Threeafterthree (talk | contribs) →Response section; Deletions of RS-referenced material: not a forum, stick to the article |
|||
Line 378: | Line 378: | ||
::::Editorials and op-ed's from non-RSs may be nonsense, but from RSs they are certainly appropriate on wikipedia.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
::::Editorials and op-ed's from non-RSs may be nonsense, but from RSs they are certainly appropriate on wikipedia.--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::::No, they arent. But if you feel so strongly that things like entries at huffingtonpost should be restored, by all means reinsert the Zogby comment with [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/helen-thomas_b_603588.html this] as the source. This is a biography of Helen Thomas, not the posting place for anybody who was quoted in a newspaper. Who cares what "former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee" thinks about what happened, why does that matter to a biography of Helen Thomas? This is all people finding quotes to support whatever opinion they want to amplify about this person and saying "its a RS". The threshold, meaning the minimum barrier, for material on Wikipedia is being verifiable. That does not mean everything that has ever been printed in a so-called reliable source should be included in an encyclopedia article. There are thousands of op-eds that say wild, demeaning, and sometimes racist things about people. We arent under any obligation to repeat any of that crap. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
:::::No, they arent. But if you feel so strongly that things like entries at huffingtonpost should be restored, by all means reinsert the Zogby comment with [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/helen-thomas_b_603588.html this] as the source. This is a biography of Helen Thomas, not the posting place for anybody who was quoted in a newspaper. Who cares what "former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee" thinks about what happened, why does that matter to a biography of Helen Thomas? This is all people finding quotes to support whatever opinion they want to amplify about this person and saying "its a RS". The threshold, meaning the minimum barrier, for material on Wikipedia is being verifiable. That does not mean everything that has ever been printed in a so-called reliable source should be included in an encyclopedia article. There are thousands of op-eds that say wild, demeaning, and sometimes racist things about people. We arent under any obligation to repeat any of that crap. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
(removed comment) |
|||
::::::1) Yes they are -- as I expect you know. I could waste time quoting your chapter and verse, but doubt that is necessary. 2) I'm fine with all RS referenced pertinent entries being included. Feel free to restore all that have been deleted (that are RS, not wetdreams.org, perhaps). 3) Your comment about Huckabee gave me a laugh. But its ridiculous. 4) We aren't discussing thousands of articles -- its curious how you and your pup are making the same incorrect statement. 5) I'm not sure that any of the comments at issue are racist or wild (excluding those of the subject).--[[User:Epeefleche|Epeefleche]] ([[User talk:Epeefleche|talk]]) 19:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::And who exactly is my pup? You didnt address a single one of my points, Im guessing because you cant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
:::::::And who exactly is my pup? You didnt address a single one of my points, Im guessing because you cant. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' - 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)</font></small> |
||
Revision as of 20:50, 17 June 2010
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Edit request from Joatsimeon, 6 June 2010
{{editsemiprotected}}
per talk page, article incorrectly states that Thomas said "Jews" should leave. She did not and the way it is written now defames her.
Joatsimeon (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Done. There is enough ambiguity in the statement to warrant a change per WP:BLP. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Joatsimeon - you are absolutely wrong. Obviously, you and most of the people commenting here did not take the time to listen to the clips. The entire approach by the rabbi is included "Any comments on Israel. We're asking everyone today - any comments on Israel." She talks over the last word. "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." (Note here, she does not stay - the West Bank, or the Palestinian territories. She is absolutely talking about "Palestine" - the area of the former British protectorate.) She is then asked "Oooh ... Any better comments on Israel?" She says "Remember. These people are occupied . . . and it's their land - not German and its not Poland." The interviewer says "So where should they go? What should they do?" She replies "Go home." He asks "Where's their home?" She replies "Poland. Germany." He asks "So the Jews - you're saying Jews go back to Poland and Germany?" She replies by nodding her head and continuing "And America and everywhere else." She was, by this time asked about, not Israel, but the Jews. She is talking about "the Jews" not the state of Israel, not Jewish settlers in the Palestinian territories. She is saying that the Jews in the area formerly known (and still known to her ilk) as Palestine, should "get the hell out" of "Palestine" and return to Poland and Germany (then as an afterthought tossing in America too. Note she is talking at a Jewish Heritage day celebration at the White House, and talking to a rabbi and two young men in skullcaps. This was not in the context of a foreign policy discussion - it was in the context of trying to offend some Jews who were bothering her by suggesting that the Jews of Israel should be sent back to death camp land.
