Talk:Helen Thomas/Archive 3

Her resignation was a result of outrage to her comments
Reliable source #2 says: Thomas’s resignation comes after outrage spread throughout the blogosphere in reaction to a video posted to RabbiLive.com. In it, Thomas said that Jews in Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."

Also in reliable source #2: It’s not the first time Thomas has provoked outrage. In August 2005 she told The Hill she would kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president. "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar," she said at the time.

Reliable source #1 says: Helen Thomas quit her job with Hearst in the wake of mounting outrage over her assertion that Jews in Israel should "return" to Poland, Germany and the United States.

I went over the reliable sources over and over and couldn’t find any of them saying that she resigned because of criticism. They all say she resigned because of outrage to her comments. I challenge anyone to come up with another correct word based on reliable sources which says why she resigned. If someone can find one, then kindly change it to that. Until then this is the only correct word we have and must use based on NPOV and all the rules of WP.

The reliable sources say that she resigned due to outrage; which is factual, NPOV and above all correct. If someone is outraged, then that in itself does not yet make the outraged one justified, therefore by using the word "outrage" it is in no way editorializing, but stating the facts clearly and unequivocally as supported by the reliable sources and the rules of WP. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, we do have a couple of sources now that use the word "outrage." We still have many more, however, that do not, preferring the word "controversy," including: CNN, BBC, ABC, and WaPo. Certainly there were some reactions of "outrage," but there were also more measured responses from some and even positive reaction to her comments from a few. The term "outrage" does not capture the full array and diversity of responses to Thomas' remarks. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * She didn’t resign because of controversy, she resigned as a result of outrage. The word "controversy" is meaningless. This is what happened. People were outraged, Hearst was going to fire her and therefore she resigned to save face. That's what it was, that's why she resigned. Putting in the word controversy has no meaning whatsoever. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Outrage is a loaded word. It does not belong in a summation of facts, particularly in the lead. Jonathunder (talk) 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Outrage might be loaded or it might not, as I explained before, but one thing is for sure, that that's what happened. If you were telling someone this, would you say that she resigned because of controversy? What type of language is that?


 * BTW the sources don't just say "outrage"; one source says "provoked outrage" and another one says "mounting outrage", in other words the outrage reverberated. I can understand not adding these words "provoked" or "mounting", but do not understand why not to use the word "outrage" when that is the exact word used by the media and reliable sources to say what happened. No good reason has yet been given for the removal of it, yet it was changed, can anyone please explain? The current version is POV and factually and linguistically wrong. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The type of language we are looking for is encyclopedic. State facts, don't editorialize. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The language as it stands isn't linguistically correct so how can it be encyclopedic? As I have already said in previous comments, using the words used by the reliable sources is not edititorializing. Where these reliable sources is not edititorializing?


 * In the meantime I will change it to: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, due to comments she made about Israel".


 * The above version is a watered down version and might not be enough, but at least it is correct both linguistically and factually. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree that there was a range of reactions, and picking a perticular emotion isn't the best fit. I would ask, who exactly, is outraged? I would also consider it OR language to say that is why she retired. Anyways, I am also the same guy who thought this wasn't a big deal when it first broke, so go figure :) --Tom (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Tom. The facts are: (1) she made a statement; (2) there was a great deal of reaction to it; (3) she retired soon after. Let the lead state just that in one sentence. Let the body give the details, sticking to the facts. Let the readers draw their own conclusions. (They are as smart as we are). Jonathunder (talk) 21:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, the facts (as reported by reliable sources) are that there was outrage (and, I think, that this incident lead to her retirement). That, at least, is the claim being debated. I haven't read the reliable sources, so I have no fucking clue -- but if it has been reported by reliable sources then it is a fact (according to Wiki policy, if I understand it correctly), and you telling us that it's not a fact doesn't change things a jot. Engage with Fandriamapawhosalawotsit; you're 'editorializing' to say that these reliable sources have got it wrong (i.e., that it's not a 'fact'). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The language as it stands: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, following reaction to comments she had made about Israel" is poor English. The two words, "following reaction" is convoluted English at best and grammatically wrong at worst. Anyone have any good suggestions how to say it in proper English? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, amid the controversy caused by her comments about Israel." 72.130.181.15 (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not even accurate. Her comment was not about the country of Israel, but its Jewish citizens: "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine."  There's an implicit comment about Israel - that it shouldn't or (in her mind) doesn't exist - but the only explicit comment regards Jews in Israel/Palestine.  The current phrasing makes it sound like she had some criticism of the government, its actions, or its representatives.  It's misleading.  Her comments regarded her desire to see the place ethnically cleansed of Jews; if you're not going to say that (in as NPOV a way as it's possible to say something like that), at least say that it was about Jews in the Middle East/Holy Land/Levant, not "about Israel," which both minimizes and misrepresents the comments. Calbaer (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition, it wasn't "controversy." "Controversy" means a debate, discussion, opposing opinions, etc.  She didn't quit over a debate, a discussion, or opposing opinions.  She quit due to criticism, not controversy.  Just because reporters like this inaccurate word doesn't mean an encyclopedia should use it.  More accurate would be to say, "...amid criticism over her response when asked to comment on Israel; she said the Jews should leave it and move to other countries."  Calbaer (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, she didn't resign over controversy, but because of outrage over her words. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are hoist by your own petard: her comments were only implicitly about Jews. Your point about the country of Israel has some merit, and it can be easily addressed by replacing "Israel" by "Israelis" in the suggested quote above.  Your second point about controversy is invalid.  If you don't think there was a controversy, then you obviously don't read the leftist pundits or the Arab press.  Strange for someone from UCB :) Precis (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, she didn't leave because Hamas and Hezbollah defended her. She left because of those who criticized her.  So she didn't leave over "controversy," but over criticism and outrage.  And her comment was about Jews, not Israelis; it was very clear from the context that she did not wish Arab Israelis to "return" to Europe, America, etc.  No one seriously thinks she meant that all Israelis, Arab and Jew, should leave, and the questioner's request for clarification makes this explicit. Calbaer (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Correct, and I don't understand why people can't understand this. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I’ve found the words that should be acceptable to all, as it meets the bare minimum requirements here. It reads as following:

Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, amid furor over remarks she made about Israel

These are the words CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/pol.helen.thomas/index.html) used (after of course much proofreading), and although it won’t satisfy many, at least it’s factual and linguistically sound. If anyone has a better way to write it, then it goes without saying that the better way should be written, but please take the following into account:


 * 1) It doesn’t matter whether her words are controversial or not.
 * 2) It doesn’t matter whether her words are true or not.
 * 3) It shouldn’t matter whether one likes Israel or hates it.
 * 4) It shouldn’t matter whether one likes Helen Thomas or not.

Whatever words are used, it should say why she resigned. It needs to reflect what actually happened, which is:


 * 1) She made comments about Israel and the Jews there, which were at best critical of it/them, and at worst bigoted and racist of it/them.


 * 2) Her comments created a furor and outrage and it was condemned strongly.


 * 3) As a result of outrage to her comments, she would have been fired from Hearst just as she was let go from the Press Corps; therefore to save face she resigned.

Any wording needs to reflect the above which is factual and based on the reliable sources. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * 2 is sort of a stretch, but open to debate interpretation
 * 3 is original research/commentary/non facts. --Tom (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What's open to interpretation and what is original research? The wording "following reaction" is convoluted English as I explained numerous times before, why do you insist on it? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the furor and outrage as being open to debate, but I know there are sources for this. Saying she would have been fired from Hearst is original research unless you have a citation for that. The current version seems like the least POV wording, especially for the lead. The specific section can go into greater detail if needed. --Tom (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

If sources say so, then who are we to debate if there should have been furor and outrage or not. I did not say that the article should say that she would have been fired from Hearst. You admit that your choice of words is POV, only you think that it is the "least POV". According to WP rules no POV language is allowed. After looking high and low for language that is zero POV, and 100 percent factual and linguistically correct, I found the words in CNN. Tell me what you found wrong in "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, amid furor over remarks she made about Israel" that you had to revert it to wording which is POV in your own admission? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a better way of phrasing it would be as follows: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, due to the widespread criticism of comments she made after being asked about Israel; she said that Jews should leave it." It's not as brief, but it better captures the complexity of the situation: (a) She didn't offer the comments in a vacuum, but rather because she was asked. (b) She was asked about Israel. (c) The remarks themselves were about Jews in Israel, not the country of Israel itself. (d) Potentially POV words like "furor" and "outrage" are avoided.  Omitting the key bit of information for the sake of brevity, in this case, undermines NPOV.  A compound sentence that is a bit longer solves this problem by actually stating what the outrage was about. Calbaer (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Better then nothing, at least it is NPOV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

If 'following reaction' is bad English, this new suggestion is downright awful. More importantly, though, this is one of the most POV suggestions we've had. First, she simply didn't say 'Jews' at all, as has been discussed many times (I know this is controversial, but you have not disagreed with my reasoning on the matter); and second, less controversially, she certainly didn't say for the Jews to get out of Israel. The fact that she called it Palestine has been part of what she's been criticised for! 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is it awful, please explain. Why are the facts and only explanation for her resignation (and of course backed by all reliable sources) why would anyone call it POV. POV would be taking a side in the truth or falsehood of her words, but how can there be POV as to what transpired? My suggestion didn't have the word "Jews" in it, but I do disagree with your reasoning on it, "Jews" is the only ones she had in mind and meant, she didn't mean the Arabs or the Druze if that is what you are suggesting. She was definitely not criticized for calling it Palestine, but she did deliberately call it Palestine to stress that the Jews have no part in it. So what is wrong or awful with my suggestion? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to Calbear's suggestion, not yours. Putting the grammar aside, Calbear's suggestion is 'one of the worst' for the reasons I outline above.

In regards to what I assume are your rebuttals (?), I not only object to your reading Thomas' mind, but I also disagree with what you read. I don't think she was talking about all Jews, for reasons pointed out by others above and that I won't rehash here (unless, for some reason, you need me to specifically restate them). But in any case that's beside the point: you say ""Jews" is the only ones she had in mind and meant," but that's ESP and I don't think you have that. Has she said that's what she meant? Where; give me the source, I'll read that one.

