Talk:Jesse Helms/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Controversies
I added a controversies section that is pretty base right now, and should be developed. It's hard to argue that there shouldn't be a controversies page over someone referred to as a racist when there are whole controversy pages for other potentially less harmless persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfialkoff (talk • contribs) 15:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- i'm still a new user, so i can't add this myself, but i found a good quote by al sharpton that i think would fit well in that section-
| “ | "Certainly Senator Helms' career represented a regressive and archaic politics to many of us." | ” |
- This issue, as I see it, is that simply calling it a controversy would suggest it's not NPOV or may at least seem that way to a portion of readers. I sense that a lot of the controversy sections, like "trivia" and "in popular culture" sections will be reworked into something more NPOV and hopefully more encyclopedic. Banjeboi 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's actually considered bad form to have a controversy section. Any controversial issues should be mentioned when they occur, in chronological order. - Outerlimits (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Outerlimits and removed it. Controversy about him is already covered in the career section, where it should be IMHO - if you want to expand the article with more of the various controversial things he has done over the years I'd expand the relevant career section covering the time period of the controversy rather than splitting it off to a separate section. The death section currently has a one line positive retrospective on his career, a one line negative one could be added for balance (and I'm sure there are plenty out there). Kmusser (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I've been relatively surprised at the amount that coverage of him in the newsmedia has failed to mention his past of failing to support racial integration. This should be mentioned - though I strongly suggest we find if the man recanted these views later. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- We ought to work on including his opposition to civil rights first, then worry about recantation - since, after all, it was the opposition that had actual effects. Helms called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress," [1] and I don't think that his opposition to that act is even mentioned in this article. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- If you're wondering whether he recanted his opposition to civil rights, the answer is unequivocally no. This article needs to make substantial mention of this (I just added it in the lead) because it was a prominent part of his senate tenure, and had far-reaching effects on American politics. Anything else would be non-neutral. --TexasDex ★ 20:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- We ought to work on including his opposition to civil rights first, then worry about recantation - since, after all, it was the opposition that had actual effects. Helms called the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "the single most dangerous piece of legislation ever introduced in the Congress," [1] and I don't think that his opposition to that act is even mentioned in this article. - Outerlimits (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, I've been relatively surprised at the amount that coverage of him in the newsmedia has failed to mention his past of failing to support racial integration. This should be mentioned - though I strongly suggest we find if the man recanted these views later. 128.118.226.88 (talk) 06:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this issue, read John Fund's WSJ piece. I'd hate to see this article try to simplify Helms' life as just another Snidely Whiplash racist Republican. His racist statements belong here, but we don't need to caricature him or his supporters. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Elliskev 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone is interested in doing that and I also wouldn't support it; I also don't support scrubbing uncomfortable items either, if they are sourced and otherwise appropriate for the article. I also agree there is no need to caricature, unneeded and unhelpful. That's a great article, by the way, and could be helpful for the lede. Banjeboi 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding this issue, read John Fund's WSJ piece. I'd hate to see this article try to simplify Helms' life as just another Snidely Whiplash racist Republican. His racist statements belong here, but we don't need to caricature him or his supporters. That's not the purpose of an encyclopedia. --Elliskev 21:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
is it ironic that Helms's article is so white-washed
How is it possible to have an article about Jesse Helms that doesn't mention his relentless fight against civil rights for gay men and women, and his decade long fight to halt research and spending on U.S. citizens with HIV or AIDS? Horrendous. Perhaps now that he's assumed room temperature we can stop using BLP as an excuse to keep facts out of this article. As a start, for when the article is unlocked, I'll append some quotes, but sources on this are not at all difficult to find; it seems that no one but Wikipedia had any compunctions about covering Helm's anti-gay activities.