Hypercallipygian (talk) 04:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Be that as it may, she did not say "Jews get out of Palestine." She did assent to the claim, but she didn't say it. Some may argue (though I'm not) that the follow-up question was leading, and I think it's only fair that readers get to make up their own minds about that. You got to -- if you're interpretation is so clear, you shouldn't have anything to worry about. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Although Thomas does seem to suggest that European Jews who have immigrated to Israel should return to their countries of national origin, the context indicates that her primary concern is the political status of the Palestine region, not racial bigotry.
- Certainly, Thomas was not suggesting that the Musta'arabi Jews leave Israel. Since they were native to the land of Israel, it would be nonsensical to suggest that they "return" to Europe.
- It's also unlikely that Thomas would support the expulsion of Jews who migrated to Palestine prior to 1947 and legally purchased their land from the native inhabitants. Her primary concern here is the occupied territories, which refers either to the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip or, more broadly, to the Arab lands and villages that were forcibly depopulated by the Israeli military following the 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Uncle Dick (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The assertion that Helen Thomas was only telling Jews of European descent to get the hell out of the Middle East is fallacious. It is an intentional mischaracterization of what she said, and is tailored only to fit one's own disingenuous support of a radical leftist-Islamophilic antiSemite. Not once did she ever say that Jews of Sephardic ancestry were excluded from her demands to vacate the Middle East. Moreover, any honest observer of current Middle East discussion is fully aware of the Muslims' unwavering insistence that the Jews never built Jerusalem, never constructed a temple at the Temple Mount, and never established any sovereign political state within any of the area that the Romans later called Palestine. Helen Thomas and her Islamofascist friends consistently assert that the Jews are illegitimate occupiers from Europe without any concession that despite the imposed diaspora and two millenia of pogroms, Jews remained in the Middle East. These eager revisionists of history also consistently deny the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab territories in 1947 - 1948 (and prior) who were intentionally sent to the infant state of Israel for their anticipated annihilation. Contrary to the assertions of patent liars mounting a defense of Helen Thomas, her primary concern is not "the occupied territories," but the expulsion of all Jews from the Middle East. She did not equivocate, was not ambiguous, and did not make any exceptions. Watch the video and stop lying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangelodiluce (talk • contribs) 20:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You say, "her primary concern is not "the occupied territories."" Let's not be ridiculous: you don't have more of an inisight into what she meant than SHE did. We're talking about what she said, not what she meant (re: what she said, see my response to Hypercallipygian, above). If we're talking about what she meant, I don't think that many people would support your interpretation (for the reasons outlined by Uncle Dick above). As for you saying that I'm a "radical leftist-Islamophilic antiSemite," an "Islamofascist" and other baseless pejoratives -- well, people, what does it take to get someone banned? 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That's not what she said
"and added that Palestine is a country under occupation, whose occupiers should return home..." This line, added June 1, puts words in Helen's mouth. Helen never stated that Palestine was a "country", nor did she specify that it was "occupiers" who should return home. Helen's exact words are readily available on YouTube, so editors should refrain from "interpreting" her remarks. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've changed it a bit to hopefully more accurately reflect her comments. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
We all now what she means. The Jews are occupying what is the nation of Israel in her (blp vio removed) and she thinks they should go back to Poland and Germany were millions of Jews were killed in World War II. She knows that Jews have lived in Israel for thousands of years before Islam was created. However, when people don't like Jews in general they don't look at all those little details. She thinks Jews should leave Israel. If you listen to the audio, the interviewer uses the words Jews, and she also knew before that what she meant. Put whatever nonsense you want in the article, but don't try to rationalize the hate speech she spewed.--Panzertank (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Knowing what she means and citing reliable sources are, however, two entirely different things. TFOWRidle vapourings 14:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. I am just a little sickened by people actually trying to defend anti-Semitic comments. Like I stated, put whatever you want in the article. Most people don't take what is on Wikipedia as accurate when it comes to these types of things anyway.--Panzertank (talk) 14:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
And I'm a little sickened by people like you, but here's not the place to talk about it. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately Wikipedia is as subjected to partisan people as the rest of society is. All we can do is stick to our policies on neutrality and hope that the two sides lose interest sooner rather than later. TFOWRidle vapourings 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Thomas' actual words and the questions she was asked should be copied here. It was a brief conversation. There will be people who agree that Palestine should replace Israel and that European Jews have no right to immigrate to the Middle East. (Thomas doesn't seem to realize most Israelis are from Middle Eastern countries.) The important part of her statement is her suggestion of forced repatriation.