As for your comments regarding Palestine, you need to tell me how they're meant to relate because honestly it's hard to see what you're driving at. I say she never said 'Israel,' and you say "Ah, but she did say Palestine!" 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually change/revert material (at least on controversial pages); I more commonly just suggest changes or request them. But in this case I have made an actual change, because -- after engaging in much discussion about not only the reasons for changing the original sentence, but also problems with the replacement sentence(s) -- it seems very clear to me that the case for change is at the moment poor to say the least. Fallacious reasoning and clear use of incorrect words are all that is propping up the call for change, and until such a time as this changes (which I absolutely believe could happen, and happen soon) I strongly believe that the original wording ought to remain. Please, change the sentence again if a good case can be made, but at the moment I will uncharacteristically make an actual edit to a controversial page. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Page protection
I've protected the article for three days following a request on RfPP. If in fact this is no longer needed, please let me know. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 20:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to recap above sections, what is/are some of the disputes over? Using the word "abruptly" to describe her resignation? The response/controversey section and what/who gets mentioned and how? What else? --Tom (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I was the editor that requested the page protect. It was in response to your edit dispute with user Epeefleche.  I am not taking sides in the dispute, but the back and forth on that page was looking very much like an edit war and a violation of 3RR.  Hopefully, this 72 hour timeout will give all parties plenty of time to reach consensus BEFORE making any further edits to the page.  And again, I will make it clear that I am endorsing NEITHER side in this dispute, I asked for the page protect as an uninvolved editor.  I have no intentions of entering this dispute myself. Safiel (talk) 21:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The section called Controversy and Resignation used to be limited to Helen's comments/apology and a brief summary of the repercussions that led up to her resignation. Later an editor added (a) Zogby's charge that Helen's critics exhibit a double standard, and (b) Nader's charge that her critics were led by war hawks.  True or not, these charges are not directly related to her resignation and do not belong in this section.   Perhaps someone should start a new page called Reactions to Helen Thomas' comments on Israel.  That would be an appropriate place for the inevitable proliferation of pro and con opinions from Hezbollah, Huckabee, et al.  The "Controversy and Resignation" section, as it currently stands in its protected state, is a mess.  Finally, I would ask that editors who insist on using terminology like "abruptly" or "furor" make a strong case to explain why less provocative words won't do just as well. Precis (talk) 22:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Precis, you make me laugh. What do you think I was doing in all my comments until now if not to point out why "furor" or "outrage" should be used as per reliable sources? So now you say to make a "strong" case for it? What about all my comments made? You really must be kidding. Less provocative is another way of saying WP:I don't like it but it's not up to us to like it, it is what it is and we have no right to minimize or maximize it, it needs to be exactly as described in reliable sources.


 * If my arguments until now weren’t enough, then no amount of arguing will build a “strong” case in your mind, it will be a waste of time on my part. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"...it needs to be exactly as described in reliable sources." Exactly? How can this be done if there are dozens of reliable sources that describe it in different ways? Perhaps I missed your argument that explains why your source should take precedence over the (less provocative) reliable sources of others. Precis (talk) 23:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So as I should understand, it is, that our approach should be: How shall I like the article to look like? Then we shall look for exactly those words we like, in the reliable sources of course, which fluctuate all the way from the extreme right to the extreme left. No, there has to be a better way Precis, and not using "furor" or "outrage" (which by the way come from non friendly to Israel sources too) is not one of them.


 * I think I have explained myself adequately in a dozen comments, if only someone would want to hear. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please briefly explain again why the reliable sources using more moderate language are inferior to your source? Precis (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not a question of moderate or harsh, but of saying it unbiased (not pro-Israel or pro-Arab) so that a kid reading WP would understand.


 * What has to be said, is why Helen Thomas all of a sudden resigned? And the answer should be because of the following sequence of events.


 * a) She made remarks about Israel/Israelis/Jews. The reader should not go away thinking that maybe it was praise remarks that she made, that would be misleading (pun intended).


 * b) Her comments caused an uproar, a furor, outrage, was criticized, was praised, was condemned.


 * c) Because of widespread outrage to her raw anti-Semitism/anti-Israel/anti-Jewish remarks, she would have been “fired” or politely said, she would have been “let go” from Hearst. (This need not be in the lead, but mentioning it as one important sequence of the events).


 * d) Therefore to save face, or because (you fill in the blanks) - she resigned.


 * So in order for WP to impart to the reader correct and unbiased information, it would have to state, that she resigned and why she resigned. I hope we all agree on this.


 * In order for WP to impart why she resigned, it would need to state that her words caused an uproar or furor or outrage. Saying that she resigned because she was “criticized” is patently false. She didn't resign because she was "criticized"; she resigned only as a result of outrage to her comments.


 * The only three words I found so far that would make a meaningful explanation, is to use either "uproar", "furor", or "outrage"; the latter two mostly used by reliable sources to explain why she resigned.


 * Do you have another way of explaining it? If yes, please spell it out. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I understand your argument a little better now, thanks. I don't see how you can be so sure of your premise: She didn't resign because she was "criticized"; she resigned only as a result of outrage to her comments. Lots of people resign in the wake of criticism.  Type "resigned over criticism" in a search engine and see how many hits you get.  Precis (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * True, a lot of people resign due to criticism, but she didn't. No reliable source says it, and for good reason, because that wasn't the reason. We can't put incorrect information in an article just to make her look better or make what she said look better. What happened, happened; and that is what the article should say, regardless what we think. The article isn't about us, but about her. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 15:15, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you are claiming that no reliable source says that Helen Thomas retired in the wake of criticism, the following example from mlive.com should change your mind: "Helen Thomas, who has covered every president since John F. Kennedy and was the first woman reporter to become a member of the White House Correspondents Association, retired from journalism today following criticism over comments made about Israel's presence in Palestine."  Perhaps you are thinking, "What poor journalism--mlive.com fails to state the REASON that she retired."  Well, if you want to put into the Wikipedia article the reason she retired, then you need to find a credible source. I doubt if you'll find one before Helen Thomas herself reveals her motivation.  Who else is in a position to know for sure? If you were to include her motivation based merely on your own analysis of the circumstances, then you'd be violating WP:OR.  Could she have retired for health reasons?  Quite unlikely, but let's face it, we don't know for sure and it is not up to us to speculate. That's why so many editors have been telling you to stick to the facts. Precis (talk) 01:27, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * We are going in circles. Every aspect of your comment has already been answered, some at least ten times, but if need be I'll respond once again.


 * While it is true what they say that she retired following criticism over her comments, this source still doesn't tell you "why" she retired. Maybe the writers there are of the same mind as some editors here and tried hard to avoid any wording which might be critical of her or her words, or maybe they didn’t have enough space or ink to write more elaborately. Regardless, they don’t say why she retired.


 * We on the other hand are writing an encyclopedia, and we need to give the reader a clear understanding of the facts based on reliable sources, and that clarity has to be already in the lead, for those readers who only read the lead of articles for their information. Therefore we need to consult those sources who "do" say why. I did not suggest that it should say the following: that she resigned "as a direct result to the outrage/uproar/furor to her comments where Hearst would have fired her, therefore to save face she resigned"’’; that is not what I suggested. What I did suggest is to say what the reliable sources (brought by the previous editors, not me) which state clearly that she resigned due to outrage.


 * Honestly, do you really think that she resigned because she was criticized? Would mere criticism have been enough to drive this strong minded women away? Does any source say so that she resigned ‘’because’’ she was criticized, and not just in the wake of criticism? Again don't tell me I'm editorializing, which has become the number one way of minimizing anyone’s arguments. I'm not asking that my understanding should be written, only that it should be written exactly as the reliable sources (already there before I arrived) say happened. The way you and others suggested it be written doesn’t give the reader the full picture or the facts. That’s all I ask. Is it too much to ask?


 * Even if you personally do believe that she did resign because of criticism alone, your source, the source you base your whole arguement on, doesn’t say so. Your source only says that she resigned “in the wake of criticism”, and suggesting in the lead that it was “because of criticism” is original research and editorializing. If those words aren’t suggesting it but is a vague way of writing nothing, then vagueness that runs against the reliable sources would be unacceptable. No one would accept any vagueness if the shoe was on the other foot (Caroline Glick - double standard comes to mind). Right? Why this stubbornness here? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You claim to have credible, reliable sources that "state clearly" that she resigned "DUE TO OUTRAGE". I'd be surprised if you can back up your claim, because "DUE TO" implies cause, and as far as I know, no responsible journalist claims to know why she resigned. That's why journalists use phrases like "in the wake of", "amid" or "following" instead of phrases with causal implications such as "due to" or "because of". Yet you have suggested using the language "due to outrage" in the article, while Calbaer has suggested "due to criticism", which you deplore. Do either of you have access to any source that gives an explicit reason for her resignation? If so, produce your sources. I'm not interested in vacillation such as Maybe the source doesn't say "due to", but it's obvious that's what was meant. Precis (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't just claim, but posted those sources above. For your convenience here they are again.


 * Reliable source #2 says:

Thomas’s resignation comes after outrage spread throughout the blogosphere in reaction to a video posted to RabbiLive.com. In it, Thomas said that Jews in Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."


 * Also in reliable source #2:

It’s not the first time Thomas has provoked outrage. In August 2005 she told The Hill she would kill herself if Dick Cheney ran for president. "The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is one more liar," she said at the time.


 * Reliable source #1 says:

Helen Thomas quit her job with Hearst in the wake of mounting outrage over her assertion that Jews in Israel should "return" to Poland, Germany and the United States.


 * I didn’t say that it must say “due to outrage”, although I’m sure you’ll find sources implying direct cause, still I did not suggest that it give an explicit spelled out reason for her resignation. For me, using the exact words from the reliable sources (we have here) that says “in the wake of outrage” is fine; because everyone understands that in the wake of outrage means because of outrage and we don’t have to spell it out. The words used by these RS would be perfectly fine with me.


