Talk:Helen Thomas/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Protected

Slow edit-warring over the matter of the article lead is not okay. All parties should kindly make their cases here on the talk page, and not attempt to end-run around the current RfC by directly changing the article to their preferred version or by reverting such changes. I've protected the article (at the wrong version, naturally) for two weeks. Shimeru 17:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas vs Schlessinger: Perspective

Fellow editors, while you are sidelined:

On the discussion about appropriate weight for HT's blogger comments etc., it might be interesting to look at the Laura Schlessinger article. She's a radio host, one of the biggest audiences in the US, better known than Thomas. On August 10 she repeatedly used the word "nigger" on air. Negative reaction to what she said, followed by an apology the next day, and then a resignation. Sound familiar?

Content on the comments etc. takes 140/3450 words, comprising 4% of Schlessinger's article. For Thomas, the corresponding figure is 30%.

RomaC ^TALK 02:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

That 30% figure is completely unacceptable. We need to remove your Findley quotes at once.

Precis (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Is a split in order? RomaC ^TALK 04:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI: SPJ decision on HT award

"The issue before us was whether we should retain Thomas’ name on our lifetime achievement award in light of her ridiculous and offensive remarks regarding Jews, saying they need to leave Israel and return to homelands of Germany, Poland and the United States. ... After sharing views for nearly an hour and reflecting on it more personally over lunch, the board decided to take no action, and as such, the award is unchanged."

http://blogs.spjnetwork.org/president/?p=331 has Kevin Smith's full text. Precis (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"offensive remarks regarding Jews, saying they need to leave Israel and return to homelands of Germany, Poland and the United States" might be a good way to address the above RfC.Cptnono (talk) 02:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, given the basis of the concerns I raised in the RfC, but thank you for your contribution and suggestion. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

But your concerns appear to be unwarranted to more than one editor.Cptnono (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You offered it in response to the RfC. It fails to take into account the concerns raised above, and raises a few more ("offensive"? Editorialise a litte more?). As such, it seems to not be a response to the RfC but indeed ignorant of it. It touhces on none of the issues raised, and solves none of them. But thank you for your effort. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The bar for inclusion in the Repercussions section

What I mean is it seems that the bar for inclusion is 'Someone said it in reaction to Helen's comments, or as a clear result of Helen's comments.' 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Since thousands of words have been said in reaction to Helen's comments, we should select only the most pertinent quotes. I'll give one example. In a Washington Post article, David Nesenoff wrote the following in countering Helen's remarks:

"But the connection between the Jew and Israel is valid, historical, ancient, modern, spiritual and eternal. The relationship is beyond the state of Israel. It is a unique relationship of a religion to a land. The Jews are 'bnai yisroel,' the children of Israel."

Would it be ok with you if someone who wants to advance that point of view adds Nesenoff's quote to the Repercussions section? Precis (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Careful; I wasn't saying I like the bar. Yep, if the bar is what I suggest it is, it has problems (one being that it's far too inclusive). I'm just saying it's the one being used; or, if not, it's not clear what the actual bar is. 'Donaldson said "Other people feel that way too. Maybe.'" That's not to say Donaldson's remark shouldn't be included, I'm just saying the bar isn't exactly neon. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Presis can you please strike the soapboxy quote above? RomaC ^TALK 04:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Precis. Why do you keep opening new sections to repeat your previously-stated hypotheticals/positions? RomaC ^TALK 13:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I started to reply to 203's comments and questions in the original sections, but those sections were getting lengthy and disorganized. My comments are less likely to be buried in this new section. I apologize for the repetition. Precis (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't want your comments to be buried among those of other Wikipedia editors because yours deserve prominence. Yes, I got that. Could you please struggle with collaboration? RomaC ^TALK 14:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd use the word "notice" instead of "prominence", but your sarcasm is noted. As for collaboration on Mukkaled, I tried that for almost a week on the talk page, but you didn't seem to want to respond directly to my objections, nor to entertain the idea of choosing a more relevant Mukkaled quote defending Thomas. If you'd like me to suggest one, I will. Precis (talk) 21:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do suggest one. It would not be terrible to have another female Arab journalist's comments on the brouhaha. RomaC ^TALK 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Journalist Diana Mukkaled said that Thomas's comments were "far removed from" being anti-Jewish. Precis (talk) 06:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No rush, anyway looks ok to trail the Findley comment, concise. Why do we need the school principal with the ruler on the knuckles? Her alma mater, Wayne State University strongly condemned what it called her "wholly inappropriate comments." Same with the redlink SPJ guy saying "offensive" -- what do either of these add to the article? RomaC ^TALK 17:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

WSU and SPJ, both well aware of HT's position on Israel policy, respect her enough to offer awards in her name. The fact that they condemned her comments gives further evidence that the controversy is not merely about politics as usual. It provides a welcome foil for Findley's assertion that HT's comments were "plainly" a criticism of Occupation. It should be obvious that Thomas critics watched the widely available one minute Nesenoff interview, but Findley makes the absurd claim, without a shred of evidence, that critics were instead duped by commentators who stirred up a controversy by quoting Thomas out of context. It's a shame that Wikipedia abides such shoddy argumentation, but since thats a fact of life, the least we can do is provide an opposing point of view from parties who have a record of respect for HT. Precis (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The "respect" angle is OR. Anyway, Wiki-wise it doesn't matter what HT really meant, only what people like Findley, Fleischer and Huckabee say they think she meant. It is absurd. The whole thing is absurd. The weight is about all we can decide, see "Thomas vs Schlessinger" below please. RomaC ^TALK 02:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't make any sense out of your first sentence. Wikipedia policy states, "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful." In particular, we as editors should do research to make reasoned value judgments about which quoted opinions deserve priority. It stands to reason that criticism of Thomas from organizations which issue HT awards is more significant than criticism from someone with clear anti-HT bias, such as Huckabee. Precis (talk) 23:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Medea Benjamin and Jews for Helen Thomas, is their support more significant because they're Jewish? RomaC ^TALK 01:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't use ethnicity as a criterion. Look at Norman Finkelstein. Precis (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is it somehow significant if a group that has an award named after HT criticizes an action of HT's. I doubt it is, groups with HT awards are likely to be more aware of and responsive to HT's actions than groups without HT awards is all. The suggestion that groups with HT awards "respect" her and this makes it less likely that they would criticize her, and so any such criticism is more notable because it is unexpected/surprising, is dodgy OR, unless a source says it was unexpected/surprising that a group with an association with HT criticized her. Just like if a source said it was unexpected/surprising that Medea Benjamin and Jews for Helen Thomas were supporting a person some have accused of making anti-Semitic comments.

Re Finkelstein, you're mixing up Israel and Jew (which some think is what happened in the HT-blogger exchange). Finkelstein is a Jew who criticizes Israel. If Finkelstein were an anti-Semite, that might be unexpected/surprising. Some say Finkelstein is an anti-Semite, but that's another thing.

RomaC ^TALK 03:26, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the WSU and SPJ quotes are not major problems here and I'm not keen on an extended argument about them. The weight given the rabbi blogger incident is excessive, maybe split off a new article? Oh and Precis see my request at the top of this section, hope you agree that doesn't belong here. RomaC ^TALK 04:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

(a) When criticism of HT comes from organizations that respect HT enough to issue awards in her name, it is more notable than criticism coming from sources with manifest bias against HT. I'm surprised that anyone would find that notion "dodgy". (b) You can't generalize about a person's bias based on his ethnicity, religion, or nationality. I gave an example: Finkelstein. (c) I'm amazed that you would ask me to remove a sourced quote that I used above in rebuttal to 203. I see no reason to censor this talk page. If you don't like my examples, the remedy is not to read them. (d) I'm not against a separate article on the controversy, if people want to write it. Precis (talk) 06:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. (a) This is your personal opinion. (b) True I should have used a better example. (c) That quote is soapboxing (d) Agree. RomaC ^TALK 00:09, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Should lead in Helen Thomas article stay as it is?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In 2007, journalist Helen Thomas made comments about Israel in an interview that effectively ended her career. How should this be presented in the lead of the article? 03:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

On March 2007, there was an exchange between Helen Thomas and Rabbi Nesenoff:

"Nesenoff: Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?

Thomas: Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.

[...]

Nesenoff: So where should they go, what should they do?

Thomas: They go home.

Nesenoff: Where's the home?

Thomas: Poland. Germany.

Nesenoff: So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?

Thomas: And America and everywhere else."

The current lead paragraph for the Helen Thomas page says (a), "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine", and the Jews should go back to "Poland, Germany.... and America and everywhere else." I've argued it should be reverted back to (b) "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made about Israel, Jews and Palestine," or as a compromise perhaps say (c) "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, after she was widely criticised for responding to a question about Israel with “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” and for assenting to the claim that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany “and America and everywhere else.”

