Talk:Jesse Helms/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Pop culture references removed

• Musician Todd Rundgren wrote a song about Helms entitled "Jesse".
• Loudon Wainwright III wrote a song about Helms entitled "Jesse Don't Like It".
• Nerdcore hip-hop artist MC Hawking released a song in MP3 format called "Why Won't Jesse Helms Just Hurry Up and Die?"
• In 1993, Roy Zimmerman of the Foremen penned a song called "Jesse Helms" for the Folk Heroes album.
• In 1998, Monroe, North Carolina native Tim Kirkman wrote and directed Dear Jesse, a first-person documentary filmed "letter" to the senator from the openly gay filmmaker.
• Acoustic guitarist Don Ross named a song "Jesse Helms Night in Havana"
• Sonic Youth referenced Helms in their 1992 song "Chapel Hill".
• American punk rock band Dead Kennedys names Helms in their song "Moral Majority".
• Berkeley Breathed's popular comic strip Bloom County at one time featured a running joke wherein Christmas Carols were rewritten with political themes; Jingle Bells became "Jingle Helms! Jingle Helms! Jingle from Jess-e!/Oh what fun it is to ride/On a tobacco subsidy!"
• In the Simpsons episode "22 Short Films About Springfield", Homer tries to steal a newspaper with the headline "Helms Calls for Donut Tax" from a vending machine, and in the process, Maggie becomes trapped inside the machine.

I've removed this section and archived it here as it's unhelpful to the article and should all be sourced and instead worked into other sections, if appropriate and notable enough. Perhaps once the rest of the article is improved some places this content will fit may make sense. Banjeboi 06:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

How to handle the racism issue

There are a lot of quotes floating around (many of them attributable to reliable sources) that suggest strongly that Helms was racist. In particular, quotes from his radio talk-show hint at his racism. One or two of them might be explained as a misunderstanding or error but there's definitely a strong pattern there. When you combine that with his actions, however he may justify them (he said he opposed the civil rights act because he felt it interfered with state rights for example) you get a pretty clear picture of somebody who is racist and happily uses that to gain political power. I think the article needs to address it. But how? My suggestion would be to add what quotes we can cite to relevant chronological sections, and then see what we can do to find a few sources that say something to the effect of "Helms was widely regarded as a racist" or "His opposition to civil rights led many to accuse him of racism" and have a single mention of it in the lead section, using wording like "He was often accused of racism due to his _____ and ______". I don't know what else we could do, but I'm open to ideas and I created this section to consolidate discussion and try to find a good compromise. Thoughts? Ideas? --TexasDex ★ 20:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My first strategy would be to compare the "top tier" news sources to see how they dealt with it and compare to see if they have a consensus of sorts. That will specifically give us quotes for the lede. The other thing I still think can help with all the issue areas is a separate section "Social and political views" so those interested can see in one paragraph each what Helms' take on AIDS or how treated racial issues. Frankly the racial stuff alone could likely fill an article so we should be prepared for that. Banjeboi 21:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If there were reliable evidence of Helms' imagined racism, then his Senate opponents would surely have dug it up and used it against him. Jim Hunt and Harvey Gantt did not play softball politics. The fact that those multi-million dollar campaigns, with their sophisticated opposition research operations, could not find any such evidence, is compelling evidence that there is no evidence to be found.

Of course, having grown up in the segregated South, where racism was endemic, it would be miraculous if Helms, or any other Southern politician of his era, had never had a racist thought. But there is no reliable evidence of racist behavior from his political career.

Moreover, if you believe that Helms was racist, how can you explain the fact that Helms was the Senator who pushed through the first big emergency aid package to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa? Hundreds of thousands of children are alive and HIV-free today, thanks to Jesse Helms' leadership, and nearly all of them are black. Does that sound like the behavior of a white racist? NCdave (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we can let reliable sources speak for themselves on this, I don't need to explain why politicians do or did what they do. Helms own words will explain his views. The WRAL editorials should be helpful towards this effort. Banjeboi 11:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, let his words speak for themselves -- but not imaginary, made-up quotes, or things that someone thinks they remember him saying 40 or 50 years ago. There is a very long public record, and the frustrating thing to Helms' critics is that there doesn't seem to be anything in it that supports the charge that he was a racist. His critics are so sure he was a racist, because he was a Southern conservative, yet they can't find any proof. He opposed the MLK holiday, but not for racist reasons; they just know he was really opposing it because he was a bigot, but they can't prove it. If there were proof that he was a racist, or a segregationist, or a white supremacist, or whatever, then Hunt and Gantt would have crucified him with it. They didn't, because there isn't. NCdave (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

possible sources dealing with Helms' racism

This section is just for listing possible sources for those working on this. Please discuss the issue(s) elsewhere. Note: Helms spent the 1960s editorializing on WRAL-TV