 * “Due to criticism” or rather “in the wake of criticism” is better then nothing, because condemnation is after all criticism, only much stronger done with a bony finger or righteous indignation. It just doesn’t tell the reader the truth, because while some people resign or quit when criticized, Helen Thomas didn’t resign due to mere criticism. It goes without saying that editors should be consistent, and if it is acceptable to them using “condemned Israel” as opposed to “criticized Israel” when Israel is described, then it should be acceptable to them the same regarding Helen Thomas. That’s all I ask, for consistency and telling the facts when telling a story. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Are the admin on Wikipedia Zionist? .... i am not insulting anyone, it's just a simple question —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jezefsonofjacob (talk • contribs) 09:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There are over a thousand admins on the English Wikipedia. They should all strive &mdash; like all editors &mdash; for a neutral point of view. I can't speak for other admins, and I suspect their views will be very, very different to mine, but I'm opposed to all states. Palestine, Israel, the US, France... Does that answer your off topic question? TFOWR 09:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

And unprotected
The page is unprotected again after another request. Please seek agreement in advance on talk for any edits that might lead to more reverting. Many thanks, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 11:42, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead + 731 words -- undue weight?
Thomas' "Israel out of Palestine" comment controversy now constitutes the longest section in the article. Concern this might be "undue weight", as it is but one moment from a career spanning seven decades. I bring this up because some editors are currently aggressively arguing "undue weight" on the (Jerusalem Post deputy editor) Caroline Glick article in opposing a shorter section on Glick's recent controversial video (Glick dressed as a Palestinian and mocking the Freedom Flotilla dead, lyrics: "There's no people dying / As Allah showed us, for facts there's no demand / If Islam and terror brighten up your mood," etc.)

Editors should note both controversies dispassionately, whether the journalist is Arab-American (Thomas) or Israeli-American (Glick). Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think one thing is relevant to the other. IronDuke  02:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the other article isn't relevant, but coming to this article for the first time today, I think this is a very clear example of WP:UNDUE. Furthermore, note the following from WP:NOTNEWS: "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information."   While this event (re:Israel) is certainly the thing she is most prominently noted for now, it is not the defining moment of her career.  It definitely belongs in the article.  It probably even belongs in the lead (although it would be nice if we could trim the number of citations there).  But the body section itself is far too long, with too many different sets of commentaries. Plus, it's not very encyclopedic to include the full text of the conversation.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed on all counts. Rather than repeat it, I'll point to my comment above in the "Response section; Deletions of RS-referenced material" section.  This seems somewhat excessive.  Shi  meru  09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'd support a substantial paring down of the section, leaving her remarks (or a summary thereof, as in the lead), her apology, her retirement, and the reactions of prominent White House organizations and personnel. Precis (talk) 11:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, in some sense, it has been if not "the" defining moment of her career, at least "a" defining moment. I believe there is considerable support for this notion in the sources we used, the idea that HT tarnished her career/legacy--that says "definitional" to me. IronDuke  22:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's because it's what people are saying at this very moment. And I certainly think that (this is, of course, my opinion, based on similar events for other people), that this will have a permanent effect on her "legacy."  But it is unlikely that this will essentially "become" her legacy, which is how the article reads to me now.  Later today, if I have time, I'm going to Be Bold and try to bring the length of that section down, although I'll probably leave the lead alone (as I assume changes there will be more contentious).  I think that the inclusion of the long transcript is particularly problematic, because WP generally doesn't rely on primary sources (that is, the interview itself), but looks primarily to secondary sources (analysis of/commentary about the interview).  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, the transcript is non-standard. That said, if I knew nothing of the situation, I'd be happy to have it handy, and it takes up little room. I also agree that there has long been a movement against recentism. That movement, however, has also long been passed by in terms of what actual practics is--which is what policy ultimately boils down to: not what we say we should do, but what we actually encourage/tolerate. IronDuke  01:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree w/Iron Duke. Furthermore, having now read much of what is written about her in RSs, I don't see a wp:undue problem here.  A tremendous amount has already been written on this in a very short time, and it was an event so momentous that it was followed by the abrupt resignation of a decade-long career.  If people at the same time wish to writer more about her career, such as more on her ground-breaking work, more on the uniqueness of her position, and more on her relationship with the Bush administration, that would be a good thing.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:11, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The above comments reflect the problem with advocates. An Arab-American journalist has a seven-decade career at the highest levels in Washington, half a dozen books and 30 honorary degrees etc. One day, videocam-wielding Dave Nesenoff ambushes her outside the White House and presto! editors swoop in to make her (apologized for) comment the largest section in her Wiki article. Then, these same editors say, "I see no undue weight issue, but if others want to write about her career, that would be good" -- the message being, I'm just here to tar her. RomaC (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm supportive of similar due weight given all people who are notable and resign abruptly -- whether due to this behavior, Watergate, the Monica Lewinsky Affair if that had led to Clinton's abrupt resignation, etc. True, supporters of people who make these mishaps may tend to view it as people being anti-Arab-Americans-who-make-such-remarks, or anti-Republicans-like-Nixon, or anti-Democrats-like-Clinton.  And may seek to whitewash the bios of such people under claims of "undue weight".  But that doesn't impress me much -- as I'll be happy to have this approach of reflecting the RSs' weigh in any article.  With all due respect.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes the resignation is notable and I'm sorry if my comments came off as an attack against you Epee. I just have to shake my head when I compare the tarring Thomas gets and the "reverting due BLP and Undue etc." treatment given to criticism of Caroline Glick by editors from the same camp. Both of these are female journalists of some stature whose inflammatory actions in recent weeks caused plenty of controversy. Is it just coincidence that the Arab-American and the Israeli-American have been treated completely differently? Would you take a look at the Glick article Talk page and add your comments on what's happening over there? RomaC (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment, Roma. I'm not familiar w/that article. Will be happy to drive by it. BTW -- my view in these highly notable resignations holds for both camps of discussion -- I'm happy for both supportive and critical views of the "event" or "events" to be given voice on these pages. It's one thing that makes wiki valuable to readers.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to "whitewash" the incident. I just want to include it in an article about her life in approximately equal proportion to the overall importance it has in her life.  Again, we can't forget that our closeness to the event is making this seem much more important than everything else she's done.  As for what User:IronDuke said above, you're essentially claiming there is consensus to ignore WP:NOTNEWS.  Personally, I don't see any evidence of that.  Yes, when news strikes, someone is quick to add it, which is good, but then the community should work on fitting that recent news into the greater context of the article.  That is exactly what I am proposing to do here--take the good work already done, keep the salient information, but trim it down so that it doesn't have Undue Weight. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there are valid points on both sides of the argument about recentism but ultimately due weight is measured with respect to the entire timeline of the subject. We aren't day traders.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we are. How else, Sean, do you think we can afford the time to chat with each other here?  We didn't make our fortunes as janitors.  Though, I imagine that some of our colleagues may be children, still on the dole of their parents, in school with little else to do and no need to enter the real world just yet.
 * As to the substance, common sense is of course required. If someone resigns abruptly from a decades-long career because of an "event", and it attracts this extraordinary level of coverage, we all know what we have by the tail.  It would be to perhaps stray into wikilawyering to assert otherwise.  I imagine that when Nixon resigned, or had Clinton resigned, and wiki been active at the time, their supporters seeking to whitewash their articles would have said -- oh gosh, recentism, oneevent, undue weight, etc.  That's fairly unconvincing, when the circumstances are: a) an abrupt resignation from a notable career; b) massive intense RS coverage; and c) comments on it by people of some mild notablity, such as Obama.  No amount of Tennessee Two-Step can distract the NPOV editor from those indicia of highest-level notablity.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:34, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For me I think it was mostly thanks to the economic benefits of the British Empire over several centuries, something that was apparently my fault somehow, and the "Granma doesn't have a facebook page so i can't send her a birthday card" generation should all be blocked. I should clarify that I mean grandmother rather than the facebook page of the Cuban Communist Party newspaper. I don't really see it as a 'whitewash vs tar' editor intent issue. Musings about editor intent are a huge distraction in wikipedia. Editors either follow policy to the best of their ability or they don't. If we all follow policy we should all come to approximately the same conclusions about these compliance issues. If we don't then there's either something wrong with the policy or something wrong with the editor's understanding of policy or their understanding of what is expected of them as an individual editor adding content (e.g. many editors, perhaps all of us to some extent, tend to focus on one side of an issue and assume policy compliance will emerge through the actions of other editors when what tends to actually happen is more akin to fixation via genetic drift for small population sizes). I don't really see these due weight issues as something to worry too much about. Articles can be spun off if the main article content is being swamped.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 05:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)]
 * Yes, that does tend to capture some of the differences on either side of the pond. And yes, an age limit of some sort -- if enforceable -- might help matters.  And get the youngsters out in the sun a bit more.  The rules are what the rules are.  Peoples' POVs are what they are.  I've seen enough wikilawyering to know there is a reason for that phrase.  It's quite evident to anyone who has been editing for over 40,000 edits that socks abound, and POV editing under the guise of following the rule is seen as sport by some.  The combination is especially disruptive.  If we believe all will follow the rules to the best of their ability, let's dispense w/all enforcement.  If not, let's checkuser everyone, beginning with me, and ban all the socks and their puppets and revert their edits.  Following policy to the best of editors' ability is not sufficient, of course.  That's like driving according to the rules to the best of your ability.  If one can't do it, get off the road.  One does the same damage whether it is due to bad intentions or otherwise.  I do think that editor POV masking as "following policy" is a significant problem, buttressed by socks supporting less than honest views as to application of policy.  This is what leads to much of the bad press about wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen you say something like 'let's checkuser everyone'..'and ban all the socks and their puppets and revert their edits.' before. I agree completely. It wouldn't solve all the sock problems but it would certainly help.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've been playing with the wording all day, and I'm about to take the Bold step of throwing up a new version on the page. I believe it retains all of the relevant information while being substantially shorter.  I have removes some references, as I don't see any reason to have a single line with 4 or 5 references that all say the same thing.  However, if I've left out something important, please do re-add.  Again, I'm not trying to whitewash anything--I'm trying to provide a (policy-based) balance between the most Recent News and the rest of her career.  There are definitely parts that I don't like about the version I've written.  I'm specifically concerned with the following:


 * 1) I kept the part from Obama large, as it seems to me that if we want to pick one person's comments to keep, it may as well be the President's.  I'm concerned that I left too much of his defense of Thomas in; I thought it appropriate, but I don't want people to think I'm pushing a POV.  I certainly could imagine replacing his quote with someone else's, so long as that someone else is a relevant commentator.
 * 2) I don't know if the last paragraph about the naming of the two awards is really necessary; however, it let me keep in more specific language about what it was people found wrong with Thomas's statements.
 * 3) I believe the first paragraph still makes sense using only Thomas's words and not including the interviewers, but I may be too close to my edit to see if it's confusing.  I really want to avoid going back to the full interview (as I would say that qualifies as an excessively long quotation), but I don't want it to be confusing, so perhaps better wording is in order.
 * I'm hoping that this doesn't just get summarily reverted. Of course, if the consensus is that this new version is bad/wrong/incomplete/etc., I'm happy to see it eventually reverted.  I definitely see room for a compromise on overall length and weight, but I hope that we can have such a discussion in terms of the content itself and the relevant policies, rather than trying to guess at the various editor's level of education or POV.Qwyrxian (talk) 06:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've replaced an editor's changes to the lead which I believe are more in line with WP:LEAD, ie, making the lead a summary of article content. Otherwise we have too much detail on the exchange with the webcam Rabbi in the lead, detail which is repeated in the body. Feel free to revert, but please give a policy-based reason here so it can be discussed. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Question for Epeefleche
I just got a message from you (and I don't know how to respond), saying "Please stop deleting and/or blanking out portions of a page, as you did with the Helen Thomas page." I've gotta ask, what is it that you're referring to? I'm a bit lost, I'm afraid.