"Jesse Helms was one of the nastiest and most vocal anti-gay bigots in the Senate" "Helms wrote [to a mother who lost her son to AIDS]: “As for homosexuality, The Bible judges it, I do not,” Helms replied. “There is no justification for AIDS funding far exceeding that for other killer diseases such as cancer, heart trouble, etc. As for [your son] Mark, I wish he had not played Russian roulette in his sexual activity,” he added. “There is no escaping the reality of what happened.”" This letter inspired a film, "Dear Jesse", to which Helms responded "“Those people are intellectually dishonest in just about everything they do or say. They start by pretending that it is just another form of love,” Helms said. “It’s sickening. The New York Times and The Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves.”" [2] International Herald Tribune: "Jesse Helms, the former North Carolina senator whose courtly manner and mossy drawl barely masked a hard-edged conservatism that opposed civil rights, gay rights, foreign aid and modern art, died early Friday." "He fought bitterly against federal aid for AIDS research and treatment, saying the disease resulted from "unnatural" and "disgusting" homosexual behavior. "Nothing positive happened to Sodom and Gomorrah," he said, "and nothing positive is likely to happen to America if our people succumb to the drumbeats of support for the homosexual lifestyle." In his last year in the Senate, he decided to support AIDS measures in Africa, where heterosexual transmission of the disease is most common." "In the debate over reauthorizing a domestic AIDS program, Helms tried but failed to prohibit any money from being used to promote homosexuality." [3] "The likely rise in spending on AIDS comes despite opposition from Senator Jesse Helms, the powerful North Carolina Republican who has made no secret of his disdain for homosexuals or those who suffer from AIDS. The Senate last week rebuffed Helm's attempt to block financing for the Ryan White Act -- which provides funds for AIDS services -- by a vote of 97 to 3." "There is a great big odor rising from the manner in which Congress is falling all over itself to do what the homosexual lobby is almost hysterically demanding," Helms declared to the Senate on Thursday in his unsuccessful attempt to block the Ryan White bill. He described homosexual conduct as "incredibly offensive and revolting." Helms also failed, by a vote of 32 to 67, to freeze Ryan White spending and then failed again, 15 to 84, to cap AIDS funds at the amount spent on cancer. Helms argued that $91,000 in federal money is spent on each AIDS death, but just $5,000 on each cancer death.. SF Chronicle 1995: [4] "The one-time radio commentator turned congressional power broker pursued an ideological agenda that was anti-communist, anti-liberal, anti-gay and anti-affirmative action. " [5] Media Downplay Bigotry of Jesse Helms " Over the years Helms has declared homosexuality "degenerate," and homosexuals "weak, morally sick wretches." (Newsweek, 12/5/94) In a tirade highlighting his routine opposition to AIDS research funding, Helms lashed out at the Kennedy-Hatch AIDS bill in 1988: "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." (States News Service, 5/17/88)" [6]
Let's try and make this article less shockingly-bad. - Outerlimits (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- It's just semi-protected so you should be able to edit it. --Rividian (talk) 00:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- So it is... I've made a start. - Outerlimits (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- Outerlimits, please please read up on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. No matter what this man thinks, we must abide by both policies (keep in mind WP:MPOV when interpreting NPOV as well). 128.118.226.88 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite familiar with BLP and NPOV and I have adhered to both. It's very peculiar - in fact, it's a bit obnoxious - that you want to imply that I haven't, anonymously and without particulars. It's also quite impolite to imply I'm a "megalomaniac" by referring me to a silly essay on mega. Now, in case there is any doubt: Helms is dead. He doesn't think anything anymore. And a biography of a dead person is not a "biography of a living person". - Outerlimits (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- There has been quite a bit of debate as to wether WP:BLP should extend to recently deceased people. It's not specified on the policy page, but it seems prudent to take extra care when dealing with a recently deceased subject like Helms, relative to a historical figure such as Amelia Earhart or Ghengis Khan. That said I've looked at your edits on this article and found them to be neutral, even generous to a man whose main accomplishment was to get elected through racism and fear, who supported dictatorships and opposed civil rights. Everything I'm reading about his death tells me that he was a sour old bigot, and probably doesn't deserve such an uncritical biography but it's Wikipedia policy, so thank you for keeping it civil and neutral. --TexasDex ★ 18:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the BLP is taken as extending to dead people, why have it? We already require citations for any questioned statement on any person living or dead. I hope we continue to exclude dead people from the actual BLP policy. BLP has already been stretched and expanded unreasonably - to the point where no article about a living person is permitted to contain any material they would not heartily themselves endorse, even when they are powerful public political figures, and even when the material in question is copiously documented with cited references. This article is a prime example. Our article on Helms when he was alive was disgracefully saccharine sweet. Now that he's dead we have an opportunity for an article that is actually balanced and informative. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- All I'm saying is that you should make extra sure what you add is backed by reliable sources when you add it. I was about to post saying that I hadn't seen that sort of controversial removal but then I looked in the history and User:NCdave is definitely deleting properly sourced material without valid justification. I've warned him about it and I'm going to restore the supported material. If you see somebody doing that again call them out on it, and I'll argue alongside you to put it back in. --TexasDex ★ 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- If the BLP is taken as extending to dead people, why have it? We already require citations for any questioned statement on any person living or dead. I hope we continue to exclude dead people from the actual BLP policy. BLP has already been stretched and expanded unreasonably - to the point where no article about a living person is permitted to contain any material they would not heartily themselves endorse, even when they are powerful public political figures, and even when the material in question is copiously documented with cited references. This article is a prime example. Our article on Helms when he was alive was disgracefully saccharine sweet. Now that he's dead we have an opportunity for an article that is actually balanced and informative. - Outerlimits (talk) 05:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Outerlimits, please please read up on WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. No matter what this man thinks, we must abide by both policies (keep in mind WP:MPOV when interpreting NPOV as well). 128.118.226.88 (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
- So it is... I've made a start. - Outerlimits (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have to agree, NCdave, I was about to post something along the same lines as I've just spent the last 2.5 hours undoing much of your deletions. I do thank you as well as that has helped improved referencing the article but next time you feel something is questionable you may want to give it a {{fact}} tag if it doesn't already have a source. You could also post here and state what about it seems to be lacking in either accuracy or NPOV. Banjeboi 21:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"Despite the loss for Reagan at the convention, the intervention of Helms and Ellis arguably led to the most important conservative primary victory in the history of the Republican Party." This quote in the section about Helms first term is as much conjecture as any comment about Helms' racism. The right wing editing of Helms Wikipedia page that has so far cleaned out even the slightest references to Helms being a racist or to racial motives to his actions, i.e. his opposition to MLK Day, is an abomination of fact and history. If it is OK to say that Helms intervention arguably shaped conservatism, then it should be OK to say that Helms was arguably a racist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.202.194 (talk)
- I believe that's a sourced statement but is hardly seen as negative although certainly should be sourced. The MLK stuff will be added but we're in more of a rush to remove untrue and negative before adding material. Collaborative editing takes a little patience and time. Banjeboi 00:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- My comment was that the statement about Helms "arguably leading to the most important conservative primary victory..." is that the comment is total hyperbole and not possibly a sourced statement. It's total conjecture. If this entry is going to say that Helms arguably did great things, then we shouldn't shy from the arguably awful things he did (As this entry pretty much does). So far the efforts at editing have been to remove any negative content and remove even small efforts to note that there were arguably racist undertones to Helms political career. He was an unrepentant segregationist and managed to always get himself into trouble with black voters and constituencies. This wasn't an accident. Again: If we are going to spend time discussing the "arguable" great things that Jesse did, we should also be including the "arguable" atrocities. Even though he's dead, we shouldn't paint this man as something he isn't. Given how adamant Jesse was in his beliefs about race, we're doing a disservice to an important, if completely misguided and vicious, historical legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.202.194 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- First off, please remember to sign your comments. Secondly that statement is explained in the very next statement and quote, and I believe it's true. Helms' helping Reagan win North Carolina set the stage for Reagan to arise from being an "also ran" in that presidential race to being "barely edged out" at the Republican convention, where Reagan gave an exceptional speech which set him up to be the Republican candidate and win the presidency the following election. Reagan ushered in a social conservative era that has had profound, and international, effects lasting up through the current Bush administration. I'm not delusional the Helms was a saint but in his own way had a huge effect on politics. And no, we just got done re-adding a lot of negative material, with sourcing, to the article so that's hardly fair to suggest such an agenda. Please assume good faith. Banjeboi 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- How can you request that people approach this entry with any assumption of good faith when you include in the MLK section that Helms opposed the holiday because of Dr. King's association is communist sympathizers, and say NOTHING about race, nothing about Helms other specious arguments against MLK Day -- i.e. that black people needed to work, not have a holiday. This idea that we have to source obvious racist intentions is ridiculous. Helms didn't say aloud "I'm a racist!" So I guess, by this absurd and extremely poorly edited/written article's standards and defenses, we can't prove Jesse was a racist, so under the NPOV/sourcing guidelines, we can only take Jesse at his word. If we're going to arguably remember him as a force in the GOP and as a father of the conservative movement, as you've made clear is your opinion, then why do we have to source that Helms was arguably a racist or that plenty of other people thought that Helms motives behind the MLK thing, the white hands ad, the Braun incident, his frequent use of the word "Niggers" in his commentary before he was in office, etc. Why is it that you and NCDave have ONE sourcing standard for things that praise Jesse and a completely irrational one for anything critical of him? As I said before -- this Wikipedia entry is a joke. This is akin to having an article about The Civil War that simply said it was about federalism and states rights. After all, it's really just an unprovable allegation that the motives of the South were about race. -- Mickey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.186.198 (talk)