Pro arguments:

I argue that (a) makes make an equivocation between saying something and assenting to something, and is thus misrepresenting the facts. (That is, I say it was Nesenoff who spoke the words, "You're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?" and that nowhere in the transcript does Helen say it; her participation is apparently agreeing to the statement.) I have also argued that there is nothing wrong with the original (b), and saw no reason for it to be changed in the first place (the reason that was given, which is that Thomas didn't retire because of her comments about Palestine -- see below -- is, I argue, orthogonal as (b) makes no claims about why she retired). Also, Kitfoxxe has argued that he sees no need for the quote to be in the lead. Precis suggests that leaving quotes out of the lead would be the least controversial option. Tom said it is too simplistic to presume that she meant Jews, and that (a) [or an early version of (a)] makes this presumption. Some others, I forget their names, agreed with Tom.

Con arguments:

Fandrianapahalamana argues that (c) is problematic because it uses the word 'claim,' which makes it sound like Nesenoff agrees with the statement 'Jews should go back to Poland and Germany' (which Nesenoff obviously does not agree to). Fan also says that (b) is patently false because it says, in part, that Thomas retired due to comments she made about Palestine, even though it was actually her comments about Israel and Jews that caused her to resign. Ironduke argues (a) is preferable because there is only a hair-splitting difference between saying something and assenting to something. Epefleeche said he also prefers (a) because using Thomas' own words in the lead is imperitive (although (c) had not been suggested the last time Epefleeche posted on the talk page). Brewcrewer has also recently said that (a) clearly belongs.

That's about the complete set of arguments for and against, to my recollection.

Thanks for the comments of anybody who responds. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• If anyone is seriously entertaining the idea that HT's comments, which seem to have ended her career, shoud be somehow censored or ameliorated, I advise them to start a thread apart from this disruptive IP's. We shouldn't be encouraging this sort of thing. IronDuke 04:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, Ironduke. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Iron. Furthermore, this has been discussed on this very page ad nauseum. There is no consensus for the deletion of the most notable sentence in the article. In my view, further such deletions against consensus are disruption qualifying the editor for a block.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Either (a) or (b) is fine, although (a) will probably cause more disruption in the long run as it incurs charges of selective quoting. I see no compelling reason why the level of detail in (a) is needed in the lead, since the article itself gives the quotes in great detail. The reasoning for (c) eludes me. Consider the following exchange. Sue: Do you really think the Earth is flat? Bob: Yes. It is definitely flat. A journalist can then fairly write: Bob said the Earth "is definitely flat". Bob didn't actually say the word Earth, but that's ok, because the words Bob did say were the only ones reproduced between quotation marks. Precis (talk) 10:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In the above scenario the subject is clear and constant: earth. In the HT case the subject changes during the exchange (Israel->Jews). RomaC ^TALK 02:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I intentionally gave this (imperfect) analogy because I wanted to see how literally 203 was interpreting the word "said". 203 gives the answer below. Precis (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a little less about the way I interpret it and a little more about the way I think readers with an adequate grasp of English would/could interpret it, for whatever that's worth. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the prospect that the appropriate "a" may lead to disruption by disruptive editors, I don't see any reason for us to be held hostage by those who might terrorize this page. If disruptive editors do so, there are enough eyes on this page that appropriate action can be taken, and the elimination from the project of editors bent on disruption may not be a bad thing at the end of the day. Editors bent on not editing in accordance with wikipedia's guidelines will continue to do so until their behavior is addressed. Better to address it, see if they can be swayed to be productive rather than disruptive, and if they cannot be so swayed to take appropriate action.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC I believe the current wording, a, is preferable. While I understand the concern raised about Thomas responding to questions regarding Germany and Poland, I think that this wording accurately summarizes her sentiments, and is consistent with the coverage of her remarks in major media outlets. Although the wording was suggested by the questioner, she completed his sentence, saying "America and everywhere else." "Everywhere else" encompasses Germany and Poland. Figureofnine (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

  HophollardHup, below, is correct that "Germany and Poland" were not suggested by the questioner and were mentioned initially by Thomas herself. I had overlooked that, and it is an important point. Figureofnine (talk) 20:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC The current wording is fine. It accurately captures the nature of the controversial comments which led to her resignation. (b) is a totally unacceptable whitewash of what she said. (c) might be acceptable , with a modification of the lest sentence to something like "and for saying that Jews should go back to Poland, Germany, America and elsewhere." I find the suggestion gt that the wording was suggested by the questioner to be inaccurate - Thomas herself said "Poland and Germany" before these words were uttered by the questioner. HupHollandHup (talk) 15:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Response to response (so far)

Epefleeche:

Your response regarding the content is welcome, but your baseless personal attacks have no place here. I have no intention of terrorising the page, and indeed wish to protect it from POV interests. To do so, I am following Wikipedia guidelines. As for there being a consensus that (a) is preferred, this is the first day of a 30-day period. I think we can hold off on a judgement about consensus. [And if you're referring to all of the previous discussion, then take a look at the archive -- far more people agree with me than you. But I will presume you are referring to just this RfC, which is entirely appropriate, imo.] As for this having been discussed already on this page ad nauseum, yes it has -- I have been a part of that discussion, and have given reasons ad nauseum for not misrepresenting the facts. You have not. So, please, just discuss content.

Gisela Danziger Herzl

To everyone else, thank you for your contributions, and any more are welcome. In answer to some questions:

Precis:

The reasoning for (c) is that I don't think it's fair for the journalist in your analogy to report 'Bob said the Earth "is definitely flat."' Perhaps this is something I/you should get a reference for (the proper use of grammatical tools), but my understanding is that quote marks show us where something is a direct quote, but that the word 'said' still indicates what was said. The bits before quote marks are only allowed to summarise (where, perhaps, a quote is lengthy); but they don't add. In your example, the reporter is definitely adding the word 'earth' to what Bob said, in that it quite literally says he said Earth ('Bob said the Earth'). Why is it important? Well for one, as Ironduke (ironically) says, we should never misrepresent the facts, ever (so there are no unimportant examples of facts being misrepresented). Also, lots of people (including perhaps law courts, but I don't want to get into a thing about that) think that answering a leading question is importantly different to making a statement. [See, I don't think she meant Jews, and I think that partly because of the facts of the matter; namely, that the word wasn't hers. I'm not saying everybody or anybody should agree, but I got to make my decision based on the facts, and I don't see why everyone else shouldn't get to.] So that's the reasoning, for better or worse.

I interpret the word "said" a bit more loosely than you do. For example, I see nothing wrong with a NY Times journalist writing, "Chirac said that he would not run for a third term." You on the other hand might prefer, "Chirac said something that has been translated from the French to convey that he would not run for a third term."  :) Since the statement Bob said the Earth "is definitely flat" does not misrepresent the meaning, I disagree with you that it is improperly phrased. Precis (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well translations are a whole other issue but I don't think those issues translate to this case. As for 'Bob said the Earth "is definitely flat"' not misrepresenting the meaning -- well, you know my opinion on that, but of course thanks for your opinion too. [NB: Do you think readers will interpret 'said' in the loose sense you refer to, or in the 'literal' sense I refer to?] 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, Precis, in light of Epefleeche's "response" (or whatever it should be called), has your mind changed or is your comment above still your opinion?

I have no objection to either (a) or (b). In some ways I prefer (b), because it is factual and minimalist, it avoids selective quoting, and it possess an air of mystery that will entice readers to read further. But I like (a) because it makes it clear right off the bat that Thomas suggested that Jews return to where their ancestors came from. For the editor in denial because Thomas mentioned America along with Poland and Germany, it is well known that over the years, many Americans emigrated to Israel, including a large contingent of Orthodox Jews with Brooklyn ancestry. Thus (a) flies in the face of the opinion that Thomas's comments were about Occupation and not Jews. Those who hold forth on this untenable opinion don't seem to have viable answers for questions like the following: "If her comments were simply about Occupation, something she'd been denouncing for decades, why did Obama call her comments offensive, why didn't she clarify her intent in her statement of regret, why was there a furor, why did she mention Poland and Germany, and why have her remarks been criticized by even her close allies (e.g., James Zogby called her remarks a mistake, and Diana Mukkaled referred to her remarks as a "slip up"). Precis (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of this seems to be about an above issue, isn't it? But I take your point that you think both (a) and (b) have virtues, and that one of (a)'s virtues is that it is more in accord with you argue happened. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Figureofnine:

Thank you for your response. Do the major media outlets really make this equivocation (that is, saying she said Jews should go back to Poland etc and that Israel should get the hell out of Palestine)? Could you perhaps provide a ref? Also, in response to your other comments, see below.