Thanx. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it that I made a change to the article? Um, I'm allowed to do that, right? Lots of other people have, and I made my change after extensive arguments on the discussion page. As those who came up with the 'Israel' version of the comment did not. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me, if the only thing I did wrong was make an edit (which I do so very infrequently on such hot-topic pages), and discussed it here and argued for it and responded with a lot of thought and consideration to those who gave different arguments, then your warning is probably because you disagree with the edit. Which seems a bit of an over-reaction, I must say. I certainly disagree with many of the edits re: this page, and I've just suggested here that they be changed. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Factual and NPOV suggestion for the lead
The wording is still not correct. It currently states:

"Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of widespread criticism over comments about Israel and the Palestinians"

1) It does not say who made those comments.

2) While her comments were about Israelis (Jews) and Palestinians, the way it is written one might get the impression that she criticized the Palestinians, which isn’t correct.

3) The word "criticism" isn't correct, the correct word should be "outrage" or something similar to it which reflects the sources and what actually happened.

Based on the above three points I’m changing it to the following:

“Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of outrage over comments she made about Israel that they get out of Palestine”. The above is factual, NPOV and avoids words that might be POV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summaries, the word is "outrage" is not used in any of the reliable sources that I am aware of. They almost unvaryingly use the word "criticism," which is appropriate and NPOV. I think it's best to keep the lede vague and let readers draw their own conclusions from the more detailed summary in the article body. It also becomes grammatically unwieldy to try and shoehorn too many details into the opening paragraph. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The word outraged is used in the reliable sources given in the article.


 * As to grammatically unwieldy, it can not come at the expense of factuality and NPOV as I explained in my above #'s 1)& 2). Please address them before changing.


 * As to "outrage" verses "criticism. The reliable sources given in the article says "outrage". Nowhere does it say "criticised", so therfore why should the article downgrade it to only "criticism". Outrage and criticism aren't in the same league and substituting one for another isn't NPOV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Please cite the reliable sources that indicate "outrage." CNN, BBC, ABC, and WaPo do not suggest that language. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Reliable source #3 says” Thomas’s resignation comes after outrage spread throughout the blogosphere in reaction to a video posted to RabbiLive.com. In it, Thomas said that Jews in Israel should "get the hell out of Palestine" and "go back home to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else."


 * Reliable source #2 says: “Helen Thomas quit her job with Hearst in the wake of mounting outrage over her assertion that Jews in Israel should "return" to Poland, Germany and the United States”


 * Reliable source #5 says that “White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said her comments were "offensive and reprehensible". Sounds like outrage.


 * Reliable source #5 also says that “Her comments also sparked criticism from the Obama administration and led to her being dropped as graduation speaker for a local high school”. That’s where criticism comes in; the Obama administration was “criticised” and to Helen Thomas’s comments there was “outrage”, not the same. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Aside from the terrible grammar used in your revision, Thomas made a lot of other comments in the recent interview that need to be included in any analysis of her statements and the reaction that followed. To quote only a part of the interview in the lede, completely out of context, does not maintain a NPOV. The lede needs to remain vague and direct readers to the appropriate section to read the entire quote and draw their own conclusions about the nature of the controversy. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * But it isn't correct and it shouldn't come at the expense of factuality and NPOV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've just read the lead and the grammar is indeed terrible. I appreciate people have different views about what constitutes NPOV but there's no reason why revisions shouldn't be expressed in good English. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So are we to solve grammar problems with incorectness and infactual? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 20:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It currently reads: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of criticism over comments she made about Israel to get "out of Palestine".


 * What do you suggest, which would be correct, NPOV and factual? They need to address the three problems I started with. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you need to decide what you're trying to say and then work out how to phrase it rather than playing with the words and deciding whether the various permutations meet those three criteria. I agree with the first two. I think the term "outrage" will read like an editorial endorsement of those views. I don't think it's appropriate and compliant with NPOV even if it can be reliably sourced, so why not stick to reporting what was said? Something like "... resigned following reports of comments she had made about Israel. She had said that Israel should 'get... out of Palestine'" --188.221.105.68 (talk) 21:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"Outrage" is what happened and that's the reason she resigned. It was all because of outrage, and the reliable sources given in the article support it. It would not be an editorial endorsement of those views, just as it isn't an editorial endorsement of that view in the Gaza flotilla raid article and other articles which state that there was outrage. Outrage is a fact, either it was or it wasn't. It doesn't say if the outrage was justified; that would still be left to the reader to decide. To me it would seem that not having the proper word that describes it properly in the reliable sources, that would be editorializing with a POV.

"... resigned following reports of comments she had made about Israel" is a very watered down version of what really happened.

The second part: "She had said that Israel should 'get... out of Palestine'", that would be fine. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your point about "outrage" but to me it still sounds uncomfortably close to an assertion that something was outrageous. Just by way of illustration consider how something might be worded to satisfy the other side of the Israel/Palestine divide: "Israel caused outrage by attacking a convoy of six ships heading for Gaza". It sounds opinionated. I would suggest that outrage = controversy = criticism and that's a basic deduction which doesn't constitute original research. --188.221.105.68 (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Israel caused outrage by attacking a convoy of six ships heading for Gaza" is opinionated because of the word "caused" which is opinionated. "There was outrage over Israel attacking a convoy of six ships heading for Gaza" would be just fine and factual.


 * Maybe we use the word "reaction" like it is used in Reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid where the word reaction is even in the name of the article. The word reaction is also used in the Gaza flotilla raid, so maybe we should use it here instead of "criticism" (which is watered down) or "outrage" which is correct and factual and comes from the reliable sources here) but it is not liked by some here? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Come to think of it "reaction" would also be watered down, the only correct word would be "outrage". Any other word seems POV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To address the three initial points:

1) That may be, but it doesn't make it incorrect or POV. One can always go into more detail; your alternative lead could be more detailed as well. Doesn't mean it's not factual. What you need to argue is that this or that level of detail is appropriate for an intro.


 * Apropriate in the intro, is that if someone only read the intro, they should go away with a clear idea of why her career ended. It should be clear that she didn't die, wasn't fired, but resigned. It should be clear why she resigned or at least what prompted her resignation. It must be clear that it was because of what she said and because of the furor, outrage and condemnation over it. Agreement or disagreement with her words had nothing to do with her resignation. She surely didn't resign because Hezbollah says that they agree with her, she knew and knows that she has many supporters who have always cheered her on. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an argument. This is assertions.

Further, it's assertions that aren't related to your point #1. It is not 'incorrect' to say "someone said something once" just because it's vague. Even if your assertions bear out, you will not have shown that vagueness is a form of incorrectness. Your assertions here are an entirely separate issue -- and please, raise that issue, but don't confuse it with your #1. And, preferably, when you do raise it, don't just bring assertions to bear on it.

At any rate, your #1 doesn't support your argument that the sentence you took issue with is incorrect. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

2) Well I don't know why one would get that impression. The word 'criticism' in the original lead doesn't refer to either Palestine OR Israel. It refers to how Thomas' comments were received (not 'interpreted,' but 'received').


 * Yes, it's better then nothing, but still isn't the full reason. No one resigns because of criticism, and she didn't resign because she was criticized. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your point #2 was that people might get the impression that she criticised Palestinians. But the sentence you took issue with had no claims whatsoever about ANY criticisms she made AT ALL. So how would someone get the idea that she criticised Palestinians?

Now, even if you're right that no-one resigns because of criticism (which is again simply an assertion on your part), how does that mean that people would read "Thomas was criticised" as "Thomas criticised Palestinians"? I think your point #2 is just based on a misreading of the sentence. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

3) 'Criticism' is still correct. Again, you seem to be arguing that 'outrage' is less vague, and that's fine, I think it is; but the appropriate level of vaguery is another issue. As for what more accurately reflects the sources, well ... I'll leave that to someone who has read them! From what I've read above, though, it seems like 'criticism' is more agreed upon by the reliable sources, so I'd say it's probably best to go with the safest option. I don't know what Wiki policy on that is, though. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I did read them and brought many reliable sources, but to no avail. It doesn't seem like there is a failure of reliable sources, but of a failure of applying them. Editors give me correct here on the talk page but then go right ahead and change it in the article with reasons like "we need to state the facts".