- OK, first please dial down the, for lack of better word, tone. NCdave and I do not always agree on what should be included or not but we both agree that if something is negative or easily seen as controversial it needs to be cited to a reliable source, that's a universal policy as is NPOV. There is no double standard here as much as an effort to let this article develop through dialog rather than edit-warring of any kind. Content that is challenged has been either removed, reworked to address concerns or replaced with reliable sources. Personally I still an entire section devoted to Helms issue ares (like racial issues, LGBT people, AIDS, abortion, foreign policy, etc.) would help address these concerns and would also help distinguish which of these areas is notable or not. So, if someone thinks that Helms' attention to environmental issues, for instance, was notable but relaible sources didn't agree then that would probably go. Regardless, we also work by collaboration and consensus and we are not in a rush here. So, the first concerns were to clean-up, deal with controversial and problematic content already in the article and get the lede at least partially corrected. That's all been done. Now the next steps are to balance out what wikipedia states and what other reliable sources state; I think we're actually on a good path there as we do seem to cover most of the content others reference when talking about Helms' life. I do agree that the article should reflect the racism issues but I'm unclear on how it should best do that so I'm personally still thinking about it as I'd rather get it close to right than start a debate. If you think you have a way of working in something then feel free to start a new topic section, as this one's now kind of long and rambly, and consisely state what you think might work and where it could go. Generalized "this article is bad" and unspecific referencing of problems comes off as a bit unhelpful. If someone says the article states "_______" which isn't true because _______. Then I have a specific problem and I know what needs to be fixed and why. That approach helps me as an editor to clearly focus and act on an issue. This may or may not work for you but we both agree the article still needs work. Banjeboi 18:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- How can you request that people approach this entry with any assumption of good faith when you include in the MLK section that Helms opposed the holiday because of Dr. King's association is communist sympathizers, and say NOTHING about race, nothing about Helms other specious arguments against MLK Day -- i.e. that black people needed to work, not have a holiday. This idea that we have to source obvious racist intentions is ridiculous. Helms didn't say aloud "I'm a racist!" So I guess, by this absurd and extremely poorly edited/written article's standards and defenses, we can't prove Jesse was a racist, so under the NPOV/sourcing guidelines, we can only take Jesse at his word. If we're going to arguably remember him as a force in the GOP and as a father of the conservative movement, as you've made clear is your opinion, then why do we have to source that Helms was arguably a racist or that plenty of other people thought that Helms motives behind the MLK thing, the white hands ad, the Braun incident, his frequent use of the word "Niggers" in his commentary before he was in office, etc. Why is it that you and NCDave have ONE sourcing standard for things that praise Jesse and a completely irrational one for anything critical of him? As I said before -- this Wikipedia entry is a joke. This is akin to having an article about The Civil War that simply said it was about federalism and states rights. After all, it's really just an unprovable allegation that the motives of the South were about race. -- Mickey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.186.198 (talk)
- First off, please remember to sign your comments. Secondly that statement is explained in the very next statement and quote, and I believe it's true. Helms' helping Reagan win North Carolina set the stage for Reagan to arise from being an "also ran" in that presidential race to being "barely edged out" at the Republican convention, where Reagan gave an exceptional speech which set him up to be the Republican candidate and win the presidency the following election. Reagan ushered in a social conservative era that has had profound, and international, effects lasting up through the current Bush administration. I'm not delusional the Helms was a saint but in his own way had a huge effect on politics. And no, we just got done re-adding a lot of negative material, with sourcing, to the article so that's hardly fair to suggest such an agenda. Please assume good faith. Banjeboi 22:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- My comment was that the statement about Helms "arguably leading to the most important conservative primary victory..." is that the comment is total hyperbole and not possibly a sourced statement. It's total conjecture. If this entry is going to say that Helms arguably did great things, then we shouldn't shy from the arguably awful things he did (As this entry pretty much does). So far the efforts at editing have been to remove any negative content and remove even small efforts to note that there were arguably racist undertones to Helms political career. He was an unrepentant segregationist and managed to always get himself into trouble with black voters and constituencies. This wasn't an accident. Again: If we are going to spend time discussing the "arguable" great things that Jesse did, we should also be including the "arguable" atrocities. Even though he's dead, we shouldn't paint this man as something he isn't. Given how adamant Jesse was in his beliefs about race, we're doing a disservice to an important, if completely misguided and vicious, historical legacy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.202.194 (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It's too much detail for this article, but editors may enjoy the picture here of the day in 1991 when AIDS activists enshrouded Helms's house in a giant condom labeled “A CONDOM TO STOP UNSAFE POLITICS. HELMS IS DEADLIER THAN A VIRUS.” - Outerlimits (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Helms and the POW-KAL 007-015 etc section