Take a look at the title of what is currently reference #59 in the HT article. Precis (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, but the one below that goes for a subset of Jews, and the text of the one further down again goes for the Israel/Palestine interp (especially in the lead), not using the word Jews once, and so forth. Figureofnine's claim seemed to imply that there was some homogenous angle the major media outlets were taking on the issue, and I was just curious if there was a reference for that (otherwise it could look close to OR regarding media outlets). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

HophollardHup (and Figureofnine):

Ah yes, you are correct (not about the whitewashing, that's an unfair charge about my motivations; but, leaving that aside), the phrase 'Poland and Germany' were hers, so, in that I am calling for accuracy about what she said (well, I'm actually saying let's not be inaccurate) then why shouldn't we be clear that the phrase was hers? But, conversely, we should also not says things she didn't say, right? So, taking into account your comments, how about this:

(d) Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, after she was widely criticised for responding to a question about Israel with “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” and for assenting to the claim that Jews should go back to "Poland and Germany .... And America and everywhere else."?

I think that would take into account your concern (and Figureofone's), and my own as well. Would that be correct?

What does everyone else think of (d)? Would that be appropriate or does it have it's own problems? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My problem with (d) ("assenting to the claim") is that it leaves the misleading impression that Thomas was simply nodding passively to a claim made by a third party. In fact the questioner was following up on her reference to Poland and Germany. There is no need to slice and dice that sentence, and the current wording is accurate, direct and preferable. Figureofnine (talk) 15:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, yeah, sure, I can see that. But if we want to avoid misleading impressions, do we really want to say that Thomas said 'Jews'? Is this, perhaps, then, an argument for (b)? ["There's no need to slice and dice that sentence" would seem to cut -- or slice -- both ways.] 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Response to RfC What exactly did HT mean by "Palestine"? RomaC ^TALK 02:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RomaC:

Do we get to decide? And would it affect (a)-(d)? Or do you have a potential (e), which would in some way be based on how we answer your question? Respectfully, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Would the robber have shot them had they not handed over their money?" The important thing for the Repercussions section is not unsupported speculation about what Thomas really meant, but rather factual statements about how her comments were interpreted. I see no evidence that anti-Jewish charges arose from those people who interpreted Thomas's statements merely as critical of policy. Just the opposite, those people tend to be Thomas's supporters. Precis (talk) 09:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. If we are looking for clarity, we would want to know what HT meant by "Palestine" i.e. was it a historical, political or speculative definition? This would help determine for example whether HT thought Israel had no right to exist, or settlers had no right to be in Occupied territories and so on. If we are looking for clarity we would look at the statement HT made the following day.

Those attacking on HT were not seeking clarity they were seeking character assassination. But we don't write Wikipedia articles with such motivations. RomaC ^TALK 08:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So I gather that you see two camps. 1) Those attacking HT who are not seeking clarity but it is character assassination that is their motivation, and 2) those supporting HT who are seeking clarity and it is defense of her character that is their motivation, and it is with that motivation that we write Wikipedia articles. You might be in category two, but from where do you take that those arguing against vagueness in the lead are in category one? I think you can only speak for yourself. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC I would support using the initial version B in the lead of the article, and then including the full exchange is the section relating to her dismissal. Looking at the article, I see that's already the case. I don't support the above versions, largely because they involve some kind of pastiche or compression of a fragmentary discussion in order to contain her comments in quotable, sentence form, with an inevitable distortion of meaning. Leave a general description "negative comments" in the intro, and include the full text/analysis from secondary sources in the relevant section of the article. The Rhymesmith (talk) 18:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Rhymesmith:

Thanks to you for your contributions also. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC Go with B. Focusing on and stressing the comments smacks of WP:RECENTISM. NickCT (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi NickCT, thanks for your contribution too. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Except 1) it makes no sense. Recentism is an AfD deletion rationale. Nobody is suggesting deletion. And 2) as you may know, recentism carves out for what is notable. This clearly is. The rule is not, as some uninformed people think, that whatever is recent is not reported by Wikipedia. This is without doubt of utmost notability in her career (try a google search if you have any serious doubts). Recentism has nothing to do with it. We are all agreed we are reflecting it. The only question is whether we should be accurate, or try to mumph it so the reader does not have as clear a picture as the reader might if we were to use the subject's precise words.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but we do have her exact words, we have the whole exchange even. There is no need to reduce it to a soundbite in the lead. Unomi (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Epeefleche - Suggest you reread WP:RECENTISM. It's certainly not only a rationale for deleting articles. About this being "of utmost notability in her career" - Her career spanned many decades and is notable for a lot of reasons. I don't think a few people trying to play "gotcha" journalism and beating up a 90 year woman for some overly candid remarks she made is hugely relevant in the context of her entire career. NickCT (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC B is exceptionally vague and could even be read to say something completely different. The quotes do make it a little jumbled so something like "offensive remarks regarding Jews, saying they need to leave Israel and return to homelands of Germany, Poland and the United States" might work. Clarity (grammatically and not whitewashing wise) are both concerns.Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Giving other people a fair chance

Alright, this thing's got a 30-day time-period on it, I'm gonna leave for a bit to let everyone else speak. If anyone asks me a direct question, I'll answer them when I come back. Obviously, thanks in advance to everyone for any input they put in from here forward, and thanks again for the input of those who have already commented. Regards, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC Go with B as well. There is no need to repeat so much of what is in the body with full context anyway, we should expect that readers actually read the article. Unomi (talk) 06:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• What a facially unsupportable response. "so much of what is in the body"? Who are we kidding. That's a farce. It is one teensy-weensy sentence, my friend, that our IP would like to replace with another sentence that is far less precise and more mumphy, and by far the most notable words in the lede, with the most bang-for-your-buck per word. Oh -- btw -- IP -- no need to clutter up this thread yet again with another thank you for me leaving a comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I am against partial quotes, and I am not sure that we can agree on an appropriate way to paraphrase / summarize what she said. In the body we have the entire exchange, which I think is a 'good idea', but why deal with inferior ways of relaying the information? It seems to me that the only reason to have it in the lead is to have the opportunity to editorialize. There are times when this can be necessary or even appropriate, but not for an article of this length or a subject matter of this importance. Unomi (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems to you that the only reason to have it in the lead "is to have the opportunity to editorialize". Nice motivations you subscribe to so many editors. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Revert to minimal version B - There is no reason to have this level of detail in the lede. The publicity surrounding her choice of words is ephemeral and its inclusion recentist. I also feel the statements are only included to cause a negative perception of her in the American audience. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Another subscriber to motivations ("I also feel"). You feel that her statements are only included to cause a negative perception of her, but you don't feel that maybe some of those who don't want her statements included don't want to leave a negative perception of her or her comments. Why subscribe motivations to one and not the other? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the flaw in your analysis: those arguing for (B) are not asking for the sentence to be removed entirely, only for it to be worded in more neutral and encyclopedic terms. Further, the full gory detail is included later, and that is not being argued against either. And in my case specifically, I have absolutely no opinion on Thomas or the middle east conflict. Here's a question for you then: why is it so important to include those out-of-context quotes in the lede, as opposed to a simple, neutral summary of the event which is described in greater detail later? ATren (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC - (B) is the best option. The woman had a 50-year career. The one-minute casual interview with the blogger was highly controversial, HT clarified her position the following day. This is all covered exhaustively in the body, and, mindful of recentism and undue weight policies, (B) is the best way for us to handle it in the lead. RomaC ^TALK 08:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because the woman had a 50-year career that's why we should suppress what caused the abrupt ending of that 50 year career? It can be argued the opposite that something that can end the 50 year career of such an icon surely deserves to be explained to the reader in the lead.

What is if her "one-minute casual" interview with a blogger is highly controversial; does that justify suppressing it?

Her damage control, professionally written, clarification; if anything should have saved her, but it didn't; isn't that even more reason to point out the significance of her remarks that it caused the end of her career anyway?