People cannot be forced to return to countries which tried to kill them. That goes for the Middle Eastern Jews, too.
I think it's important to include the circumstances: it was American Jewish Heritage Celebration Day on the White House lawn. Ms. Thomas knew in advance the event was a positive one for American Jews. She chose to use strong language "Get the Hell out".
I used to respect Helen Thomas for her long years of apprenticeship as a woman journalist and her continuance in her career decades after retirement age. My respect is dented by her bigotry. Thomas didn't have to make these remarks. She exposed herself. Labellesanslebete (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
See, this annoys me. This is not the place to air such greivances. Even if you were suggesting changes to the actual article, you aren't suggesting nuetral ones. Her 'bigotry'? I personally think it's fairly damned clear that she was tapping into the 'Palestinians are treated shit by Israel' thing that isn't to do with bigotry but is to do with human rights, and just used the wrong words. I'm not telling you to believe this, but don't be so ignorant as to suggest that yours is the factual interpretation. Yours is opinion, mine is opinion; ideally, neither of us would be airing our opinions, but with all this crap about Thomas on this discussion page going unchallenged I'm guessing you and your ilk take that as some kind of justification. Hopefully, seeing an alternative opinion will help you see that yours is an opinion as well, and that -- even if you were trying to improve the Wiki-article, which you aren't -- your type of talk is simply not useful here. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Describing reactions
Is anyone going to object if the reactions of Bill Clinton special counsel Lanny Davis, and that of the Anti-Defamation League are included? Andjam (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- I probably would. This whole "event" is turning a mole hill into a mountain at this point imho. How big of a deal will this really be in say 10 years? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 13:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
What does it matter what people will think in 10 years? Her anti-Semitic comments have hurt her career, and her hate talk will be something she will always be remember for.--Panzertank (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- What does it matter what people will think in 10 years? Because this article will still be here, just without the large number of editors working on it. We should be striving for a long-term perspective. TFOWRidle vapourings 14:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The fact that people are trying to gloss over this by saying "people won't remember in 10 years" is absolutely sickening. All that's needed is her full, unabridged quote within its proper context. If that is removed, I will never use wikipedia again.
She will always be remembered for the hateful comments she put forth, she might even lose her position over it. It is very relevant to the article. Remember what Jimmy the Greek said about blacks? It destroyed his career and he will always be remembered for his comments, and his comments were not hateful comments like Helen Thomas's were.--Panzertank (talk) 14:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"Remember what Jimmy the Greek said about blacks?" No.