This section is a bit of a mess and confusing, it should be trimmed down to the essential bits and made more clear what it's about and the significance. Banjeboi 05:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I understand some of the problem as the two letters and two responses overlapped and there were two flights. I've cleaned it up added wikilinks and replaced some of the abbreviations to help clarify what the section is about. I've also renamed it as the content doesn't support a conspiratorial link. If reliable sources can show otherwise then by all means but until then we should stick to what is verifiable. Banjeboi 06:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
List of things Helms opposed in the lead
The lead is simply a list of things Helms opposed, rather than mentioning even one thing he stood for. I know he was "Senator No," but it could be said, for instance, that he was for low taxes, rather than saying he was against tax increases. In addition, while the title of the linked AP article states he opposed civil rights, the actual article does not say that, it says he did not support the civil rghts movement or the Civil Rights Act. He opposed these on the grounds of federalism, the idea that states should not be told what to do by the federal government. This is a nuanced point, but I think it is certainly more accurate and better-sourced to say that he said he was for states' rights or that he opposed the Civil Rights Act.--Gloriamarie (talk) 08:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- It definitely needs work. I was thinking along the same lines that it seems like a laundry list which isn't how the obituaries portrayed it and it also gives equal weight to each which doesn't seem balanced. I added other material to the lede to emphasize his impact but the list itself, I agree, would have more impact if we focused on the issues that seem most relevant. Word choice will also play an important part here as well. I'm still convinced we should have a separate section on issues so we avoid weaving undue weighted material throughout and instead give it a concise overview. The lede can then be adjusted to more accurately reflect what the article supports. Banjeboi 13:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Update, I've reworked the lede leaning on what the obituaries referenced and they pretty much either really thought he was some version of "Senator No" and/or a conservative hero. Banjeboi 19:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Inspiration?
- Inspiration for Senator Phogbound of Lil Abner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.193 (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Social and political views sections
Hard to deny that a controversy section would be of interest however I think a section on his social and political views could be of benefit. His opinions on AIDS radically changed over time and I'm aware of strong opinions regarding his actions towards LGBT people, sections on foreign policy and communism would also enlighten those interested and i think be better than slicing up these items chronologically. The Associated Press has a pretty good obituary that overviews some of the other issues.[7] Comments? Interest? Banjeboi 08:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think it's a stretch to say his opinions on AIDS changed "radically". All his life he was against funding AIDS treatment and AIDS research that would benefit American gays; at the very end of his life he was for funding AIDS treatment that would benefit African heterosexuals. I know that the AIDS stuff is not yet complete - I'm working on it. For example, we need to mention the "Helms Amendment" that bans travel in the U.S. by tourists who are HIV positive, which is still law. - Outerlimits (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Obsidian Wings has a good post listing the praise for Helms after his death from conservative leaders as well as a list of controversial statements and actions by Helms that might be useful to incorporate into this article. See here [8] for post. Remember (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- Helms did not "oppose AIDS research that would benefit American gays." Rather, he was generally skeptical of government spending and programs, and demanded hard evidence that they would produce real benefits before he would support them. He wanted to know whether a proposed programwould actually do enough good to be worth the expenditure, before he would support picking the peoples' pockets to pay for it. Thus, though he opposed many gov't programs, he led the effort to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa, where many cases of HIV/AIDS can be prevented through a known treatment regimen: the use of antiviral treatments to stop transmission from HIV+ mother to newborn baby, and the substitution of infant formula for breast milk from HIV+ mothers.
- He also thought that gov't resources for medical research should not be disproportionately devoted to certain areas, simply because there are powerful political constituencies advocating it. (I.e., if disease A kills X people, and disease B kills 10x X people, then it makes no sense to devote more resources on disease A than on disease B.) He also noted that, in the USA, most cases of HIV/AIDS could be easily prevented through behavior modification, even before effective antiviral treatments were available, which is correct. NCdave (talk) 09:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
possible sources
(this section just for listing sources that may benefit the article, discussion can take place in other relevant sections)
- Washington Post
- CNN
- Guardian obit
- Mother Jones article
- jessehelms.com has bio covering early life section
- The Root has great links to other relevant content