Using her words conveys the truth and weight of what caused the end of her career. Not using it would be making her words weightless. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you serious? "Suppress" it? Content on the rabbi blogger stuff now stands at over 700 words, almost 1/3 of the article. RomaC ^TALK 04:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break 2

• Response to RfC - (B), absolutely. There is no need to include the quotes in the lede. Not only are the quotes presented out of context (she later clarified) but they violate weight to be presented as part of the summary of a 50 year career. There is already a section on the controversy below, and including direct quotes in the lede is inappropriate. ATren (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How is it out of context? Because she latter clarified? How does it violate "weight"? It seems to me that supressing her words by not including direct quotes, that is inappropriate.Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: The current lede (this one), which states Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine", and the Jews should go back to "Poland, Germany.... and America and everywhere else" is fine. It’s in the lede, which is supposed to be to-the-point. Wikipedia is famous for its succinct, pithy ledes. More important, the above-quoted words are the precise ones the media picked up on and were widely quoted—even by the White House spokesman—when discussing her comments; no one was focusing on what Nesenoff said at the time (or today for that matter). The more expansive, detailed exchange between Nesenoff and Thomas belongs in the main body of the article. I find this wikidrama to be completely needless. Greg L (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC - Agree with Greg L above. This version Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine", and the Jews should go back to "Poland, Germany.... and America and everywhere else", should stand. As a fallback, I'd be okay with the compromise language noted in (C)"Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, after she was widely criticised for responding to a question about Israel with “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,” and for assenting to the claim that Jews should go back to Poland and Germany “and America and everywhere else.” Option (B) is way too vague.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 15:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - The trimmed version is correct, its plenty in the lede to say ...comment about Israelis... actually you shouldn't add that detail in the lede without adding her apolagy also. This comment is a pin prick in her life story there is already excessive coverage about it in the body of the article. Off2riorob (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC - I believe the option A is the most encyclopedic and should be used for the lead.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No, quite the contrary, I think including the quotes out of context in the lede is quite unencyclopedic. ATren (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Then the solution should be to include the quotes in context. I would say that supressing it is unencyclopedic. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The entire exchange is represented in the body of the article, that is precisely why it is unnecessary to have an inferior reproduction in the lead. un☯mi 17:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We've gone over this many times. Having it in great detail in the body of an article is not an excuse not to have it in short in the lead. The purpose of a lead is to give the reader a synopsis of the most important aspects of an article. Unfortunately this gives some editors a free hand at suppressing information they don't like. Again suppressing it is unencyclopedic, no if’s and’s or but’s. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really seem too compelling to me, how are we suppressing it if we have the full exchange? Do you think that people will only read the lead? should we make the lead text an internal link to where we reproduce it? un☯mi 19:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

X: The lead should simply say "Thomas retired in June 2010 after negative reaction to comments she made." Period.

Y: That's suppressing information.

X: Whaddya mean, how are we suppressing anything if the comments are in the article? -- This example shows that U's argument needs to be more focused if there is any hope of convincing F. On the other hand, F should be aware that option (a) screams in capital letters, "Look at the EMBARRASSING MISTAKE that Thomas made". A significant number of editors will be unhappy with this level of emphasis in the lead, even if they agree that (a) captures the essence of the controversy. Thus (b) may be the best compromise for the sake of stability. Precis (talk) 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC: This debate has been ongoing for a couple of months now, and I stand by the comments I made at the very beginning of this discussion. Option B is the NPOV solution because of the lingering ambiguity in Helen Thomas' response to the rabbi's question. Thomas almost certainly did not indicate support for the blanket expulsion of every Jew in Mesopotamia, which is the connotation of options A and C. Instead, Thomas aimed her comments specifically at the European Jews who had immigrated to Israel following the establishment of the Jewish state. There's a huge difference between the racially charged lede as it currently stands and Thomas' actual comments, which addressed political (rather than religious or ethnic) concerns. I would propose something more along the lines of the following as an unbiased summary of the controversy: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, after she was widely criticized for suggesting that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine." Just leave the ethnic element out of it altogether. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The only problem with your logic is that there was no ambiguity, all the newspapers understood clearly what she said. The idea of ambiguity was created in the mind of editors. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If Thomas's comments merely addressed political rather than ethnic concerns, please explain why she herself admitted that she crossed the line and made a mistake. Precis (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Because she wanted to keep her job? I can't read the woman's mind, nor can the editors of this article who try to do so by attributing to Thomas motives that are, at best, ambiguous in the documented footage. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thomas had been fearlessly and unapologetically denouncing Israel's politics for decades. If her comments were simply about politics as you say, it strains credulity to suggest that this one time at band camp she admitted crossing the line to keep her job. Kevin Smith of SPJ didn't think the mention of Poland and Germany was unrelated to ethnicity. Strange how he (and Obama and WHCA and hundreds of others) got it so wrong and you got it so right. Let's all sing Uncle Dick's ode to Helen Thomas: "If loving you is wrong, I don't wanna be right..." Precis (talk) 21:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Response to RfC I think that some version of option B would be best, although I'm not convinced that that's the best wording for it. The lead section is for a summary of the article, and I see no need to present potentially-misleading quotes when the exchange is presented in its entirety in the body of the article. I would favor something short and to the point, like "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following negative reactions to comments she made about Israel, for which she apologized the next day." (And I think it's important to include the apology.) This is not "whitewashing" when the entire situation, with all of its context, is presented in the body of the article. On a tangential note, I do not think it's appropriate to call her comments "offensive" -- that's clearly not neutral, although we can say that many people were offended by them or, better yet, quote people calling them offensive, with sources. (But I think both of those would best be left to the body of the article as well.) Shimeru 18:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good summary of the situation. I also agree that the exact wording of B is not optimal, and your version is better. I don't think the apology is absolutely essential, though. ATren (talk) 18:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

• Option B for reasons discussed to death in the #Conjecture section. Also fine with alternatives provided by Shimeru or Uncle Dick. nableezy - 04:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proportionality

The section "Controversy and resignation" makes up over a quarter of the article's body text (i.e. excluding lead and bibliography/refs/links). This cannot be proportional, and therefore is a violation of WP:NPOV (specifically, WP:UNDUE). Some of this is due to material lacking elsewhere (did she do nothing worth talking about between 1972 and 2000??), but it does also reflect excessive detail, both in providing the full quote and various responses. It should be possible to describe this in 1 or 2 paragraphs, instead of about 8. Remember this is a WP:BLP, not an incident report on the Resignation of Helen Thomas. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There have already been several unsuccessful attempts to shorten the full exchange. Any shortened version you suggest will likely be criticized on the grounds that important context has been lost. As a compromise, I suggest single spacing. Precis (talk) 12:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rd232. Yes as pointed out above an interesting comparison is the Laura Schlessinger article where a controversial statement, backlash and resignation is handled in a fraction of the space. My suggestion would be to cut all the detailed responses and put the exchange transcript into a footnote. The whole thing down to a graph or maybe two. I support your attempts to improve this article per the concerns, please stick around! RomaC ^TALK 22:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If the exchange that precipitated the furor is relegated to a footnote, then the body should contain at least some partial quotes that capture the essence of the controversy (e.g., option (a)). Otherwise it'd be like

A: Hey, d'ya wanna get an idea of what she said that led to the controversy?

B: Duhhhhhh, why do you think I'm perusing this Controversy section?

A: Well, you won't find it there. It's down here, buried in a footnote.

Precis (talk) 00:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is a (rough) proposal for a three-paragraph "Controversy and Resignation" section.

Rabbi David Nesenoff filmed a brief interview with Thomas on May 27, 2010. He began by asking her if she had any comments on Israel. Thomas said, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine...Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Poland ..." When Nesenoff asked, "So where should they go, what should they do?", Thomas answered, "They go home...Poland, Germany." In response to Nesenoff's question, "So you're saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?", Thomas said "And America and everywhere else."

On June 4, 2010, Thomas's remarks were publicized on YouTube, precipitating a storm of controversy. Thomas's agency, Nine Speakers, Inc., dropped her as a client because of her remarks. Craig Crawford, who co-authored Listen up, Mr. President, said "I ... will no longer be working with Helen on our book projects." Her scheduled delivery of a commencement speech at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, was canceled by the school. The White House Correspondents' Association, over which she once presided, issued a statement on June 7 calling her remarks "indefensible". That same day, Thomas abruptly tendered her resignation from Hearst Newspapers. On June 8, in an interview on NBC's Today Show, President Obama called her remarks "offensive" and "out of line", and said her retirement was "the right decision". He remarked that it was a "shame" her celebrated career had to end in such controversy, and at the same time he recognized her long service covering U.S. presidents, calling her "a real institution in Washington."

On June 4, Thomas issued an apology through the Hearst Corporation: "I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon." Reached at home, Thomas said, "I'm very sorry for my remarks. I think I crossed the line. I made a mistake." Precis (talk) 08:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What do I know, but I think you've done a very good job. Seems to me to take into account everyone's concerns and that you've strived to be very impartial. Looks like you've changed your password! 203.45.146.36 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

When she finds out, I'll be sleeping on the couch--once the amphetamines wear off, that is. Precis (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You have put in a very long stint, that's fair enough. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Thomas' defenders came up with several arguments designed to either defend her comments or put them into what they felt was a proper context."