This is not the place for your polemics. 203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL. If and when she loses her job, then her losing her job is notable. Until then, could you dispense with the forum posts and the rhetoric, and focus on how to improve the article? TFOWRidle vapourings 14:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Be realistic, these comments will be something she will always be remembered for. It is relevant to the article.--Panzertank (talk) 14:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Her comments are. Your fortune telling isn't. TFOWRidle vapourings 14:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say to post what I think is going to happen. Oy vey!!--Panzertank (talk) 14:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- Then why comment here on what you think is going to happen? This is a talk page: it's for discussing ways to improve the article, not what some random pundit off the internet believes. TFOWRidle vapourings 14:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it looks like her comments have done her in.--Panzertank (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"denouncing Israeli Jews"
Could a source be provided for such a statement? nableezy - 23:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- FYI, I changed the wording to reflect the reporting in available sources, including CNN, BBC, ABC, and WaPo. All of these sources indicate that Thomas' comments were "controversial," but do not make the POV judgment that she "denounced" or even "was critical of" Israel. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good call. I should have reviewed the sources myself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have also reverted the lead about what she said. When asked to comment on Israel, she said they should get the hell out..., the commentator then said "what about the Jews", and Thomas went further. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear from her words that she is referring to people ("They should get the hell out," and "They should return.") rather than the state of Israel. I have changed the language to "Jews in Israel" as I believe it is the most accurate description of what her comments addressed. Wikieditorpro (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:OR and self-revert. What you think is "clear" may or may not be true, but that doesnt matter. We use reliable sources to make conclusions, we dont make them ourselves. nableezy - 19:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The title of the paragraph is not a matter of research, it's a matter of interpretation. Ari Fleisher in the Huffpo article, as well as many other commentators interpret it to be referring to Jews in Israel. It is in fact difficult to interpret her comments any other way.Wikieditorpro (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your "interpretation" is by definition OR. Ari Fleisher and HuffingtonPost are not reliable sources. You cannot insert your own interpretations into articles, especially biographies of living people. nableezy - 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Jews in Israel" is more than clear. This isn't WP:OR. That's why the statement was controversial in the first place. Nableezy, per your interpretation, if it's just about people then it's no controversy at all. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- As I explained above in one of the earlier discussion threads, Thomas' comments almost certainly do not refer to all Jews in Israel. Rather, she seems mostly concerned with European Jews who immigrated to Israel and occupied land previously owned by native Palestinians who were driven off of the land in the 1940s-1960s. Certainly there are Jews in Israel who were either native to the land or purchased land from the native inhabitants, and Thomas doesn't seem to have a problem with them. That's why "Jews in Israel" is problematic. It implies that Thomas' comments were racial in nature rather than political. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Per her comments, there was no nuance. You are interpreting her nuance. What should Israel do? --> As in Israeli Jews. She personifies the state, therefore referring to those individuals in it. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- But the problem is, not all of the Jews in Israel can "go back" to Europe. Some of them have been living there in Palestine for thousands of years! Either Helen Thomas is too ignorant to realize that, or her comments were directed at the political entity of Israel and those in Israel (Jewish or otherwise) who support the current government policy on the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and Palestinian right of return. Not all Jews in Israel can be considered "occupiers" because many were either native to the land prior to the beginning of the Zionist movement or purchased the land legally from Arab property owners. Thus Thomas' comments only make sense in the context of the political situation in Israel, not as a result of animus directed toward a particular ethnicity. Uncle Dick (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- "Jews in Israel" is more than clear. This isn't WP:OR. That's why the statement was controversial in the first place. Nableezy, per your interpretation, if it's just about people then it's no controversy at all. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Your "interpretation" is by definition OR. Ari Fleisher and HuffingtonPost are not reliable sources. You cannot insert your own interpretations into articles, especially biographies of living people. nableezy - 20:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is clear from her words that she is referring to people ("They should get the hell out," and "They should return.") rather than the state of Israel. I have changed the language to "Jews in Israel" as I believe it is the most accurate description of what her comments addressed. Wikieditorpro (talk) 19:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have also reverted the lead about what she said. When asked to comment on Israel, she said they should get the hell out..., the commentator then said "what about the Jews", and Thomas went further. Anyways, --Tom (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Good call. I should have reviewed the sources myself. Plot Spoiler (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- You are providing the "as in Israeli Jews". She didnt. She says "they should get the hell out of Palestine", not "their Jewish citizens should get the hell out of Palestine" or "Jews should get the hell out of Palestine". nableezy - 20:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- All of this arguing aside, most of the reliable sources, including those from news sources generally considered "neutral" like BBC, CNN, etc., indicate that Thomas' comments were directed toward Israel, not "Israeli Jews." Uncle Dick (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, many news sites for example CNN here (http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/06/07/pol.helen.thomas/index.html - Retirement comes amid furor over remarks about Jews) frame her remarks as referring to Israel AND Jews. Her most controversial comment; "they should go back to Poland and Germany..." was clearly in reference to Jews, not Israel. Wikieditorpro (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Arab
On June 9, a change was made to the introductory section identifying Helen Thomas as being of "Lebanese Arab descent". The term "arab" is offensive to most Lebanese Christians. It should be removed. The term "Lebanese" is specific enough, and accurate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.196.29 (talk) 13:43, June 9, 2010
Really? I'm a Leb Christ; I didn't know I was meant to take offence to that. Damn!203.45.146.36 (talk) 03:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I would be inclined to agree with you, but the Wiki article on Arab people would tend toward referring to her ethnicity as an accurate statement.grifterlake (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- More importantly perhaps, the full version of the video has her describing herself as "of Arab background". The current citations for this description in the "Early life" section seem to be all from offline books, so perhaps not ideal in terms of verification. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Some Lebanese Christians do not identify as "Arab", others, such as James Abourezk (who founded the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee), or James Zogby, (co-founder of that organization and later founder of the Arab American Institute) have no problem identifying as Arab. Such identifications should be left to the individual, and if she describes her background as "Arab" so should we. nableezy - 19:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have never heard that most Lebanese Christian Arabs are offended by being called an Arab, and I couldn't find any source for that belief. Perhaps the person who made this statement has confused "Arab" with "Muslim". I believe that some Christian Arabs may be offended when it is mistakenly assumed that they are Muslim, but if they are Arab, they are Arab. KeptSouth (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The demographics article gives some detail. I can't argue with "if they are Arab, they are Arab", but the issue is over "Lebanese Christian", not "Lebanese Christian Arab". TFOWRidle vapourings 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no real issue here. WP is not to be used as a source, the WP article you refer to does not say most Lebanese Christians are offended, and the only related statements it makes are based on one source, a magazine article. In any event this entire discussion is inapplicable to whether Thomas is a Lebanese-Christian-Arab or not, or simply an Arab. She says she is all of these things, and there are multiple sources backing these facts. KeptSouth (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Apologies, I wasn't suggesting we use the demographics article as a source, merely suggesting that it helps clarify the issue to us (why some Lebanese avoid the term "Arab"). TFOWRidle vapourings 11:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is nothing to apologize for, you weren't rude. Your signature "idle vaporings" is sufficient disclaimer. I would think that by now though you would have come to the realization that Wikipedia articles rarely clarify things. To get back to the issue: there is no issue regarding Thomas' ethnicity or self identification. KeptSouth (talk) 11:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no real issue here. WP is not to be used as a source, the WP article you refer to does not say most Lebanese Christians are offended, and the only related statements it makes are based on one source, a magazine article. In any event this entire discussion is inapplicable to whether Thomas is a Lebanese-Christian-Arab or not, or simply an Arab. She says she is all of these things, and there are multiple sources backing these facts. KeptSouth (talk) 11:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- The demographics article gives some detail. I can't argue with "if they are Arab, they are Arab", but the issue is over "Lebanese Christian", not "Lebanese Christian Arab". TFOWRidle vapourings 11:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- I have never heard that most Lebanese Christian Arabs are offended by being called an Arab, and I couldn't find any source for that belief. Perhaps the person who made this statement has confused "Arab" with "Muslim". I believe that some Christian Arabs may be offended when it is mistakenly assumed that they are Muslim, but if they are Arab, they are Arab. KeptSouth (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Helen Thomas might consider herself of "Arab background", because that's how, unfortunately, Americans like to label and categorize people. Complicated stuff is just too much to handle. In reality, Helen Thomas is of mixed Greek and Syrian/Lebanese ancestry. In the Middle East, the sect one belongs to points to the origins. She belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch (one of the earliest churches in existence, if not the oldest still