but rather an article about her life. - AyaK (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The section is about 1/2 the article on a person who worked for over 50 years at her job? --Tom 21:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Better image

I inserted a better picture of Helen Thomas. The previous one featured, very prominently, the back of G. W . Bush, covering half of the image, and only about 4% of image actually showed the woman this acticle is about. I took it from the German Wikipedia page on this article.

The article might still need a bit cleaning-up, but I am not familiar enough with the topic to do that. RachelBartlett (talk) 20:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Biased Wiki Article

I was just looking up Helen Thomas (first time I'd heard of her, I'm not American) after an interview I saw with her on FOX News referenced on CNN. She stated that: "I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, and I will be a liberal till the day I die. What else should a reporter be?" That's outrageous bias. I mean, if a Swedish journalist at SVT made such a claim, they'd be fired on the spot. However, the article here has not a single mention of this, nor can I find the word "liberal" at any point during this entire article. It's as if being a liberal is something that's taken for granted and not even worth reporting, while if someone is a socialist or a conservative, that's immediately pointed at and villified. -- Johan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.217.33 (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You can insert this information if you provide a reliable source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. I've found the original interview as a Youtube clip ( [6] ), with the words coming straight out of the horse's mouth, so to speak. 3:49 to 3:56. I don't think it gets much clearer that. I'll go ahead and update the main page. I appreciate your objectivity and good advice! - Johan

Youtube is generally not considered a reliable source. Since this is a BLP, I'll have to remove the material until proper sources are found. You can just cite the original show (see Wikipedia:Cite your sources) but not Youtube, sorry. We are extra cautious when it comes to biographies of living persons. Gamaliel (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, since you included information about the tv program itself, I'll just rework your addition instead of removing it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to go back and forth on this, but BLPs are serious business on Wikipedia. I can't find any news (as opposed to blog) coverage of this at all and there are even conflicting reports about what the name of the program was. Until we can get some solid sources on this, it should stay out. Gamaliel (talk) 19:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I really can't understand why you're censoring this, but I'll do my best to work through the red tape, so to speak. The statements in the video are coming straight from Helen Thomas' own mouth, so it is indisputable. It was broadcast nationally on Canada's own public broadcasting channel. If you read through the discussion here, you can clearly see there is a significant debate on this highly influential journalist's bias or lack thereof. Her comments on that topic should thus be relevant. Now, I'm not familiar with Wikipedia, and I'm not admin or an experienced editor, so I would appreciate help in getting this forward in a correct manner instead of seeing it shuffled away. If you'd like further sources, I found a few when i Googled. [7], or for a biased one this [8] might do. The original video straight from CBC can be found here [9]. That's probably the best source. I've also noticed how many American articles cite the Media Matters organization as a valid source, so I'm sure Newsbusters is just as acceptable. Thanks again for your help with this! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.135.201 (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping your reaction would be more tempered than to cry "censorship", but I guess once you got that outburst out of your system, you have made a good effort to dig up sources. Please read the articles Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living people. Those policies should explain why I took the actions I did and stress the importance of such actions. As far as this article goes, the Newsbusters link is not acceptable, but the original video from CBC can be used as a source. Gamaliel (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More "tempered"? You mean as "tempered" as in using admin privileges to constantly and consistently erase anything you dislike? I'm sure Webster appreciates the definition. I've noticed that in the entire article, the word "liberal" does not appear a single time now that you've had your way. Again, I ask that you reinstate the section on Helen Thomas' self-proclaimed political stance. If you don't want to reinstate it, then feel free to create or edit it in whatever manner makes you comfortable, but for the love of whatever Deity you hold dear, stop this ridiculous policy of contributing nothing and erasing everything. I've provided a source to the original broadcast, as asked. Enjoy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.135.201 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you have no idea about how admin powers work. You don't need admin powers to edit an article, and in fact admins are forbidden from using their admin powers on articles they are editing except in very limited cases (vandalism, etc.). So this has nothing to do with me being an admin. What it has to do with is Wikipedia policy, which you are also unfamiliar with, otherwise you would agree that my objections are correct. I suggest you learn about our policies before you lash out again. Gamaliel (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, instead of acting in an impolite and condescending fashion, you should spend time and effort to contribute and help those of us not so well informed on the fine points of bureaucracy you use to censor things you disagree with. I find the statement that if I "knew the rules", I would automatically agree that you are correct, to be somewhat laughable if it were not so absurd. Especially so since the only thing I've asked is for you contribute and include the information in the best manner possible. Ignoratio elenchi fallacy, I think my old political science professor would have called it. Now, it has become very clear that you're not interested in presenting any of the information from the CBC interview in the article in any manner, and that you simply seem to be obstructing. I can't for the life of me see why. I'm certainly not trolling, I haven't even attempted further updates until this is settled, so I find it doubtful you're trying to provoke me for your profile "Wall of Shame", an odd place where you show off people you've antagonized into (illiterate) outbursts. I trust that it has nothing to do with your flaunted Democratic Party partisanship, either, likewise displayed on your profile. It would be wondrous if a politically independent admin would instead look over this interview, and give reasonable advice on how the information within could best be added for the benefit of all to settle the debate on Helen Thomas' bias or lack thereof. Someone who's preferably not on your friends list. The risk of cronyism and all that. Thanks! :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.135.201 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly pointed out which policies come into play here and provided links to them. You, from the start, have been belligerent and accusing and now have the gall to complain about my conduct. It's clear you came here looking for a scrap and were determined to find one instead of working on the article. I have explained what's wrong and what to do to address it. You can edit or you can argue, your choice. Gamaliel (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I remember it quite differently. I've done the editing. I've found the original sources as asked. Yet you delete it out of hand, then have the audacity to complain that I haven't edited and that I'm being belligerent. Beyond belief! -Johan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.226.135.201 (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I see liberal is still missing from the article. If she admitted it on camera, and he cited the original news program, why is it being taken out? The red tape of wikipidea is ridiculous! Administrators hide behind the so called "rules" which can be bent at their discretion if they disagree with a statement, and then accuse you of being the biased one. I urge the statement to be readded. 76.77.225.169 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Longest Serving Whitehouse Correspondent