Shall the first part of the Controversy and Repercussions section begin "Thomas' attackers came up with several arguments designed to destroy either her reputation or career"? Because the second part of the section is pure synthesis in which a Wikipedia editor expresses his opinion then relegates the actual comments to inside parenthesis. RomaC ^TALK 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure inclusionist would go for that since both "sides" should always be included for "balance" so readers can "decide" for themselves, yadda, yadda(kidding of course). --Threeafterthree (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Indirect quotes

[NB: Do you think readers will interpret 'said' in the loose sense you refer to, or in the 'literal' sense I refer to?] 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The former. Consider again this exchange: Sue: Do you really think the Earth is flat? Bob: Yes. It is definitely flat.

You wrote: ...I don't think it's fair for the journalist in your analogy to report 'Bob said the Earth "is definitely flat."' Perhaps this is something I/you should get a reference for (the proper use of grammatical tools), but my understanding is that quote marks show us where something is a direct quote, but that the word 'said' still indicates what was said.

Indirect quotes with the word "said" are well established in journalism.

[That's fine. See below. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)].

They preserve the meaning but not necessarily the wording.

[Also good. See below. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)].

Here is one of dozens of references on indirect quotes. A crusade against the use of indirect quotes is pointless. There are plenty of more fruitful ways to attack choice (a). Precis (talk) 08:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's no crusade against the use of indirect quotes. "The word 'said' still indicates what was said. The bits before quote marks are only allowed to summarise (where, perhaps, a quote is lengthy); but they don't add." Does your reference refute this? Looking at it, it doesn't seem to do so. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob said above, "It is definitely flat." The journalist paraphrased by writing: Bob said the Earth is definitely flat. This accurately summarizes what Bob said. Since you've just admitted that summarizing quotes is permissible, I fail to understand your objection. Precis (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't fail to understand. Your example doesn't just summarise [spell it right!] what Bob said, it adds to what Bob said. It says 'Bob said Earth.' Now he never said earth, so that's an addition. In contrast, if Bob had said, "You know what, all this flat-earther stuff, it's crap. I reckon all these people start meeting with each other because they wanted to see who would attend such a meeting! I don't think anyone thinks the earth is flat. So no, I don't give much credence to these people. It's definitely flat," I would argue vigorously for 'Bob said the earth is "definitely flat."' So, no campaign here against indirect quotes. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are still crusading against indirect quotes, since you object to the replacement of the word ""It" by "The Earth". Indirect quotes by definition allow different wording, as long as the meaning is preserved. See the Roosevelt example below. As for your spelling, it's certainly colourful. Precis (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just proper English, mate. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

<irony>At times I will in fact employ an argument out of principle rather utilitarianism </irony> - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a newspaper. Indirect quotes may have some utility depending on context but I don't believe that this comes close to a situation that should call for it. I could understand that we could have this discussion if the exchange was too long to have in the article at all, but thats not the case. Unomi (talk) 08:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Choice (a) is under consideration for the lead, not for the body of the article. The full exchange is way too long for the lead, which is why (a) has been formulated as an indirect, partial quote. Precis (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I understand that, based on the rationales given above I don't think that it is appropriate. Unomi (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the extent to which indirect quoting plays a role in your choice. Let's assume Helen had uttered only one short sentence, namely "All of Israel is occupied, and the Jews should leave." Then (a) would involve a short direct quote instead of an indirect, partial quote. In that hypothetical case, would you still prefer (b) to (a) for the lead? Precis (talk) 10:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I would probably be more comfortable with it, yes. But, both with short but full direct quotes and more obviously with partial indirect quotes - editors are shouldering the responsibility of framing the event. I believe that editors should generally not take such responsibility. In a different vein, the lead is a poor place to give proper context to anything, it is merely meant to be a brief outline of what the reader can expect of the article. For obvious reasons the lead is a coveted place to present points of view and set the tone for the article - this is an impulse that I believe we should strive to resist. Unomi (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You make excellent points. Thomas's antagonists want more emphasis on her specific comments in the lead, while her allies want less. Selfishly, I like (a), because I think it is important to counter those who minimize the significance of her words. But if I absolutely had to make a choice between (a) and (b), I'd choose (b), because I agree with the general principles for the lead that you've outlined, and because I think it would be best for the stability of the article. But back to the subject of this section, I think that (a) accurately captures the essence of the controversy. If you think the partial quoting has caused distortion, I'd like to hear your argument. Precis (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Selfishly, I like (a), because I think it is important to counter those who minimize the significance of her words." Interesting. Check the archive. I think your opinion will change. Check where this argument started: it was Fan trying to emphasise the significance of her words, giving poor and clearly false reasons for abandoning (b). Others (and later me) where simply trying to 'counter those who wished inflate the significance of her words.' Don't take my word for it; check. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, off the record - as it were, I simply don't know

(a) if a given paraphrasing can adequately capture the meaning of what she said - when we choose specific sections of the exchange we are making a value judgement, we are ourselves interpreting what she said and then offering a rendition of our interpretation. For the sake of argument: We can choose to say that she made commented that "Israel should get the hell out of Palestine" or we could choose to say that she commented that "[Palestinian] people are occupied and it's their land" and questioned "Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?" or she commented that "[Jews] should get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to "Poland and Germany", locus of the Holocaust. I think that most editors here can entertain that these renditions could capture different perspectives on the full exchange. I also think that we could never agree on which to present.

(b) if there is a compelling reason to even offer a paraphrasing given that the exchange is so short and replicated in full in the article body, even if we could muster a local consensus on what she really meant. Unomi (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I agree with Unomi here. HT's comments related to Occupation are unlikely to be related to her resignation or to the negative reaction. She had been making such comments for decades. Precis (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

HT never uttered the words "Israel" or "Jews". For clarity on "what she really meant" we could look to HT's post-incident statement, where she said her comments concerned "the Israelis and the Palestinians". RomaC ^TALK 01:07, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today, any comments on Israel?" "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." "Oooh. Any better comments on Israel?" and so on. I think it is pretty clear what she meant.Cptnono (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Since she didn't utter the words "Israel" or "Jews", she may have been suggesting that Greenland get the hell out of Palestine and that Bedouins take the next ship out to Gdansk. Precis (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

That's unlikely. RomaC ^TALK 03:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless I miss my mark, it's not up to us to figure out what she meant. We say what happened, the reader gets to figure out what she meant (if the reader is so inclined). If you think it's so obvious she meant 'Jews,' then the reader will pick up on that; if the reader doesn't, then maybe it's not so obvious she meant 'Jews.' 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're right, she might have thought Nesenoff said "Druze". I'm not sure if they had homes in Poland, but I'll check on it and get back to you. Precis (talk) 08:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I don't think she meant Druze, but that's not up to us to report. I also prefer banana choc-chip to mint choc-chip (never understood those who thought otherwise), but my thoughts aren't what make up an encyclopedia. When you want to start an article on me, you're more than welcome say that. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It is up to us to report, and our thoughts are integral to making up an encyclopedia. The Repercussions section is replete with indirect quotes. Each editor who provided a paraphrase discerned the quote's meaning and then recast it using new wording, preserving that meaning. You may question the accuracy of an editor's paraphrasing, but it's rather nervy to tell editors that it's not up to them to reformulate what they think was said. While editors may not be able to discern motivation or intent, they are not mindless drones unable to interpret meaning. If you think an editor's indirect quote may not be about Jews, provide a viable alternative. "It could instead be about Albanians because..." That'd be more useful than "It's not up to us to say." Finally, since you seem unclear on what constitutes a legitimate paraphrase, here's an example. Roosevelt said "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself..." A wiki editor could reformulate this into an indirect quote as follows: Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Precis (talk) 12:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You say, "It is up to us to report, and our thoughts are integral to making up an encyclopedia." Interesting. So you'd disagree with this, would you: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You propose that this policy proscribes paraphrasing? You prefer parroting or plagiarizing? Pfff. In order to paraphrase, one interprets what's being said, internalizes the meaning, and then rephrases. Precis (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying the policy seems to say that we don't do analysis or interpretation; it seems you're saying we do. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The following example might help. "She made controversial remarks about Israel's presence in the Palestinian Territories." That interpretation runs counter to policy, because it injects the editor's personal unverified opinion of Thomas's intent. The interpretation becomes legitimate if you replace "Palestinian Territories" by "Palestine". (One could object that since she never used the word "Israel", she could have been talking about Albania, but since she was responding to a question about Israel, that objection would be frivolous.) Precis (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What position is the example meant to support? Do we, as you say, interpret; or do we, as Wikipedia says, not? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

NB: You also say, If you think an editor's indirect quote may not be about Jews, provide a viable alternative. "It could instead be about Albanians because..." That'd be more useful than "It's not up to us to say." Of course, I've done that too, as you know; I just haven't pushed that because I felt it was dangerously close to OR. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

From WP:TALK: It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Explaining an opinion helps to convince others and reach consensus. So please, since you're telling us it may not be about Jews, let's hear your opinion on possible alternatives. Who could she be saying should go home to Bialystok, Berlin, and Brooklyn? Maybe your insight will resonate with us and help us reach consensus on the lead. Precis (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have explained quite a few times -- and here I was parroting. Parroting Uncle Dick. Let me plagiarise what was on this talk page when I first turned up:

Actually, she did not at any point specifically demand that "the Jews" should leave Israel. In response to a question about the state of Israel, Thomas somewhat ambiguously stated, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine."