 * Criticism isn't vague at all, it is a clear misrepresentation of the facts; she didn't resign because she was criticized, she resigned because there was furor and outrage and condemnation to her remarks. If she would not have resigned she woud have been fired, so she saved face. This last aspect isn't reqired, but it's important to remember it. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying she wasn't criticised? There are reliable sources that say she was, so I think you'd be 'editorializing' if you say she wasn't. It seems to me that, because both 'criticism' and 'outrage' can be reliably sourced, both words are correct (contra your statements above), and you'd be editorialising to say otherwise. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure she was also criticized by some, but that is NOT the reason she resigned. Maybe they criticized her for being so stupid and saying her thoughts out loud. She was also praised by some, and you’ll agree that it also wasn't the reason she resigned. The reason she resigned was as the reliable sources say, as a result of outrage to her remarks. There is no other way to slice it. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding to your initial point. You said that the word 'criticism' isn't correct, and -- in the context of the sentence you were referring to -- it is. The sentence makes no causal link between the criticism and the resignation. You are correct that her resignation also came "in the wake" of praise for her claims as well (although I don't know if that can be reliably sourced). I am simply addressing your own 3-point argument. If you want to start another section, perhaps saying that this sentence should say something stronger (i.e., assert a causal link between x and y), then that would be something else we would have to consider. But I think it's worth not getting confused and mixing up the issues. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Her resignation came "in the wake" of many things; but what actually caused her resignation, is the point. The cause of her resignation is not in question and all sources (reliable or not) agree on that, so what's there to argue? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No it's quite expressly not the point. The initial sentence, that you took issue with (and which I think is the best) used the phrase "in the wake;" not "lead to" or "caused" or any such synonym. To argue that this sentence is wrong because another, mutually inclusive sentence is correct (as you have done) is fallacious.

If you want to discuss whether the opening sentence should say something stronger than "in the wake," then that requires different arguments and is a much stickier issue. (My view is that we should go for something very qualified, just to make sure that we have a correct lead). No point muddying the issue by mixing in other, separate issues. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't follow. What’s not the point, and what mutually inclusive sentence are you talking about? What I said was that her resignation came "in the wake" of many things; but what actually caused her resignation, is the point; and that needs to be stated unequivocally. "In the wake"is fine, but in the wake of what? "In the wake of criticism" is a minimalist description (maybe good for the minimalist society), but for normal English speakers "mere criticism" was not the actual reason. The reason was as the reliable sources say: in the wake of outrage or furor or uproar; that prompted (caused) her resignation. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * F claims to know "what actually caused her resignation". Yet F is unable to produce reliable sources that "unequivocably" reveal "the actual reason".  There is a harsh lesson here.  In the face of controversy, we must challenge editors who claim that their opinions are the truth. Precis (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

1. What's not the point is what caused her resignation. The sentence you took issue with made no causal claim; nor, indeed, did your suggested replacement.

2. The mutually inclusive sentences are: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of widespread criticism over comments about Israel and the Palestinians" and “Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of outrage over comments she made about Israel that they get out of Palestine.” The two can both be true (and, I think, you've said are). So, to argue that the second is true does not show that the first is false. But this is precisely what you were claiming with your initial point #3 ("The word "criticism" isn't correct, the correct word should be "outrage" or something similar.") 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the rest of your response, that is a different issue. That is an argument about how strong (or 'minimalist') the intro should be. That would require a whole host of different arguments, including the one Precis raised. At the least, it will require more than a bare assertion on your part that 1) the original sentence was 'minimalist' and 2) that minimalism is bad. Perhaps you are right -- perhaps wikipedia policy encourages (or even demands) non-minimalism in intros, and perhaps it's very clear that causal claims of this sort fall under this type of non-minimalism, and perhaps the reliable sources do support your causal claim, and perhaps no reliable sources explicitly disagree with that causal claim, and so on; but that is an argument you've yet to make, and it is such a messy one that I don't believe it's helpful to confuse it with a discussion about whether or not the original sentence was correct.

So, I'm not here saying that you don't have some good arguments that the intro should be non-minimalist (in your sense). But, supposing you do, you will still not have shown that "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of widespread criticism over comments about Israel and the Palestinians" is incorrect. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Subsection on Repercussions
I propose deletion of this paragraph:

The President of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), who said Thomas’s comments were “offensive” and “inexcusable,” said that the Society is considering renaming its Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement. Her alma mater, Wayne State University, said it would keep the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in the Media award, while strongly condemning what it called her "wholly inappropriate comments."

Reason: To rename the award would be notable, but simply to consider renaming, or to decide not to rename at all, those are events that seem too insignificant for an encyclopedia. If desired, SPJ and WSU could be added instead to the list of rebukers. NB: I've separated WHCA from that list--I think it belongs in the first paragraph, because of its close connection with Thomas's work. Precis (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur with that thinking, although I would re-add the info if, in fact, they do strip the name this month. However, I'm not really set either way.Qwyrxian (talk) 11:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree. Now it's the SPJ pres. saying they might do something, if they do the rename in July that's another matter but take it out for now. The second half of the graph is a group saying they are not going to do something, that should go as well. RomaC (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I found both facts interesting. I'm not sure what the criteria for inclusion in an encyclopedia are, but if it's "interesting info" then I'd put my two cents in for keeping it. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitewashing
I object to the removal of all statements in support of Helen Thomas between these edits. The current section makes it look like the condemnation of her is unanimous, when this is far from being the case.

Especially incredible is the removal of Nader's statement of support because it is "embarrassing to him". I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he used "anti-semitism" in the uncommon, wider sense to include all Semitic people. Esn (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added some of it back in. The various groups that support her have far less political support in the US than the groups that oppose her, but their existence should at least be mentioned in a short sentence. It's notable, though, that no scientific public opinion poll has been done on the issue - the public support may be much greater, and if that proves to be the case, I propose that the "support" section should be given greater prominence. The only one that has been done was an online poll in the Washington Post, with 27,000 votes, 92% in support of Thomas. Of course online polls are notoriously easy to manipulate, so I see the argument for not including it. Esn (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed that two of the mentions were not actually deleted, but moved into the middle of the "criticism" section where it was easily missed. I moved them down into a separate (short) paragraph, so that it's more easily noticed. Esn (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "anti-semitic" refers to prejudice against Jews, according to every dictionary I've ever looked at. I'm unaware of this "uncommon, wider sense to include all Semitic people" that you are referring to.  Do you have a reliable source for this?  I suspect not.  With all the quotes available from Nader in support of Helen Thomas, I find it curious that anyone would insist on using the one quote where he misuses a term.  And "especially incredible" was the wiki-linking of "anti-semitic" to Semitic, which served to lend legitimacy to an improper connotation. Precis (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I trimmed down all of the support was twofold. First, I trimmed down both sides; the old version had quotes from everybody and their mother (okay, i exaggerate), and I felt that the actual words used by both sides wasn't relevant.  I selected to keep only Obama's, in part because he is, after all, the president, and part because he himself gave a multifaceted point on Thomas.  Second, since the overwhelming response has been negative, as NPOV, our article should, in a certain sense, appear "unbalanced."  I think the sentence you put in now "The condemnation has not been unanimous either in the United States or worldwide" is pretty POV, almost a bit whiny, but I'll allow someone else to make changes if they feel necessary so that it doesn't just look like I'm defending my own version.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * "The condemnation has not been unanimous either in the United States or worldwide." This sentence is ambiguous.  Condemnation of what, Helen Thomas, or her remarks?  Zogby supported Thomas but not her remarks, for example.  And if the sentence is construed to mean that there is support for Thomas throughout the world, then some further corroboration should be supplied.  Hezbollah is not enough evidence of worldwide support. Precis (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

'ISRAEL' should get the hell out of Palestine?
Is this best suggestion we've had? Is this a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth? Does anyone agree with that? From what I've seen on this discussion page, people are basically divided over whether or not she meant all Jews should get out of Palestine, or if she meant something more qualified (in various senses). Who says she said for Israel to get out of Palestine? That verges on incoherent. Israel is a place, that -- if it exists at all (which some people say Thomas might not commit to) -- can only be in Palestine. I'm thoroughly confused. For my two cents, the best thing would be to go with something both sides can agree on, which would be a minor claim. Some people wouldn't like this, but at least it wouldn't be incorrect. If it just said what it used to say, about her retiring in the wake of criticism about comments she made regarding Palestine, at least it would be correct. I know Fadraianapahamalama disagrees that this is correct, but hopefully we're about to get to some sort of understanding on this issue in an above section.

If this were our lead, then at least the issue would be whether it was detailed or strong enough -- not whether or not it was correct. I think, with this much disagreement, going for something that is correct is about the best we can hope for. Otherwise we end up with just silly concoctions that I'm pretty sure no single person agrees with. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The way it is now written (not my choice) avoids the word "Jews" and uses her own words. What can be more correct then her own words which leave no room for any misinterpretation? Why don't you like it? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that it is best to use the words that she uses, adding context where necessary or helpful (perhaps some is necessary or helpful here).--Epeefleche (talk) 03:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Because not only is it not the word she used ('Israel'), it verges on incoherent if that's what she meant. As I say above. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't usually change/revert material (at least on controversial pages); I more commonly just suggest changes or request them. But in this case I have made an actual change, because -- after engaging in much discussion about not only the reasons for changing the original sentence, but also problems with the replacement sentence(s) -- it seems very clear to me that the case for change is at the moment poor to say the least. Fallacious reasoning and clear use of incorrect words are all that is propping up the call for change, and until such a time as this changes (which I absolutely believe could happen, and happen soon) I strongly believe that the original wording ought to remain. Please, change the sentence again if a good case can be made, but at the moment I will uncharacteristically make an actual edit to a controversial page. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Epeefleche: I agree with you here. She didn't say "Jews," so why have Jews in the intro and as part of the title of a sub-section? The actual text of the sub-section does a very good job of getting across what happened without using words she didn't use. This has been discussed a lot. I am fearful to make a change that -- if what you say above reflects your actual view -- you should agree with, as I think you may say it's "deleting sections" of the page. I'm just confused, that's all. Should we use her words, or put words into her mouth? If the former, am I allowed to fix things up, or is that against Wikipolicy? If I am not allowed to, could you please do it then? Thank you. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Interviewer: Is it your opinion that the Earth is flat? Interviewee: That's right, the world has been fooled by a hoax.

Even though this interviewee never said the word "Earth", his comment is still ABOUT the Earth. Thus I don't understand why anyone would think the word "Jews" is inappropriate in the lead.

A problem with using her exact words in the lead is that it could make the lead too long, because the exact words of the interviewer might also have to be included to provide the context. Precis (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Precis, if that were the appropriate analogy, I'd agree. It's why I don't mind the use of the word 'Israel' (so long as it's an appropriate interpretation of the use of the word). But 'Jews' wasn't used in the question or the answer.