• Duluth Superior
• Associated Press
• Associated Press
• The Root
• CNN
• Newsday
• John Fund's WSJ piece

[the above unsigned comment was made on 12 July 2008 by Benjiboi]

1) Benjiboi, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

2) Editorials in the press are not reliable sources.

3) There is no reliable evidence that Helms was a racist. The many African-Americans who worked for him didn't believe he was racist. Jim Hunt couldn't find any reliable evidence of Helms' supposed racism. Harvey Gantt couldn't find any. You won't find any, either. The only "evidence" you will find is unsupported and disreputable smears from his political opponents, too many of whom find "racist" a handy slur to use against anyone with whom they disagree. NCdave (talk) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem, NCdave, first, I didn't leave an "unsigned comment", I listed a possible source in a section labeled "possible sources" and you apparently have disregarded the request to discuss the issue elsewhere. Oh well. There are numerous reliable sources that Helms was both a racist and segregationist but it's abundantly clear you intend to dismantle all efforts to present sourced content affirming this. There seems to be dozens of books each calling him such. Are you aware of him disputing the charges or suing for defamation of character? That would go along way toward proving the charges either false or groundless. Proof that he had people of color as employees doesn't confer proof that he wasn't a racist, in either case we simply report what reliable sources do state. And yes, some editorials are acceptable depending on what they are used to support. For instance, I used one to demonstrate that he was considered a conservative icon. I felt that was completely fine although I'm sure I could fine multiple other sources that state the same thing. Banjeboi 11:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course he disputed the charges; in fact, that latest Rob Christensen story quotes him disputing the charges (specifically, it quotes him saying that he did not favor segregation). You can't call a politician a racist simply because he hasn't sued the political opponents who call him racist! NCdave (talk) 13:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, I will extend good faith that you do believe that however the reasoning that Helms wasn't ______ because his opponents didn't use it isn't a valid rationale for including or not including content. You've made your statement and we've all heard it several times now, no need to repeat in hoping we too will accept it as true. Banjeboi 00:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess I didn't say it clearly enough, because you have misunderstood it. I did not say that his opponents didn't say he was a racist or a segregationist or "The Prince of Darkness" (to quote Frank Daniels, Jr.) or whatever. I said his opponents could not find any quotes from Helms to prove that he was a racist or a segregationist or The Prince of Darkness or whatever.

The rationale for not including the content is that there is no reliable, verifiable source for it. The point about Helms, Gantt etc. not being able to find it is that if they couldn't find it you won't be able to find it, either. NCdave (talk) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, apparently those quotes and other evidence do exist and are available in reliable sources. I haven't yet started researching all his statements on the issue but the quotes do seem to exist as well as evidence of his campaign slogans and ads, all of which is in the public domain. There is also all of his Senate writings and statements. I'm not sure if I've seen a Wall St. Journal search but I imagine they would be considered a great source on this as well. I still hope to have sections introduced where each of the issues can be delved into thus allowing us to explore that Helms was greatly influenced by his upbringing as a white Southerner born in 1921. That doesn't excuse all he did but does help place it in context. Like it or not Helms wrote and spoke on the subject a lot until it was mostly replaced by his disdain for what he saw as sexuality and morality issues. Banjeboi 14:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Apparently, reliable, verifiable sources for those supposed quotes do not exist. But go ahead and try to find them. You are correct that there is an enormous public record of the things that he said and wrote. If you find solid sources, then I'll be very surprised (and you'll have a great future in the opposition research operations of political campaigns). In the meantime, please do not reinsert these very dubious quotes.