1.She could have been referring merely to the Israeli settlers in the UN-designated Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem or the Syrian Golan Heights.

2.She could have been referring to the leaders/founders of the Israeli government that expelled Palestinians from their homes and confiscated their property in the 1948 and 1967 wars.

3.She could have been referring to all European Jewish immigration subsequent and/or prior to the 1947 UN partition plan.

4.Given the context of her remarks, it seems unlikely that she was referring to the indigenous Jewish population of the region who had lived there prior to the founding of the Zionist movement, but I suppose that is a possibility as well.

At any rate, her remarks were ambiguous enough to be open to a wide variety of interpretations, but it seems unlikely that she was calling for the blanket expulsion of every Jew in Mesopotamia. Uncle Dick (talk) 21:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC) 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you must parrot someone's argument, I should think you'd want to choose more wisely. Nothing said here even remotely supports the notion that Thomas's remarks are not about Jews. All I see here is the assertion that Thomas did not specify which subset of Jews she was talking about. That's not a problem, since the lead does not specify which subset of Jews she was talking about either. (If the lead said "all the Jews in Mesopotamia", then there would be cause for complaint.) So is this all you've got? I'm disappointed, because I was hoping for enlightenment that would lead to consensus. Precis (talk) 09:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And I suppose if the lead said "Thomas said for white folk to 'Get the hell out of Palestine'" or "Thomas said for humans to 'Get the hell out of Palestine'" you'd argue that is accurate too?

Besides, if we're allowed to do analysis and if she meant 'Israeli setters in the UN-designated territories' and then we say 'Jews,' are we really preserving the meaning? 'Jews' does have a different meaning to 'Israeli settlers in the UN-designated territories,' doesn't it (in that one refers to a larger group of people than the other)? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

A paraphrase of what was said in the interview must indeed preserve the meaning, otherwise it would violate [WP:OR], as you point out. However, HT responded to a question about Jews, not about settlers, so your objection is frivolous. (In the earlier example, Bob said "It is definitely flat" in response to a question about Earth. It's frivolous to object that he might have been referring to Mars.) Precis (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which objection? You asked what else she could have meant. I answered; furthermore, I think that one of Uncle Dick's 1-3 is what she meant (for the reasons indicated by Uncle Dick, in conjunction with the fact that I believe people are more cautious about their own wording than they are about the wording of a question). I don't think any of this is relevant cos I think it's OR; but you asked, and I answered. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

None of us knows her intended meaning, i.e., none of us knows what she meant to say but didn't. What I am asking for are non-frivolous interpretations of what she did say. An accurate paraphrase of what she did say is not original research. Bob might have meant to say that all planets are flat, but he didn't say that, he said that the Earth was flat. Precis (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue of what Bob said is above. You know my position on that (that he didn't say the earth), and I know yours, although I'm not sure how your opinion intersects with Wikipedia policy. But here you asked me who else she could have been referring to, and to give a reason; which I did by quoting Uncle Dick. You took issue with that, and I responded. Do you have any response to that? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've got to admit, I'm a little perplexed by your last response. There were two issues, according to you: 1) my crusade against indirect quotes, and 2) You asked me for something of the form 'It could have been about Albanians because...' I know you consider these to be different issues, because you think the first is frivolous and the second important. It was you who introduced this second issue, so I'm confused as to why it seems you're giving your position on 1) as your response to 2). I gave you an 'It could be about Albanians because...,' and you thought it was no good because my analogue for 'Albanians' was (you argued) just 'Jews;' I said no I don't think that's true (for the reasons above), to which you say -- my crusade against indirect quotes is frivolous? This is just 1); how does it show that my analogue for 'Albanians' really is Jews? You seem pretty on to it, so I'm guessing I'm missing something, but you've got me a bit tied up in knots here trying to figure out what to say in response. Have you just made a slip? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I provided a source showing that indirect quotes don't have to use the exact language following "said that". Still you continue to insist that we can't report Bob said the Earth was flat because Bob didn't utter the word "Earth". If John said "Tiger and Elin initiated divorce proceedings in 2010", we cannot report John said that Tiger and his wife Elin initiated divorce proceedings in 2010 because John didn't utter the word "wife". Ad nauseum. You similarly take the position that we cannot ascertain that Thomas's remarks are about Jews since she failed to say the word "Jews". As you are not backing down from what I consider a frivolous position, I don't see how my further discussion with you on this issue can lead to anything productive for the article. I suggest you team up some matriculants from the Uncle Dickian School of Denial and start a debate with CBS News: The 89-year-old White House correspondent retired yesterday after coming under scrutiny for saying that Jews in Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Germany and Poland. Or with ABC News: Thomas caused an uproar with her recent remarks that Jews should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go home" to Poland, Germany, America and "everywhere else." Or with CNN: Thomas had come under fire late last week when a YouTube video surfaced showing her saying that Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine," and that the Jewish people should go home to "Poland, Germany ... and America and everywhere else." Precis (talk) 06:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

"...you continue to insist that we can't report Bob said the Earth was flat because Bob didn't utter the word "Earth". Suggest you take this to the Bob article.

Also since you believe that when someone says "Palestine," the place they are referring to is the "State of Israel," suggest you go and try to get consensus for redirects to that effect. Bring some sophomoric metaphors with you.

Finally, like 203.45.146.36, I am inclined toward Uncle Dick's reasoning. I suppose that means you think there are three editors "parroting." You, meanwhile, keep on parroting your arguments. It's amusing to watch someone outsmart themselves. RomaC ^TALK 08:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think, RomaC, that when someone says Palestine, I interpret that as Israel? Doesn't it bother you that you can't substantiate your statements? Will you admit that even you are embarrassed by 203's statements about Bob and the flat Earth? Perhaps you could serve as 203's Sancho Panza during the ongoing struggle against indirect quotes, ABC, CBS, CNN, SPJ, WHCA, etc. If Thomas's remarks are not about ethnicity, then why did her close political ally James Zogby call her remarks a mistake? Let's all parrot the answer together: He wanted to keep his job!

I close with some ethnicity-related questions for the deniers. Isn't it offensive if Mary tells the mayor of Teaneck to leave his country and go home to India? Isn't Mary's statement still offensive if her only motivation were political? Isn't it offensive if Tom tells Obama to leave his country and go home? Isn't Tom's statement still offensive if his only motivation were political? Isn't it offensive if Helen tells a subset of Israeli citizens to leave their country and go home? Isn't Helen's statement still offensive if her only motivation were political? Precis (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I like metaphors and analogies and hypotheticals, I really do, but enough is enough. The words HT spoke on the lawn are controversial, we know that; but what and whom she was referring to, and to what extent she assented to the David Nesenoff comments, has been disputed. See Uncle Dick's comments.

If HT's comments were that Jewish immigrants who have come to live in illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian Territories should get out/go home, then those comments are in line with the position of the UN and most countries around the world. Now when you say "Isn't it offensive if Helen tells a subset of Israeli citizens to leave their country and go home?" are you saying that the occupied Palestinian Territories are "their country"? Some people, especially the settlers, believe that they are living in "their country" and so would some find HT's words offensive.

A second possibility is that maybe HT doesn't recognize Israel, and meant that all Jews should leave, say, the Levant. More would find that offensive. So yes, anyway the words were controversial, but we already know that. As I have said if we wanted clarity we would look at the statement HT made afterward, which sort of discounts the second possibility because she said "the Israelis and the Palestinians," so one could assume she recognizes Israel as distinct from Palestine.

In your "Bob and Sally" argument there is only one "earth" and it is clearly defined and it is clear "earth" is the subject in the exchange. But that is not the case with the HT-DN exchange, per my rambling comments above and Uncle Dick's analysis which I don't want to parrot. The entire HT-DN exchange appears verbatim in the body of the article, I believe readers can read and think for themselves. So editors should not put words into HT's mouth.

Respectfully, RomaC ^TALK 12:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Uncle Dick is right that we don't know what subset of Jews she is talking about, but my point is that it doesn't really matter. Her remarks would be offensive even if she had specifically said that she was only referring to Jewish settlers. They are citizens of Israel, and it is indefensible to say that ANY of them should be sent to Poland (or any other ancestral homeland). Would you even tell the most violent African-American criminals that they should go home to Africa?