I have known for years that Thomas has long been the most senior Whitehouse correspondent. The article lays out the foundation for that, but fails to actually put it into words. To my way of thinking, despite all her other noteworthy accomplishments (such as her reputation for asking especially cryptic questions) this is of historic note. She has covered the Whitehouse longer than anyone else in history. She's an icon in that sense, alone. Should one sentence be included to take note of this historic fact? 76.172.11.202 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

The word "cryptic" buzzes me: one or more examples of cryptic questions should be included, if only so that historians will be better able to pinpoint her as a dot and how she connects with other dots of the US political equation.

Arthur Borges in Zhengzhou

Bush admin section

Any reason this covers almost 1/2 the article? Why the details when nothing else like it about the other 42 years of her work? Anyways, --Tom 21:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I have not been active in editing this article. However, the Bush Admin. section may deserves some extra emphasis in the context of Thomas asking "tough" questions of the Bush Administration. The other reason it may be so prevalent is because Wikipedia has been around long enough to list some of her skirmishes with Bush, while it has not been around for her 42 year career. That said, I have no problem condensing the Bush material. I think what you've done so far has been good. Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both your points. Her "tough" questions should be covered, and Wikipedia does have a recent/currentism "problem" if you will. That said, I would probably trim the current section to about 1/2 its size but will wait for others to comment and maybe trim as well. imho, it makes the article look "silly" when so much focus is on the "Bush years". You would think that this lady did little and then WAM, it was a non stop Helen Thomas show for 8 years with blow by blow commentary. Anyways, thanks for your input, Tom 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)ps, duhh! I just noticed the tag at the top of the article page :) Tom 22:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Life?