It is also true that Helms grew up in the segregated South. Given that background, what is notable is the surprising lack of any record of support for segregation. It seems not to have been an issue that greatly interested him. His focus was always on foreign affairs, and on issues like agriculture which especially affected the North Carolina economy. The closest thing anyone has been able to find to an expression of support for segregation by Helms is his support of the candidacies of other men, a half century ago, with no indication that he supported them because of their (then commonplace) segregationist positions. It is no more notable that someone supported the candidacy of segregationist Sen. Willis Smith than it is that someone supported the candidacy of segregationist President Franklin D. Roosevelt. NCdave (talk) 14:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

KAL 007, POW, etc section

“ ===Diplomacy with Yeltsin===

Helms was instrumental in obtaining the previously withheld black box of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (KAL 007), shot down by Soviet jet interceptors on 1 September 1983, by writing president Boris Yeltsin. Helms requested information about the fate of the 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman Larry McDonald, as well as all military communications. Yeltsin responded by handing over the black box to the International Civil Aviation Organization on 8 January 1992. Helms had narrowly escaped being onboard as he switched to a later flight, KAL 015, so he could attend a fundraiser hosted by Dallas Cowboys' football coach Tom Landry. Both planes were carrying U.S. congressmen to Seoul, Korea for the 30th year celebration of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the U.S. and Korea.

On 5 December 1991, Helms again wrote to Yeltsin, this time concerning U.S. servicemen who were prisoner of war and missing in action. "The status of thousands and thousands of American servicemen who are held by Soviet and other Communist forces, and who were never repatriated after every major war this century, is of grave concern to the American people." Yeltsin responded 15 June 1992, while being interviewed aboard his jet on the way to the United States, "Our archives have shown that it is true — some of them were transferred to the territory of the U.S.S.R. and were kept in labor camps... We can only surmise that some of them may still be alive."

”

Discussion

In now reviewing dozens of overviews of Helms' life none of them even mention anything about this content. I'm moving here so we can sort out what, if any, of this is notable for inclusion. The two references are both scans of letters presumably written by Helms. Banjeboi 16:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Presumably?" You can read the signature, right? This seems notable to me, and I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity. NCdave (talk) 09:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You can dial down the sarcasm please. I said presumably because I wouldn't know a valid Helms signature from a fake nor would I know if this were the actual document or one that's been altered in any way. Both sources used to support this material are apparently documents written by Helms and posted by "The International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, Inc.", who, according to the website, "formed in 2001 to uncover and disseminate the truth about the KAL 007 incident and to effect the rescue and return home of its survivors". This seems to suggest this incident, although important in it's own way is actually not that notable and potentially could be used in the KAL 007 article. I see Helms is mention there as the one who made the request. Are there any reliable sources showing this as notable otherwise? Banjeboi 11:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this is an article about Sen. Helms, I think that his own opinion should carry some weight.

He thought the KAL 007 shoot-down, the Grenfell girls, etc., was very important. In fact, he called the event, "one of the greatest tragedies of the Cold War." Since Helms was a card-carrying cold warrior of the first order, who made the cold war and the challenge of international communism one of his highest priorities, calling it "one of the greatest tragedies of the Cold War" is saying a lot! So I think this material is notable, at least in the context of an article about Helms. NCdave (talk) 20:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, do you have any reliable sourcing that anyone else thought this was a notable chapter in his life? That would help add context to what weight to give it's inclusion. Banjeboi 00:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. Out of the 700 books discussing KAL 007 only one mentions Helms and just as a coincidence that he was there. None of Helms' own books seems to mention it. Banjeboi 01:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a fast reader. NCdave (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair I hadn't bothered to look for references on this prior because I was hoping you had something that I could simply review. Instead I did my own search to see if I could find anything. Banjeboi 14:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Blatant Bias

Does anyone else see the blatant bias in this article? Does Wikipedia always cite editorials from newspapers? 69.92.41.91 (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No and yes, specifically what you see as bias someone else may not so please state a specific concern so it can be addressed. And yes, we do use editorials to reference some aspects - for instance - an editorial can be cited to show that conservatives consider Helms an icon whereas more "liberal" media outlet would likely choose different terminology. Banjeboi 19:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC

69.92.41.91 is correct, both about the blatant bias in this article, and about the impropriety of using editorials as sources, in general.

Benjiboi is correct, in his example of an exception to that rule, in which newspaper editorials can be used as sources. But that isn't the sort of usage about which 69.92.41.91 complained, and editorials are not generally considered to be WP:reliable sources on Wikipedia.