Precis (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh what the hell is this? Jesus, I go away for half a day and someone commandeers Precis' account? What's indefensible is not the issue here (and even if it was you'd be wrong, but I'm not gonna get into that): 'This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.' I really hope that your wife has figured out your account password or something, Precis.

In any case, let me respond to your last post to me:

You say you don't want to argue with me any more. That's fine. You think (b) is optimal, so I actually have no quarrel with you. I just promised to answer direct questions, and that's what I did.

Now, in response to the content of your response, are you deliberately trying to confuse the issues? Yes, I understand your position on indirect quotes, and you know mine, and that argument is above. You have yet to answer how your position on indirect quotes intersects with Wikipedia policy, but whatever the case this belongs above. What you asked me for here was something of the form, 'It could have been about Albanians because...,' which I duly gave. You said you had a problem with it and I countered that, and since then you seem to be on a mission to conflate the issues in order to avoid answering questions for which it seems you have no response. If you don't want to debate with me that's fine; you have consistently said (b) is optimal and I have absolutely no quarrel with you. I have simply answered your questions because I thought it was courteous to do so. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

If it helps, I think we can say the above was informative. We discovered that you and I are arguing from different baselines: you think it's okay in some circumstances for us editors to interpret primary sources, and I don't. Aside from your most recent posts, we've both argued validly and perhaps soundly from our baseline assumptions (you've gone a bit crazy in the latest bout, but I can put that down to the amphetamines you're using to stay awake at this late stage), and we've even had some debate back and forth about which baseline assumption is best. I think we've explicated our positions as best we can, and the argument has been healthy: we'll let other readers judge it as they will, but given your last responses to me, I think we're probably about to start going round and round on circles that we'll never be able to get off. I'd hate to see that, so let's just say it was interesting to see someone with another baseline argue from that, and take away from this a clear understanding of each other's opinion, whether we agree with it or not. Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Precis' wife here. I know RomaC is amused by my satire, even if he doesn't like Precis'. The following is inspired by the "one earth" remark. Enjoy.

Ann: So you are saying the planets are uninhabited?

Bob: Indeed, and flat too.

Journalist: "Bob said that the planets are flat and have no life."

Amigo 1: This isn't about planets.

Amigo 2: You are right. Bob didn't use the word "planets".

Amigo 1: Not only that, Bob's statement was too vague to say it was about planets. What subset of planets did he have in mind? All planets in the universe? Just the planets in the solar system? We don't even know if Bob is viewing Pluto as a planet--that's still under dispute.

Amigo 3: Yeah, what he said.

Playwright (parroting herself): Enjoy. Precis (talk) 01:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Am I Ann? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

You wanna ask direct questions, I'll answer. That's where I'm at. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be fair to provide a direct quote. Helen Thomas' interview is available in its entirety: http://www.youtube.com/user/rabbilive#p/a/u/2/nc4OeRu7cfs and at the website of Rabbi Nesenoff: http://rabbilive.com/RabbiLIVE/Home.html

Thomas clarified her comments about who she meant by, "Tell 'them" to get the Hell out of Palestine," when she added, "I'm of Arab background." She could instead have cited her decades of experience as a reporter; but she didn't.

I think the anti-Semitic nature of her intentions can be verified by the fact that no one is questioning who she meant by, "Remember, these people are occupied," and, "Why push people out who have lived there for centuries?" "People" could technically include those Jews who have lived there for centuries; but no one has suggested that is what she meant. Labellesanslebete (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

So the "anti-Semitic nature" of her comments is established because she raised the well-documented fact that the Palestinians live under occupation and have been "pushed out" of their land? Interesting. nableezy - 17:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Lede image a violation of Wikipedia:MUG#Images?

Frankly, I think the lead image is particular unflattering and displays Ms. Thomas in a "a false or disparaging light". As such I believe it's a violation of Wikipedia:MUG#Images. Anyone share my sentiments? NickCT (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not too fond of it either, unfortunately there does not seem to be many alternates. Perhaps the older b&w portrait or the one with Obama? un☯mi 16:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you. MUG doesn't apply here, since it's not a mugshot and it appears she knew she'd be photographed. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@~DC - Please read MUG. Any image that "present(s) a person in a false or disparaging light" falls under MUG.

@u - Perhaps revert to the last one that was used. That photo unfortunately is a little out-of-date, but I think it's still more desirable than this one. NickCT (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a false light though. She's ugly, and the picture reflects that. ~DC _{Let's Vent} 17:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

(chuckling) - Thanks for a humorous response DC. I have to admit, she ain't no looker. I still think though that this picture is particularly unflattering. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not the best picture I've seen of her, but it's not the worst, either. Her mouth is slightly agape, but I don't think that rises to the level of "false or disparaging." I would not be opposed to a better, recent image as long as it clearly illustrates the subject the way the current image does. Uncle Dick (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I gotta say, she just looks like an old woman. For an old woman, she doesn't exactly look bad. Although I too wouldn't object to a better photo, I kinda agree with DC: it's not false if it she actually looks like that. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Following IP's comments - I partially agree. As I said above, she ain't a looker. Usually though, WP gives famous figures of this nature the courtesy of decent images (see Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Joe Lieberman, Roscoe_Bartlett, Alan Greenspan). NickCT (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

All of the figures you cite are either former or current government officials (or married to them) who have official portraits available in the public domain. Therefore, it's quite a bit easier to find professional-looking images that fall under the free use guidelines of Wikipedia. We generally have to rely on candid images of varying quality for celebrities, journalists, and other famous folks who don't have glamour shots readily available. Witness the less-than-flattering lede images for some other members of the White House Press Corps: Jake Tapper, Chuck Todd, Ann Compton. It's just the nature of the copyright beast. Uncle Dick (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Point taken Uncle Dick. I still can't help but feel that this photo does a disservice though. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't find the photograph unflattering to Helen Thomas. She is an elderly woman and this presents her appearance as she displayed it at the time of her retirement. She is made up, has her hair done and is wearing a pretty light blue blazer. She knew her picture was being taken. I hope I look half as good at her age. Labellesanslebete (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Labellesanslebete. This is a good likeness of a public figure who was smiling for the camera. To say it's a bad photo simply because the subject is old is ageism. Jonathunder (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Fine! I ain't getting much support here. I won't pursue this. NickCT (talk) 21:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Should the Department of Justice be editting this page

Love this pair of fairly point-of-view laden edits from the US Department of Justice. Looks like someone there has turned from prosecuting criminals to persecuting poor old Helen. NickCT (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ellis Island Name Change

Thomas' biography apparently contains a story common to many American families that the family name was changed at Ellis Island. These stories are urban legends. Ellis Island officials worked off of passenger lists created abroad and had no authority to change or make up the spelling of immigrants' names. Many immigrants legally changed their names after immigrating. Others adopted American sounding names before immigrating, particularly if they had relatives in the US who had already Americanized their names. More on this interesting and persistent legend here:

http://www.ilw.com/articles/2005,0808-smith.shtm

I don't know that it's relevant to the article how her family name was changed, but in case someone believes it is, I didn't remove the reference. Instead, I reworded it to present it as the subject's claim rather than an encyclopedic fact. If someone deemed it appropriate to delete the clearly incorrect explanation of how her name was changed, leaving behind the fact that it was changed at some point, I would have no objection. -- But|seriously|folks  23:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No political section?

Hello. Helen Thomas has stated herself to be a proud liberal, yet there is no mention of that on the wiki page. I'm certain it is important to add in order to allow readers a critical eye towards her journalism. I tried to add it in, but it got deleted and then the whole article got locked down as part of some edit war.

I'd appreciate help getting liberal in there. Alan Colmes Post Gazette Fox News Bill O'Reilly, video of her interview And if someone's really doubting it, a quick google search of +"Helen Thomas" +liberal nets 1.2 million hits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wintermane (talk • contribs) 07:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

out of retirement

On 6 January 2011 the Falls Church News-Press stated that Thomas would resume her weekly column with them and published a column on Social Security reform by her. Quote: "Helen Thomas has come out of a seven-month retirement to resume her weekly political affairs column today, published in print and online exclusively in the Falls Church News-Press. Thomas' first column back appears on Page 13 of this edition, and its subject is Social Security reform." --86.30.189.230 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from MissQuoted, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add, "However, on January 8, 2011, the Executive Committee of the Society of Professional Journalists voted to recommend that the organization retire the Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement."

MissQuoted (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done __meco (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Society of Professional Journalists

The paragraph can be updated and condensed with now unnecessary chatter removed. See [1]. GGdowney (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done __meco (talk) 10:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That is cool. Thanks for showing me that parantheses can do things to words and not just be used in templates. --GGdowney (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what I did with parenthesis. __meco (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality and Original Research

The article is pretty slanted towards particular view points, especially in regards to anti-Semitism. Her views were criticised heavily, and it wouldn't make sense to pretend they weren't, but the article only briefly touches on anyone who didn't condemn her remarks. This can also be derived from the tone.