Why is there absolutely no personal information beyond her early life? There's no information as to weather she's ever been married, had any children, or how long she's used a wheelchair, all of which are relevant and I'm interested to know.

Evening Scribe (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to do some "heavy lifting" and add reliable sourced material :) I sort of wonder the same above a far as the balance given to here career section. The article makes it look like she was a bump on a log for the first 30 years of her career and then become some type of wunda journalist :) Hopefully there are sources that go back to the civil war for her :) just kidding Helen dear! Anyways, maybe I will also take a stab at improving this. Cheers!--Tom (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

"At the July 18, 2006, White House press briefing, Thomas remarked, "The United States is not that helpless. It could have stopped the bombardment of Lebanon. We have that much control with the Israelis... we have gone for collective punishment against all of Lebanon and Palestine." Press Secretary Tony Snow responded, "Thank you for the Hezbollah view."[12] Other members of the press weighed in. According to Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, questions like the one above have sounded more like "tirades" and "anti-Israeli rhetoric".[13][14] Greg Mitchell of Editor & Publisher described Shales' attack as "disturbing" and said Shales "offers no evidence".[15]

"On July 12, 2007, Thomas accused President Bush of starting the Iraq War as his "war of choice" and insisted that he alone could end it anytime he wanted to by handing it over to the United Nations.

"In a press conference on November 30, 2007, Thomas questioned White House Press Secretary Dana Perino as to why Americans should depend on General David Petraeus in determining when to re-deploy U.S troops from Iraq. Perino began to answer when Thomas interjected with "You mean how many more people we kill?" Perino immediately took offense, responding, "Helen, I find it really unfortunate that you use your front row position, bestowed upon you by your colleagues, to make such statements. This is a...it is an honor and a privilege to be in the briefing room, and to suggest that we, the United States, are killing innocent people is just absurd and very offensive."[16]"

This is all fine, as far as it goes, but the barrage of criticism makes it sound like her work is almost universally reviled or she's "gone off the deep end," so to speak. That's simply not true. Commentators like Glenn Greenwald hold her in high regard: "The White House Press corps loves to laugh condescendingly at Helen Thomas because, tenaciously insisting that our sermons to others be applied to our own Government, she acts like a real reporter," he wrote in response to a different event, for example. Right now this section basically reads like a polemic. Casey J. Morris (talk) 20:48, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunaletly, this article seems to be a really hodgepodge of quotes/criticism/praise/whathaveyou. There seems to currently be some back and forth editing regarding Thomas' criticism of the Obama admin. Unless ANY of this "material" has recieved wide spread coverage by multiple RS, I for one would leave it out. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is the case, then the statement about her birthday should be removed as well. I don't want to get into an edit war about this, however I listed three sources for her statement about the Obama Administration, as was there one statement regarding her relating the present administration's treatment of the press being worse than Nixon's.

Are we saying here that in this article that there needs to be at least two reliable sources for every statement that is made here? If this is the case, this article will be severely shortenned.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed all statements about the most recent administrations that lack more then one reliable source. Doing so removes any POV issues regarding this article, IMHO, and returns the article to focusing on the article's subject and not the persons whom this subject reports on. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether we have completely removed all issues from the remaining citation on Helen Thomas' criticism of the Obama administration. It now seems very out of place, as a one line comment that does not flow with the rest of the story. In addition, there are only two sources listed, and arguably both sources are probably not neutral when it comes to the Obama administration. Others' thoughts? JACooks (talk) 17:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Unless her criticism was widely covered and was "some big deal", I would leave it out, but it doesn't look too bad. I hear you about the "flow" of the article, which I find to be a problem with many articles. I see "facts" "jammed" into many articles with the ageless defense "well, I provided a source" so anything and everything is free to be added into an article regardless of "readability/flow" as it were. Anyways, I digress :) Good luck, --Tom (talk) 18:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I say if you believe that it falls under WP:COATRACK, go ahead and remove it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have removed it. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)