existing). Her name is Helen (if Helen is not Hellene (Greek), I don't know what is). Her surname is originally Antonios, which is Greek. I mean, for goodness sake, do you want St. Luke himself, a Greek-Syrian of Antioch, to call himself an Arab? Think before you type of speak! John.hayek (talk) 17:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, please think before you type. If Helen Thomas chooses to identify as "Arab" that is not something that you, or I, or anybody else, can dispute. There are Egyptians that do not consider themselves Arab and Egyptians that do, both Muslim and Christian. The same is true in Lebanon and Syria. But such matters are largely left to self-identification. If you wish to say she is not "Arab" get some sources that do. As it stands, she considers herself of "Arab" background. There really shouldn't be any cause for dispute here. nableezy - 18:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Are you saying that if Obama once claimed to be an Asian-American, his biography should state so? He did claim once that he's Jewish and that his name is Baruch Obama. What about McCain claiming to be Georgian. Should Wikipedia report him as of Georgian descent? John.hayek (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- If Obama self-identified as "Asian" then we should say that, though that would be difficult with an African father and white mother. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute Thomas is of "Arab" origin? Not that Lebanese Christians are not Arab, but that Thomas herself is not? nableezy - 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, go to any website of a Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or Antiochian Orthodox to understand who their adherents are. They are primarily Byzantine Greeks, a Hellenized population, that fought the Arabs and prevented their invasion of the Levant (ever heard of the Byzantine-Arab wars?). Plus, Helen Thomas's name, her church, her skin color, everything about her screams Greek-Syrian. John.hayek (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, do you have a source that Thomas herself is not Arab? Not that Lebanese Christians are not Arab, but that Helen Thomas is not of Arab origin? She self-identifies as Arab, you are not in a position to challenge that. nableezy - 19:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- And to further push this POV, you removed the quote from Thomas saying she is of Arab background. nableezy - 19:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, everything about her screams Greek-Syrian (Christian). For you, an Arabizer, who wants to turn every Levantine into an Arab, the burden of proof rests upon you to show that she self-identifies as Arab. If you can provide a reputable source that says that, then it's a different story. But your bullying has no place in this site. John.hayek (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- You removed the quote from her saying she is of Arab background. Are you really that dense? You are asking me to provide "proof" that she identifies as Arab after you remove a quote from her identifying as Arab? I am not an "Arabizer", whatever the hell that means, and I am not "bullying". And here is another source identifying Thomas as Arab-American; [1]. nableezy - 23:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Like I said, everything about her screams Greek-Syrian (Christian). For you, an Arabizer, who wants to turn every Levantine into an Arab, the burden of proof rests upon you to show that she self-identifies as Arab. If you can provide a reputable source that says that, then it's a different story. But your bullying has no place in this site. John.hayek (talk) 20:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, go to any website of a Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch or Antiochian Orthodox to understand who their adherents are. They are primarily Byzantine Greeks, a Hellenized population, that fought the Arabs and prevented their invasion of the Levant (ever heard of the Byzantine-Arab wars?). Plus, Helen Thomas's name, her church, her skin color, everything about her screams Greek-Syrian. John.hayek (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- If Obama self-identified as "Asian" then we should say that, though that would be difficult with an African father and white mother. Do you have any reliable sources that dispute Thomas is of "Arab" origin? Not that Lebanese Christians are not Arab, but that Thomas herself is not? nableezy - 18:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- It is clearly original research to say Thomas is a Greek/Syrian. And there are no sources to back up that assertion, so I will remove it, per BLP policies.
- Are you saying that if Obama once claimed to be an Asian-American, his biography should state so? He did claim once that he's Jewish and that his name is Baruch Obama. What about McCain claiming to be Georgian. Should Wikipedia report him as of Georgian descent? John.hayek (talk) 18:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that one be a Greek to join a Greek Orthodox church -- membership in a church does not confer or determine ethnicity. There are multiple sources that say she is an Arab, that her parents immigrated from Tripoli, a city in Lebanon, and that she is a Christian. However, since the forces at work on this article will not allow the well sourced information regarding her ethnicity into the infobox, I won't add it back at this time. KeptSouth (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- KeptSouth, you obviously don't know anything about the Middle East. The Middle East is not like the US, if one belongs to a "denomination", it's because they decided to join a church. In the Middle East, a person's ethnicity is defined by what "sect" one belongs to. The "sect" that one belongs to has its own history and that includes that individual's ancestors' history and how they ended up in Lebanon. Lebanon is a mountainous area that served as a refuge for ancient persecuted sects. There are 20 of those in Lebanon, 14 of them Christian, 5 of them Muslim, and one Jewish. If a person belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, that