Insofar as using the exact words would be too long, that would only be if I was calling for the use of all her exact words (or even a lot of them). I'm just suggesting that we don't attribute to her words she didn't use. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but I do see that your analogy should commit me to thinking that the statement "Israel should get out of Palestine" is appropriate. Which, at the top of the section, I say is crazy. So I certainly scale back my objection to this use of the word 'Israel.' I now see the reasoning behind it's use, and it seems fair.

I'd still suggest, for a few reasons, that -- while the word 'Israel' could and perahps even should be used -- the statement "Israel should get out of Palestine" (or something similar) is not a great compromise:

1. Your analogy is strong in this context, but not watertight. In the Earth interview, the interviewee's comment makes grammatical sense as an answer to the interviewer's question. In the Thomas case, that's simply not true -- 'Israel' is not a "them," but a country. If the interviewer had asked about Israelis, then your analogy would settle the issue. But because it's not clear she was referring to Israel (as 'Israel' is not a "them"), I think we can presume there was some kind of disconnect between the question and the answer. Or, at least, that there could be, which is plain and simply not the case with your Earth analogy.

2. The other thing that I think is important is that no reliable source (as far as I know; but, beware, I don't know much) seems to be saying this. If it really is a fair interpretation of what she said, why is only Wikipedia interpreting it this way? Even the people contributing to this discussion page (until I started this section) had never mentioned this is a possible interpretation -- some thought she meant "Jews," and others thought she meant something more qualified; no-one suggested she meant Israel.

3. I also think (and this might come under original research -- who am I to say she didn't say something incoherent?) is that, as I say above, "Israel should get out of Palestine" verges on incoherent. But I do believe that people can say (and even mean) incoherent things; I certainly don't want to make too much of that point, even if it weren't OR (which it probably is). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "But 'Jews' wasn't used in the question or the answer." Nesenoff explicitly used the word "Jews", and Thomas issued an immediate response.  That's why I think my analogy is appropriate. Precis (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, the full-quote, as transcribed on Wikipedia, didn't have 'Jews' in the question. That, in fact, was what prompted arguments (started by others) that 'Jews' shouldn't be attributed to her. Do you have a link to your source for the full-quote? Certainly, if the question was "Do you have any views on Jews or Israel?" (you know, or something like that), then yeah, you are correct. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The video of it is on YouTube, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14.

The question, to my ears (and it's a pretty clear sound, I must say), is "Any comments on Israel? We're asking everybody today." 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Could it be that we are talking about different things? I've highlighted the word "Jews" in Nesenoff's question below, so you can find it.

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: Oooh. Any better comments on Israel? Thomas: Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Poland ... 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. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries? See? Precis (talk) 08:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Right, no, you're absolutely right, my bad. Sorry! 203.45.146.36 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now it's gone back to the more problematic version. The orignal issue, as raised by someone else (that I lost sight of) was that the article shouldn't say she said something she didn't say. Certainly, as Precis points out, Thomas' claims were about Jews, but one can less clearly argue that the words of an interviewer should be reported as part of the statement of an interviewee. This has been raised before and discussed in a now-archived section of the discussion page. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the argument for the change on this discussion page, so I'm going to revert it to the compromise-version and if someone wants change it back they can discuss it here. I presume Epefleeche will agree with my reversion, as he has said that only Thomas' words should be used. Hopefully he won't warn me about "blanking out" sections of the page because of the reversion; at the least, I hope he can come on here to discuss my change first. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So why did you then remove the words Thomas used? I have made it clear (now in the archived discussions) that the lead should reflect what the reliable sources say. If we can't agree on wording which isn't misleading, then I support Epeefleche in using her exact words which leave no room for misinterpretation. Jiujitsuguy is correct in putting back Thomas's words. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fan. Her words are the best reflection of her words.  They are concise as used in the lede; one sentence.  No legitimate reason has been presented for sugarcoating or whitewashing her words with characterizations instead.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Fan: Um, you put forth some 'arguments' that I responded to, and that was where you left it; the discussion has now been archived because you left it unchallanged for a protracted period of time. I hardly think you made anything 'clear.' We can use Thomas' exact words, okay -- but she didn't use the word "Jews," so I don't understand how this is meant to be the happy compromise.

Epefleeche: Hi, thanks for responding here. It is appreciated. But I don't quite get what you're saying: you're the one who wants to use Thomas' exact words, yet you're supporting an interpretation that puts words in her mouth. She never said that Jews should go back to Poland, Germany, and America and everywhere else (or that Israel should get the hell out of Palestine). Those are not her words, and even if that was her meaning, the guiding principle "use her words" doesn't justify the lede you support.

As for there being no justification for ending the lede "about Israel, Jews, and Palestine," what you've got to understand is that that was the original sentence (actually, sans 'Jews'). Fan put up an argument for changing it, but it was no good, for the reasons that are now archived. So I would counter that no legitamate reason has been presented for making the initial change.

Further, in response to your charge that no legitimate reason has been given for ending the lede with "Israel, Jews, and Palestine," I think it is quite clear that I did give a reason; if it was illegitimate, I think you'd agree "the authority of Epefleeche" ain't a good argument for that (and I've seen no other argument from you for that).

Also, I have never asked for sugarcoating or whitewashing of her words. Please assume good faith on the part of the editors. That really is the case here.

Bit more effort here, guys, please. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:40, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that this section was archived because no-one responded to the above for a protracted period of time. I will change it back, then, as I think a week or so is long enough to wait.

If people want to revert my reversion, please do me the same courtesy of coming here and explaining yourself and giving me a bit of time before you automatically make the page the way you want it to be. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Controversy in Lead
WP:LEAD says the top graphs should be a summary of article content. Believe that she resigned amid controversy belongs there. But how much detail do we need in the lead? Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, now this is the conversation I think we should be having. I'm not sure, myself. My personal feeling is that we should go for something that is at the very least correct, and I think everyone can agree that "...resigned amid controversy surrounding comments she made regarding Israel, Jews and Palestine" is correct (hopefully Fan understands that this is a minimal claim -- to say it is correct is not to say that it is the optimal lead sentence). There are some (Epefleeche, Fan) who say that the intro should state more than this, though I've not heard the arguments in support of this view. I had supposed that the argument might be based on official wikipedia policy, but as this policy (as you report it) is vague, I guess that's not the case.


 * So, the argument for using the sentence that ends in "Israel, Jews and Palestine" is that this sentence does meet wikipedia guidelines, it's unassailably correct, and it doesn't put words into Thomas' mouth. All of which is good. So, in summary, my argument is: "This sentence clearly meets all the requirements for a lead sentence; if it's the only sentence that does, it should be used; I've not heard of another that does; so, it's the sentence that should be used."


 * I don't know if that's right or wrong, but that's what I've put out there and (barring, perhaps, "Epefleeche spoke") I haven't heard much in response to it.


 * To play Devil's Advocate, one counter-argument that Epefleeche et al may endorse is that I'm just whitewashing -- I think the argument would say that, since whitewashing is POV, more detail is needed to keep it NPOV. I don't mean to say that this is the argument of Epefleeche et al, I'm just trying to get the ball rolling.


 * My response to this argument is that, first, whitewashing would seem to be guessing at my (et als) motivations, and -- at least in my case -- I know my motivations to be impartial. I wouldn't care to 'whitewash' cos I don't think what she said was actually a big bad deal, and futher I only came to prefer the 'undetailed' sentence after reading the discussion page and seeing the arguments from both sides. I had absolutely no opinion before that; my opinion is purely based on the reasons so far given for/against. Now, obviously, that's a good reason for me to think that I'm not whitewashing, but what about you all? Well, I'd refer to (what I understand to be) wikipedia policy. First, assume good faith on my part; and second, keep your criticisms impersonal.


 * So I disagree with the premiss of the 'Argument From Whitewashing' -- however, I also don't think the conclusion follows. It may well be that more detail could only be called for by people who want to place as much emphasis as is possible on the event that caused Helen to leave in what-they-see-as-disgrace (I'm not saying that is what's going on, but I could very easily charge that). So, just as a call for lack of detail could be POV, so could a call for more detail be POV.


 * Thus, the Argument From Whitewashing is as bad as an argument can be: its premiss is false, and it's conclusion doesn't follow.


 * Again, I'm not saying that this is the argument of Epefleeche/Fan/etc, I'm just saying it's not a good one. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 10:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If I understand Epefleeche’s suggestion, he is asking that Thomas be directly quoted in the lead sentence. I’m not sure why this detail is meant to be necessary (the details are in the body of the article, after all), but that’s fine and I don’t really mind it. But I don’t want to sacrifice anything for brevity. If we want detailed accuracy in the lead, then let’s not attribute to Thomas things she didn’t say, and just get the actual thing out there. The only detailed lead I can think of that doesn’t misrepresent the facts is:


 * Thomas retired abruptly on June 7, 2010, following negative reaction to comments she made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine. She was asked, “Do you have any comments about Israel,” to which she responded, “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.” She was also asked, “So you’re saying the Jews go back to Poland and Germany?” and she answered, “And America and everywhere else. Why push people out of there who have lived there for centuries?


 * This is probably a little in conflict with the policy stated by Roma C (above), but honestly I think it’s the only way to get a direct quote into the lead while maintaining accuracy. I expect this is why summaries are called for in wikipolicy – evidence and examples and details of this sort are probably generally left to the body of the article to avoid having to cherry-pick the ‘best’ bits of evidence for the lead. I’m not sure what problem people have with the ‘undetailed’ sentence, as what actually happened (in actual detail) is there in the appropriate place for everyone to see and make their minds up about, but I hope this further discredits the theory that I’m trying to be POV. I don’t mind what actually happened being reported; sure, I prefer the brief summary in the lead, but I don’t have any problem with the facts being in full brazen view. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that this section was archived because no-one responded to it for a protracted period of time. As a week or so is a reasonable amount of time to allow someone to respond on the discussion page, I am going to change the lead back to what it was before people started arguing it wasn't detailed enough. Please, if someone does decide that they must make a change to a more detailed version, and doesn't see fit to leave things for a week or so before they go and make the page say what they want it to say, and still after all this time don't see fit to give a reason for making such a change, then please use the even more detailed suggestion above.