The bias seems to me to be most blatant in the "early career" section. So I've just now done some cleanup on that section:

1) I've trimmed out most of the biographical information about the politicians Helms supported and opposed. That's what Wikilinks are for.

2) I've again deleted several unsupported (and unsupportable) accusations that Helms said or did various outrageous things:

• That he helped create a racist ad for Willis Smith in 1950. (The cited N&O article does not say that Helms had anything to do with that ad.)
• That he said, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets..." (The cited N&O article does not mention such a quote; it quotes Helms saying, "I did not advocate segregation." "Television interview, 1963" is not a citation.)
• That he said, "Crime rates and irresponsibility among Negroes are a fact of life which must be faced." (No reference mentions such a quote.)
• That he called UNC "The University of Negroes and Communists." (The cited source is a blog site editorial.)

If any of those accusations were provable, they'd have been used with devastating effect by Helms' U.S. Senate opponents, and by the News and Observer, whose publisher (at the time), Frank Daniels, Jr, is a die-hard Democrat who hated Helms with undisguised passion. (Daniels once called Helms "The Prince of Darkness" in conversation with me!) The fact that those accusations were not made against Helms by Jim Hunt, Harvey Gantt & Frank Daniels, Jr. is compelling evidence that the accusations are probably untrue and certainly unprovable.

3) I've also cleaned up the prose a bit. NCdave (talk) 07:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

4) I've also cleaned up the intro, removing false accusations that he was a "segregationist," "white supremacist," and "bigot."

5) The intro included the claim that Helms opposed "foreign aid." That is only partially true: he did often oppose foreign aid, but there were important exceptions, such as his support for Israel, and, most notably, his last big legislative triumph: his proposal for a big emergency aid package to fight HIV/AIDS in Africa. I've added a brief clarification to this.

6) I also removed the claim (in the intro) that he opposed "modern art." He did not oppose "modern art." He only opposed government subsidies for pornographic "art." He famously said, "If they (gov't art grant recipients) want to draw dirty pictures on restroom walls, they can buy their own crayons." (That's from memory, so consider it a paraphrase.) In fact, he was personally a patron of the arts, and a longtime generous contributor to Classical music station WCPE. NCdave (talk) 09:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion of inconvenient content from the lede as I know those were sourced but will have to wait until I have more time to restore the rest and will be happy to provide more sources to ensure we remain accurate. NCdave, I appreciate your passionate defense here but stating that things couldn't be and didn't happen because if they were his opponents would have used them is simply mistaken. There are many reasons why they might not have used the information and frankly unless we want to include those reasons in the article it doesn't matter. Sourcing needs to be improved? Fine, let's do it. Also that Helms first campaign was also for a segregation does seem relevant just as many details showing the arc of a person's life fill in for the reader decide was influence those details may or may not have had. Banjeboi 11:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you seem to have some confusion about how information is supposed to get into Wikipedia's articles. We aren't supposed to throw a bunch of mud and see what sticks. We don't add the accusation and then go try to find good sourcing for it. It is not a "passionate defense" to delete unfounded accusations.

By "his first campaign," I assume you mean that 1950 campaign in which he worked for Sen. Smith? Because Helms' own campaigns never included support for segregation. It is true that Smith was a segregationist, but that was 1950, in the segregated South, when almost all Southern politicians were segregationists. It is not notable that Smith was a segregationist, at least not in an article about Helms.

You have reinserted many clearly false or dubious statements, which I identified individually, and explained here on the Talk page. You have done so without any discussion of them. If you believe that one or more of them is supportable with WP:verifiable sourcing from WP:reliable sources, then lets discuss it here, specifically. Don't just add it back to the article and say on the Talk page "Let's improve the sourcing after the fact."