Another problem is that there seems to be some analysis going on here. Lines such as "However while the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"),[89] and that has been its normal use since then" shouldn't be on wikpedia. If someone criticising her said this and a source could be found, it would fit. But this is the result of people doing their own research to counter Thomas's remarks. Anoldtreeok (talk) 06:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just tagged WP:Undue for retirement section; see other problems like you describe above. Will do a thorough start to finish cleanup soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd help, but am in no way an expert on her so would be worried if I edited the article to heavily it would be inaccurate. Anoldtreeok (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the information here that people have tagged for WP:UNDUE should be spunout to its own article regarding her anti-semetic statements, or should be placed in an appropriate article that is specific subject and a short and neutral summary left in this article with a link to where that content has been moved to. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your own bias shows through in your message. You've described her comments as anti-Semitic when not everyone would agree with that assessment (in fact I would wager that most observers outside the US would disagree). Remove the analysis, the rest can stay. --94.171.77.82 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Jewish Control of Media"

The link to "Allegations of Jewish Control of the Media links straight to "Anti-semitism". This hardly seemed appropriate and has been removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.212.85 (talk) 13:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reversion of multiple edits with no reason given

Here is the diff

Basically, Dlabbot's reversion - was done with absolutely no reason given at all, and has the following effects:

• Restores factual inaccuracies about
  • number of brothers and sisters
  • number of books written

• Re-adds an unreliable opinion source - Media Matters

• Reverts accurate cite checking
  • removes marking of 4 dead links
  • reverts a formatted cite to a bare url
  • adds back incorrect designation of a cite as a dead link

• Restores redundancies
  • re-adds redundant "birthname" in infobox
  • re-adds repetition about being called a foreigner

• Removes persondata short description

• Removes category which is sourced (Arab),
• Adds category which is completely unsourced (Antiochian Christian)

• Removes ironic and important point she made about dividing Americans

• Removes tags of cleanup needed and copyedit needed while certainly adding to the need for these tags

• Removes factual, sourced information
  • that she had covered the women's angle stories earlier
  • removes info that she was went to public schools and became interested in journalism while in high school
  • Removes clarification about Ellis Island being the place where immigrants entered

Therefore, I have changed the material back, and would like to note that when I made the changes to the text originally a few days ago, I explained each edit in my edit summaries. --KeptSouth (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 Playboy interview

I renamed the title "March 2011 Playboy interview," taking out the word "controversy" as there is as yet no controversy to speak of. When the ADL and columnists and bloggers start attacking Thomas' remarks, then maybe it'll be accurate to refer to it as a controversy – but at this stage it's still premature. Also, I replaced the somewhat fragmented pieces of the Playboy interview and questionable sources (Politico.com) that were there before with actual quotes from the interview that are relevant to the context of the article and a solid source.—Biosketch (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure this section even belongs in the article. Was there a negative fallout from the interview? Thoughts? IronDuke 22:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

At the time the interview was published it was extensively covered, yes. As I recall, it was featured prominently not only in the Israeli media and in news sources addressed to Jewish audiences but in the mainstream U.S. press and in al-Jazeera. Does WP:NOTNEWS apply here? Probably not, as the interview jibes with an overall pattern of statements she's made in relation to Israel and Jewish people. The interview is, regrettably, a component of her biography.—Biosketch (talk) 08:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you link to some sources? That would be helpful... IronDuke 22:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that's a reasonable request. There are the JPost, Haaretz, Ynetnews, and Arutz Sheva Israeli news sites; JTA, Commentary, and Forward sources addressing primarily Jewish audiences; and MSN, FOX, Daily Star, and of course Playboy itself. I withdraw my earlier assertion that al-Jazeera featured the story: as far as I can determine, they didn't.—Biosketch (talk) 09:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Relentless Courage Award; Fordson Club

This paragraph has been removed from the article for lack of attribution to a WP:RS, per WP:BLP. I searched but couldn't verify either of the two claims.

In May 2011, Thomas was awarded the Relentless Courage award from the Palestinian Culture Office. She was also awarded the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award, named in honor of her, by the Fordson Club of Political Science from Fordson High School in Dearborn, Michigan.

—Biosketch (talk) 11:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

edit request

The first sentence in the 2010 speech on Arab Americans section states: "On December 2, 2010, shortly before a speech for the eighth annual "Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans" conference at the Byblos Banquet Center on Chase,..."

Please change to one of the following:

• "On December 2, 2010, shortly before a speech for the eighth annual "Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans" conference at the Byblos Banquet Center in Dearborn, Michigan,..."
• "On December 2, 2010, shortly before a speech for the eighth annual "Images and Perceptions of Arab Americans" conference in Dearborn, Michigan,..."

Apparently Byblos Banquet Center is located on Chase Road and the editor who added that sentence assumed we'd all know what "on Chase" means. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 22:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, can someone please add Category:Journalists from Washington, D.C.? Thanks. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done both. Thank you. Went with second option on the first one. Less wordy. — Wyliepedia 06:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 09:38, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tripoli was always in Lebanon not in Syria.

Sorry, but Tripoli, her place of birth, is in Lebanon and never been in Syria — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.42.242 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Categories

Do others think that the category Anti-Zionism should be added to this bio? I have removed it for now. It is also linked in the see also section. I usually work on trimming the See also section of entries repeated in the body or others that only seem remotely related. I know there was a brouhaha over comments the subject made, but would that qualify for these entries inclusion? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 11:05, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It really is quite sourceable. The "brouhaha" was enough to kill her career, and still ongoing. [2] Her anti-Zionism seems very vehement. To not include the category smells on lack of neutrality if not whitewashing. --Wlmg (talk) 11:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

e/c, I indented your comment, hopefully you don't mind. Can you just post the source(s) here so we can review them here? I see you did, thank you. Also, please assume good faith, this is not "whitewashing" or trying to to be POV. Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 11:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Any such categories (anti-catholicism, anti-semiticism, etc) should not be added to bios per long-standing consensus at CFD. See the header at Category:Antisemitism for example, which states "This category is for issues relating to antisemitism. It must not include articles about individuals, groups or media that are allegedly antisemitic." . Discussion of her views can be held in the article, but not as a category. otherwise, Tutu and Mel Gibson would be added to Category:Antisemitism (as there are sources which accuse them of this), and its just downhill from there, and we start classifying sexists, and homophobes, and racists, etc. If you want to change this consensus, I'd suggest a community-wide RFC - I don't think this talk page is the place however.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

(redacted ip comment}

please recall bLP applies to those recently passed, this no need to engage in name calling.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is not comparable to anti-catholicism or other discriminatory beliefs because Zionism is a political belief that itself hinges on discriminatory beliefs. Helen Thomas was adamantly Anti-Zionist and for Wikipedia to reflect otherwise is a shame. 75.98.19.140 (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

huh? It isn't comparable to other discriminatory beliefs because it is based on a belief that hinges on discriminatory beliefs?? My head is going to explode. I would go read the wiki article on anti Zionism, but I have a feeling that won't help :) --Malerooster (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Zionism is the discriminatory belief that there should be a Jewish only state. Therefor Anti-Zionisism is an Anti-Discriminatory belief. Unfortunately, the JIDF will likely not permit her Bio to accurately reflect her Anti-Israel stance, which is a damn shame. Xicillin (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should take this over to the category page for anti-zionism. There may be value in adding this category to certain pages, even if we don't add anti-semite categories to bios.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Resignation controversy section, the article states: "The Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and publisher of The Nation, wrote:..." Can someone remove the redundant information? 204.111.20.10 (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. It looks as though that part was removed a little while ago. 204.111.20.10 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarah McClendon was actually the first woman elected to high office in the National Press Club. She served a four month unexpired term as Vice President from in 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.114.242.226 (talk) 16:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Moist

Why does the word moist appear absolutely nowhere in this article? This is the "That makes me moist" lady from the famous meme. Taric25 (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Because there's nothing to suggest this "meme" is encyclopedic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Helen Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061113124030/http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/072805.html to http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/UndertheDome/072805.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803072708/http://www.cnsnews.com:80/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445 to http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50445

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Helen Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160105184641/http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2559812,CST-NWS-SNEED03.article to http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2559812,CST-NWS-SNEED03.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Helen Thomas. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090118/helen_thomas_090119/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619093307/http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/06/16/l-i-rabbi-faces-blowback-for-helen-thomas-expose/ to http://www.longislandpress.com/2010/06/16/l-i-rabbi-faces-blowback-for-helen-thomas-expose/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.helenthomas.org/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/2559812%2CCST-NWS-SNEED03.article

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)