Preferably, of course, don't instantiate any of the conditionals. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

What to include in exchange
The problem with removing some of the material regarding Thomas's exchange with Nessenoff is that every single line is context and has possible relevance to the answers. I therefore reinstated the entire exchange, though am open to alternative ways of including this.--Louiedog (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the full exchange is best. IronDuke  20:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess another option would be to put the full exchange in the citation.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 03:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Related Request for Comments - Octavia Nasr
There is currently a Request for Comments at Talk:Octavia Nasr about whether Helen Thomas' resignation should be mentioned in that article in relation to Nasr's being fired from CNN. __meco (talk) 00:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Attempt to establish consensus on Thomas's remarks in the lead
I propose reversion back to:

(*) Thomas retired abruptly on June 7, 2010, following negative reaction to comments she made about Israel, Jews, and Palestine.

Rationale: Past history indicates that we are unlikely to reach consensus if we include specifics. Partial quoting has proved to be unsatisfying, as it leaves out context. The simple summary (*) is thus preferable from a pragmatic point of view. Moreover, (*) would pique readers' curiosity and whet their appetites to look deeper into the article, where one finds the full quotes. Precis (talk) 22:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Summarizing controversial remarks: an example
Cf. George Allen, where no quote is used in the lead. Precis (talk) 11:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note also Allen's remarks are dealt with in about 200 words out of a 3,000 word article. Thomas' remarks take about 500 words in a 2,000 word article, and some editors are pushing for more. Apparent WP:Recentism and WP:Undue weight issues should be addressed. RomaC  TALK 11:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I absolutely concur. I wholeheartedly believe that this interview is and will always remain an important part of Thomas' notability.  I also don't think it accounts for 1/4 of her life story.  Is there any chance those pushing for more are willing to compromise on less? I guess a related question is, is the only reason it's long because we can't agree on an NPOV short version?  If that's the case, then it's just a matter of us working harder to find that compromise.  But if others believe that this really should occupy such a large part of the article, we have a different problem.Qwyrxian (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally I could live with stopping after Obama's comments, but undoubtedly there'd be no consensus for this. Re George Allen, there also exists a separate Wikipedia article devoted to his controversial remarks. Precis (talk) 23:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

James Zogby
We need to reword the statement " Hezbollah  and Hamas  issued praise for her comments,[73][74]  which also drew support from Ralph Nader, James Zogby and Paul Jay.[75][76][77] "  because Zogby, while supporting Thomas, called her comments a mistake. Precis (talk) 12:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

It's also ambiguous as to whether Nader (etc) supported the praise for her comments or if they supported the comments themselves. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
I can see that the inclusion of Thomas' comments on Israel has already generated a lot of back-and-forth here. My view is that Thomas has a place in history mainly because of her work as a journalist, not because of that comment. The comment generated controversy and should be included in the article, but I think putting it in the lead is undue weight. I moved it down to the section on the Obama administration, where it would fit chronologically, and then another editor claimed I had deleted it and added a duplicate copy to the lead, so now it appears twice. It seems that some people want to turn this article into yet another arena of battling over pro- and anti-Israel, and that is simply not all that relevant to a biography of Helen Thomas. Owen Roe (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a highly significant event, which ended a notable career. We can argue about how to discuss it in the lead, but certainly not whether to do so. IronDuke  22:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can I just ask for clarification? Are you, Owen, saying that the quote shouldn't be referred to in the lead, or are you saying that the actual quote doesn't need to be there? I'd agree with the second but not the first. Ironduke is right that this is a highly notable event, and is kind of an 'end' to the story; and based on that alone I believe it should be referred to in the lead. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hezbollah and Hamas support
Isn't it pretty strong POV pushing to state that Hezbollah and the al-Qassam Brigades have "supported" Thomas? I'm sure that hundreds of people have both supported and opposed her comments (although, certainly more opposed than supportive, understandably). How is this anything other than a back-handed way of further criticizing Thomas? I don't deny that we have reliable sources to support this statement, but I bet we could find reliable sources to demonstrate many more people for or against what she said at the interview; we're, of course, picking those we find most notable, and it seems odd to me that we've picked groups whom, in most places, tend to taint those they are associated with merely by fact of the association. Can anyone explain why this inclusion is not POV? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So...an IP editor removed the content, and then it was twinkled back under "unexplained removal of sourced content." Meanwhile, no discussion has occurred here.  I'm relatively close to making the edit myself, although I'd prefer to discuss first.  The more I read it, the more this smacks of pure POV inclusion. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree -- there are clear examples and less clear examples; but in any case there are examples riddled throughout the article. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

From a Western perspective, Qwyrxian is right that mention of Hezbollah's support smacks of guilt by association. However, millions in Iran, Turkey, and the Arab world view Hezbollah in an entirely different light. Thus I'm undecided on this issue. Precis (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Not sure, though; not sure if Hezbollah supporters would want to sully Thomas' reputation in the world where she lives. Might discourage people in the Western world from supporting their causes, so perhaps even they wouldn't write the article in this way. But supposing you're right (as I'd guess you are), two things:

1. I think Qwyrxian's point is that the people who wrote this article don't like Hezbollah, and have mentioned Hezbollah's support because of their POV perspective.

2. Even if it was written by one of the millions around the world who see Hezbollah as a liberating force (or whatever it's supposed to be), wouldn't that still be POV? Positive association is just as bad as negative association, right? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * What if there are millions around the world who have mixed feelings concerning Hezbollah? :) Precis (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well then that's another issue. I can't help feeling, though, that this line was not chosen because millions around the world have mixed feelings towards Hezbollah. But that's not an argument, that's a feeling; and it's a rather irrelevant feeling considering I'm meant to presume good faith the part of the editors. Nevertheless, one can surely imagine referencing less controversial supporters of Thomas, and one can surely see that using Hezbollah will conjure strong feelings in many readers about Thomas (whether those feelings be good or bad) -- even if that won't be the case for millions of other readers. So I guess, with alternatives open to us that don't convey non-factual information (such as 'Thomas is awesome' or 'Thomas is evil'), I guess I'd like to understand why this line was chosen if not for POV reasons. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 09:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding what H&H, Jay and Nader said in support per the sources. James Zogby did not defend the comments. RomaC TALK 12:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

From Lebanon and Christian categories
Why insert "from Lebanon" categories when Thomas never lived in Lebanon and is a natural born U.S. citizen? Why is "Americans of Lebanese descent" not adequate? Why also insert Christian categories? I know that she self-identifies as one, but the BLP rules state that the categories must also be relevant to the public life of the individual, and I simply do not see how her identity as a Christian is relevant to her public life. Asarelah (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly. The IP appears to be a missionary for the church of miscategorization.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 08:50, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Categorization (Nationality and Religion)
Myself and User:Asarelah have been reverting additions by User:89.158.109.242 regarding categorization of Thomas's religion and nationality. I believe the nationality issue has been solved (IP was marking her as "from Lebanon," which is false as she was born in the U.S.). The issue of including her religion remains, however. We have been discussing this on the user's talk page, although s/he has not responded there (doing his/her arguing strictly through edit summaries). I and Asarelah assert that, per WP:BLP, a BLP should only receive a religious categorization if it is 1) a religion the person has self-identified as belonging to, and 2) the religion is "relevant to his notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." In his/her most recent edit summary, the IP stated "Relevant to her political views- it's the religious affiliation of the founders of Palestinian nationalism," where it refers to either the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America, I'm not sure which (and I think the IP may actually be conflating the two churches). However, the IP has not explained yet, here or on his/her talk, what published sources establish that this connection is relevant. Even if she is a member of said church, that does not inherently mean that she holds the same political views as other members; Wikipedia cannot assert that there is a connection with a published source first making that connection. We have requested that the IP discuss this further on the talk page. At the moment, I believe that the WP:BLP policy makes the reversions Asarelah and I are doing not edit-warring, as we are required by policy to remove them. I, however, invite comments from other editors on both the reverting as well as the underlying categorization. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Religious belief
Is there a source that says that a) Helen Thomas has a religious belief and b) that it is Greek Orthodox so that the infobox can be made to comply with WP:V ?  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Note the discussion I opened above; while WP:BLP only talks about Categorization of living persons, I would have to assume the same rational covers any identification of the person's religion. If I'm correct, than you also need a c) reliable resource explaining why her religion is relevant to her public life. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, saw it and concur. Also, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation". I'm challenging it partly because assigning religion based on parents and 'being raised as' etc would make Lenin Russian Orthodox and result in general silliness.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 09:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

SPJ might rename an award -- does this belong?
This content in the Repercussions section:


 * The President of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ), who said Thomas’s comments were “offensive” and “inexcusable,” said that the Society is considering renaming its Helen Thomas Award for Lifetime Achievement. Her alma mater, Wayne State University, said it would keep the Helen Thomas Spirit of Diversity in the Media award, while strongly condemning what it called her "wholly inappropriate comments." 

I changed it to:


 * The President of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) said Thomas’s comments were “offensive” and “inexcusable,” while her alma mater, Wayne State University, called them "wholly inappropriate." 

My reasoning for the edit was that an already bloated section didn't need to talk about something that might happen, but hasn't happened after nearly two months. If it does happen we can consider including it. Also the statement that Wayne State would not do something just seemed irrelevant.