That is especially important for accusations against his character. Inserting such accusations before finding proof is just wrong. You are supposed to find the evidence, and then reach your conclusions, not vice-versa. How would you feel about a cop who arrested someone for a crime, without evidence and then went searching for evidence that the person had done it? And insisted that the charges remain on the record while he searched? NCdave (talk) 14:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand your demand to find reliable sources. That's what Wikipedia is about. Yet you seem to believe that no source is reliable enough to support anything bad about Helms. I speak specifically about this diff in which you delete two direct quotes strongly supported by the New York Times. Deleting a direct statement that he was a segregationist is probably reasonable, because most of the support for that was in editorial pages (those would only support the statement that he was often accused of being a segregationist). But you yet again seem to be eager to remove discussion of well-supported facts such as his opposition to the Civil Rights movement, gay rights, etc. You are straining my assumption of good faith.--TexasDex ★ 17:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

One of the two alleged quotes to which you are referring is, "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that has thus far left him free to clog the streets..." (I'm not sure what the other one is.) But that NY Times reference is not a reliable source. It's not NY Times news reporting, it's an opinion piece by Health reporter Kevin Sack, who turned four years old back in 1963, and who cites as his source, "television interview, 1963." I think it is safe to say that baby Kevin didn't see the supposed interview himself, and recount his recollection 38 years later, so his opinion piece is plainly not a secondary source. It is at best a tertiary source with no indication of what the actual secondary source was.

Now, I'm sure you will agree, "television interview, 1963" is not a real reference, because it is impossible to verify. Even if Sack were not too young to have witnessed the supposed interview himself, we would not accept "television interview, 1963" as a reference in Wikipedia, and adding another layer of indirection by citing an opinion piece which cites it that way just makes it even weaker.

If you could find a 1963 NY Times news article with that quote, that would be a reliable secondary source. But an opinion piece written 38 years later, with no real references, is certainly not a reliable source for the accusation that Helms ever actually said such a thing.

If you really believe that Helms said that, then I suggest that you track down a reliable source. Find news articles contemporaneous with the event, which report that he said it, or find a recording or transcript of the supposed television interview. NCdave (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no evidence whatsoever that the article is an "editorial" or "opinion" or anything of that nature. It was published in the "Health" section (not unusual given his AIDS-related quotes), with the reputation of the New York Times riding on it's accuracy. Your comment on the author's age is wholly irrelevant. Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times writers do not just go copying and pasting from everywhere like a "bush quotes" chain email. It may be rather difficult to find the actual television commentary in question, but there is no reasonable doubt that it exists and contains Helms saying what the New York Times says he did. --TexasDex ★ 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You think there is "no reasonable doubt" that a real, verifiable, reliable source for that quote exists? I'm telling you that you have that backward: there is no reasonable doubt that it does not exist. But if you are so sure that it exists then find it and cite it... and then insert the quote into the article. But the multi-million-dollar campaign organizations of Jim Hunt and Harvey Gantt could not find anything like that, so good luck. NCdave (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You argue that his opponents would use that against him, but I don't think that's so certain. In a state backwards enough to have elected him so many times, they may well have feared that accusing him of racism would cause more people to vote for him.

As for "find it and cite it" I have. The New York Times is a reliable secondhand source, and the business of Wikipedia is to take what reliable sources say and condense, summarize, and digest them into an article. You have so far failed to give any actionable reason that an award-winning writer of the New York Times would not be considered reliable.

Furthermore, you have deleted the "crime rates and irresponsibility" quote, which has a proper citation in a New York Times news article. Your deleting of properly sourced material is bordering on vandalism. --TexasDex ★ 14:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't be serious. You think that Kevin Sack is the true secondary source of that imaginary quote, which he claims was uttered by Helms when Sack was 3 or 4 years old? Why don't you contact Mr. Sack, and ask him where he got it. NCdave (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not inconceivable that he found an original tape, or consulted with somebody who had firsthand experience in the issue. A secondary source is not a person who witnessed the event, that is a primary source. A secondary source is somebody who reports on something they have not necessarily witnessed, and this likely meets that definition perfectly. Your comments on his age are utterly irrelevant. And you still have failed to justify your deletion of the crime rates quote. --TexasDex ★ 15:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As for your characterization of North Carolina as a "backwards" State, you should know that I've lived in both Texas and North Carolina, and it is my considered opinion that North Carolina is no more a backwards State than is your beloved Texas (though, I admit, you Texans have generally done a better job of picking governors).

(I should also mention that I've lived in Massachusetts, Michigan & California, in case someone should think that I lack basis of comparison to know what a "backward state" would be.) NCdave (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The joke's on you, because I never lived in, and certainly don't "love" Texas. In fact I consider it pretty backwards as well. TexasDex is a nickname that I got as a teenager, and I usually enjoy the irony of it, but that seems to be lost on you.--TexasDex ★ 15:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)