Anyway was quickly reverted, discuss please. RomaC TALK 04:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The section isn’t bloated, don’t know why it looks that way to you. And the situation is presumably ongoing… why wouldn’t we mention it? It seems quite notable to me, speaking, as it does, to HT’s legacy.  IronDuke  23:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The section is ridiculously bloated, according to some of us. We have argued that it giving this controversy so much article space is giving the controversy undue weight, not appropriate to the weight it has in her overall lifetime of work.  Thus, trimming out unnecessary parts of the section is a good plan.  I would argue that even if this speculation stays (it is sourced, after all), by about the beginning of August (after the Board will supposedly meet and discuss the issue) it should be removed.  The problem is that we have no reason to expect that, should the Board choose to keep the award name the same, that there will be any reliable sources reporting it ("Group X decides not to change the name of an award" does not make very good news).  We can't wait indefinitely for confirmation about whether or not the award name changes, and it will look awkward to say "The Board was supposed to decide around July what to do with the award" later on this year.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I can only say I disagree, as to bloat. This is an impactful thing as has happened in HT's life since... maybe ever. You are correct that we should not wait forever -- let's all try to keep trying to find sources in the coming weeks. IronDuke  02:30, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Bloat because despite a 50 year career covering 10 United States Presidents, about one-quarter of Thomas' article concerns a one-minute video exchange with an instigating blogger. Another concern is bio of living persons, in the "atmosphere of lynching" since her comments, we shouldn't be signposting the cybermob toward their next targets (SPJ/WayneU). RomaC  TALK 03:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's our job to encourage, or discourage, any sort of mob, cyber or otherwise, or even that we should be discussing such a thing. The section is not about one minute of video -- that would be OR. It's about the reaction to it/fallout from it, which was widespread and notable.  IronDuke  22:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Emphasis on Ethnicity
Mentioning her ethnicity in the infobox does not follow Wikipedia rules against emphasizing someone's ethnicity. It will be removed.-- An d Re w 01:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such rule, and more importantly, her ethnicity as an arab is notable to recent controversy, it is the ethnic group she self-identifies w/, and it is mentioned several times in this wiki article and in the article's references.You may also wish to see further discussion that was had on earlier, archived versions of this talk page.KeptSouth (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Coupla other things
I think this page needs quite a bit of clean-up, but to start things off I'm going to mention two things that particularly popped out to me. First, under the heading 'Obama Administration,' we have some very clear original research going on: the article reports a statement of Thomas', and goes on to say "This was an obvious reference to Israel's speculated nuclear weapons arsenal, which both the Israeli and the U.S. governments have refused to acknowledge." If this is such an obvious reference, let the readers infer it; but this is just editorialising. Perhaps we should do as Obama does, and not ""speculate" on the matter."

The other thing that jumps out as particularly slanted is from the section 'George W Bush Administration.' It quotes a question Thomas posed to Press Secretary Snow, and follows with Snow's response. All good. But then a particularly random (although well-sourced) fact pops up. We are told 'other members of the press weighed in,' and then we are given only one example of this (the example being, "According to Washington Post television critic Tom Shales, questions like the one above have sounded more like "tirades" and "anti-Israeli rhetoric""). This reads like someone simply endorsing Shales' view and trying to fit it into the article. Is the purpose of this quote meant to justify the preceding claim (that 'other members of the press weighed in')? If so, it doesn't -- more quotes would be necessary, as the claim is about members of the press. Further, if there are members of the press who supported Thomas, then a secondary quote should come from one of them (to balance things out a little). It may be that no-one supported her, but then the preceding claim could be a little more accurate: it could read, 'Other members of the press voiced their opinions, all of whom issued condemnation.' And if that's what happened, report that.

But to justify the inclusion of just one opinion on the basis of the preceeding sentence 'Other members of the press weighed in' would appear to be thoroughly insufficient. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Alright, this has been here for a while (to the extent that it was archived), and no-one's responded to it, so I've made the changes. Please, no-one say that I "didn't give an explanation." 203.45.146.36 (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You should feel free to find another quote, if you like. BTW, are you also using 203.45.113.155? Thanks. IronDuke  21:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether I find another quote or not doesn't change the fact that the one quote doesn't justify the preceding sentence.


 * I've only been using the one computer, so the IP address should always be the same, shouldn't it? I don't think I've ever been 203.45.113.155. Perhaps you could direct me to something this IP use has said, then I could be sure. My apologies if I have been confusing things by using different IP addresses. I should hope I have not. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the new quote, "Reagan administration spokesman Larry Speakes described Thomas as having "strong anti-Israeli feelings," first, could we perhaps try to have some balance by putting in someone who 'weighed in' but didn't criticise; and, second, this is not a reference to what Thomas said, it is a statement about Thomas (whether drawn from what she said or not). 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The edit in question is this one. And we can definitely have another quote to balance it. Great way to do it? Let your fingers work some Google magic, or get thee to a library. Happy hunting! IronDuke  01:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * In the immortal words of Chingy, "It wasn't me." 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As for me actually doing research myself, now you've discovered my weakness -- I'm a lazy bugger! I fully accept that criticism; however, I don't think that affects whether or not I am right about the imbalance or accuaracy of the section in question. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Doesn't affect it? It douses your point with gasoline and sets it aflame, is what it does. Allow me to paraphrase, in the form of a playlet.


 * Me: The earth is round.
 * You: Yes, I understand there are sources out there which allege that the earth is round, but what of other sources which may take a contrary view? Can we not have balance?"
 * Me: Well, I don't know that such sources exist. Perhaps you could find some?
 * You: I don't need to find sources to tell you that a theoretical possibility exists that some other view may be espoused. Someone needs to go out there and get those (possibly nonexistent) sources right now.
 * Me: Uh, no.


 * Exeunt all. IronDuke  02:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Then you're not reading my initial post.

Here's how it would actually go:

YOU: All planets are round.

ME: Oh yeah, you got any evidence?

YOU: Um, I can prove the earth is round.

ME: Well that doesn't justify saying that other planets are round.

YOU: Have you got evidence that they aren't?

ME: No, too lazy to get it. Do you think they are?

YOU: Well, I reckon it's probably pretty easy to check (I could just Google it), but instead I'll just write a Wikipedia article saying that they are.

The difference here, Ironduke, is that I'm not claiming anyone said this/that. So I don't need evidence for saying that someone said this/that.

The person writing the article, on the other hand, should have good evidence (and not just generalise from an isolated case); and should, if possible, be balanced. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Alas, I think my playlet confused you; your counter-example had nothing to do with what I wrote. I’ll try to simplify: I have sources, you do not, the end. IronDuke  23:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't get confused by your playlet; I just think it's not a very good fit. What I'm saying is that, if neither you or I can be bothered writing a balanced article (or bit of an article), isn’t it best to not have it? We try to achieve balance; if there is no balance, we don’t say “Oh what the heck, let’s write it anyway.” It’s better that Wikipedia not say something than that it says something unbalanced. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You say I don't have sources; but which of my points relies on sources? That the single quote doesn't justify the preceding sentence (and the purpose of its inclusion is otherwise hard to glean), or that -- if there is a quote to balance the article -- the writer of the artilce should write the article balanced (and if there is no such quote then the preceding sentence ought to be changed)? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's only unbalanced if there are good sources out there which contradict the quotes in question, which is to say, the lack of balance is purely theoretical. When you write "...if neither you or I can be bothered writing a balanced article..." your premise is false. You cannot be bothered to even determine if the article in question is unbalanced, much less fix it in that event. I've enjoyed this, but I don't have tons of time and what I do have I try to spend doing actual work here, not carping from the sidelines. I hope you'll join that process. IronDuke  02:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No no no -- here's from my original post:

"It may be that no-one supported her, but then the preceding claim could be a little more accurate: it could read, 'Other members of the press voiced their opinions, all of whom issued condemnation.' And if that's what happened, report that."

If there are, then keep it balanced.

As to where the facts lie -- well, shouldn't the onus be on the person who wrote the thing to figure that out? In either case, though, I'm saying something should be changed. Maybe that's wrong, but that's the claim. So it doesn't matter what the facts are; my suggestion doesn't rely on that. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 04:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ironduke: I realise you don't have a lot of time to spend on this, but my original post still hasn't been addressed, in that I am making a 'double-horned' suggestion (that is, whatever the facts, something should change). I just read the thing and I thought, as Precis said, "This page smacks of POV inclusion." It reads like someone has written the first sentence as a way of including the second. But in fact the first sentence doesn't justify the second (no matter the facts -- it's just to do with how 's' is used in the English language), and furthermore a writer aware of the facts could either make a more informative claim ('Other members of the press weighed in, and all were critical' or something), or balance the article. As it stands, it's hard to figure out what actually happened from reading the article. And surely if the writer can't be bothered doing any research beyond reading the article or POV he likes, he shouldn't be writing it. We're tying to be encyclopedic, right? I can't imagine such vagueries, borne of a writer's ignorance, making it into Encyclopedia Britannica. You do the research if you're the writer; the readers get to presume you've done that research, no onus is on them. If you can avoid ambiguity, if you have the knowledge to avoid ambiguity, then avoid it. Vagueries do have a place but when it's borne of a writer's ignorance it doesn't exactly come across as academic or reputable -- and when there's an easy alternative to a vague sentence, which is as succinct as the vague sentence, then I can see no reason to go with the vague sentence.

Anway, that's my problem: it doesn't rely on the facts (if there are quotes to balance it, balance it; if there aren't, say that and don't go for a vague sentence borne of ignorance), so all this talk of facts and my not willing to find out said facts doesn't touch on the issue I raised. So, while I understand you don't have time to keep coming back here and having a back and forth, perhaps you could just give a single response to my actual point and then we could probably end a debate rather quickly. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 07:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If people could object to these points before rather than after changes are made, that would be great; it would avoid that whole 'reversio-reversion-reversion' thing that happens. Thanks 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since it's been two weeks since my response to the only objector, and as I've since asked for discussion here before changes are made rather than after and there has been no subsequent discussion, I've made the change. Hopefully this will have avoided a 'reversion-reversion-reversion' thing that I'm sure nobody enjoys. Thanks everybody, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:33, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree w/Iron here. You shouldn't delete properly RS-supported material because of an IDONTLIKEIT rationale.  Which is all the above is.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's simply not the rationale. Say what you will about the rationale but please don't ridiculously mischaracterise it. Thanks, 203.45.146.36 (talk) 00:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I was going to go make part of the change just made, but I want to clarify my rationale as it wasn't explicit in User:Gamaliel's edit summary. Gamaliel removed the letter to the editor from Ruth Etzioni, and I want to concur with that removal.  Looking at the actual letter, Etizioni is not given any credentials, and appears to be just an average person writing a letter to the editor.  That's, of course, fine for a newspaper, but that letter certainly doesn't meet any of the WP:RS criteria.  So that reference should stay out of the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I didn't even notice the letter. I just removed the citation to it for the precise grounds that you just specified. Gamaliel (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)