means that their heritage is a mix of ancient Syrians and Greeks of the Syrian tetrapolis (Antioch, Apamea, Laodicea, and Seleucia Pieria). After the fall of the Byzantine controlled Levant at the hand of Arabs and then the Turks, those inhabitants got scattered in Syria and Lebanon. Helen's parents were from Tripoli, Lebanon, which isn't too far from Antioch. Today, many people who have no clue about the history of the region label everyone as Arab, even the people who inhabit it have become brainwashed to even forget their own history. It's sad. John.hayek (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have been provided with sources that say Helen Thomas is Arab or Arab American. You have been provided with a quote from Thomas were she identifies her background as "Arab". What you bring back is nonsense about her skin color being obviously Greek. That does not do. You need to provide a source that disputes that Thomas herself is not of Arab background or this article will say her background is Arab. That you do not like how Thomas identifies herself does not matter. nableezy - 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I specifically addressed the comments to KeptSouth, not you. So do not comment. I know your kind, a bedouin turned Palestinian Arab who wants to turn everyone into an Arab. I'm giving you the truth, and what you care about is to insert the word Arab in her bio to make you feel better about your poor Palestinian soul! This Arab-American thing is so inaccurate that even the official website of Lebanese Americans classifies Lebanese Americans as only 10% Arabs (that's counting the Muslims in) [2]! John.hayek (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- To your first request, no. Second, I am not Palestinian. Third, Lebanon, in its constitution, defines itself as an Arab country. Last, get a source that disputes that Helen Thomas herself is Arab. She says she is and sources say she is. On the other hand we have you, some random person on the internet incapable of making a coherent argument, that she is not. Would you like to guess which side loses that argument? nableezy - 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current Lebanese constitution is an abomination. Lebanon was never an "Arab" country until 1989, the end of the civil war. At that time, the Christians were weak without any leaders, and the Saudis sponsored an "agreement" that didn't have any true Christian representation. During that summit in Taif, Saudi Arabia, adjustments to the Constitution of Lebanon were made such as declaring that Lebanon is an Arab country. For Lebanese Christians, that was a travesty, that's why the Christians boycotted two elections in 1992 and 1996. One cannot become an Arab overnight. That's why many Lebanese Christians are highly offended by the term Arab, because it's imposed against their will. John.hayek (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- Whatever you say may be true, I honestly dont care, but Thomas is obviously not offended by the term and it has not been imposed against her will. She identified as Arab. You are not in a position to impose your views on whether or not she is on her. Im sorry you dont like how Thomas chooses to define herself, but your personal antipathy to such an identification doesnt mean anything here. nableezy - 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- The current Lebanese constitution is an abomination. Lebanon was never an "Arab" country until 1989, the end of the civil war. At that time, the Christians were weak without any leaders, and the Saudis sponsored an "agreement" that didn't have any true Christian representation. During that summit in Taif, Saudi Arabia, adjustments to the Constitution of Lebanon were made such as declaring that Lebanon is an Arab country. For Lebanese Christians, that was a travesty, that's why the Christians boycotted two elections in 1992 and 1996. One cannot become an Arab overnight. That's why many Lebanese Christians are highly offended by the term Arab, because it's imposed against their will. John.hayek (talk) 04:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
- To your first request, no. Second, I am not Palestinian. Third, Lebanon, in its constitution, defines itself as an Arab country. Last, get a source that disputes that Helen Thomas herself is Arab. She says she is and sources say she is. On the other hand we have you, some random person on the internet incapable of making a coherent argument, that she is not. Would you like to guess which side loses that argument? nableezy - 21:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- I specifically addressed the comments to KeptSouth, not you. So do not comment. I know your kind, a bedouin turned Palestinian Arab who wants to turn everyone into an Arab. I'm giving you the truth, and what you care about is to insert the word Arab in her bio to make you feel better about your poor Palestinian soul! This Arab-American thing is so inaccurate that even the official website of Lebanese Americans classifies Lebanese Americans as only 10% Arabs (that's counting the Muslims in) [2]! John.hayek (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- You have been provided with sources that say Helen Thomas is Arab or Arab American. You have been provided with a quote from Thomas were she identifies her background as "Arab". What you bring back is nonsense about her skin color being obviously Greek. That does not do. You need to provide a source that disputes that Thomas herself is not of Arab background or this article will say her background is Arab. That you do not like how Thomas identifies herself does not matter. nableezy - 16:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- KeptSouth, you obviously don't know anything about the Middle East. The Middle East is not like the US, if one belongs to a "denomination", it's because they decided to join a church. In the Middle East, a person's ethnicity is defined by what "sect" one belongs to. The "sect" that one belongs to has its own history and that includes that individual's ancestors' history and how they ended up in Lebanon. Lebanon is a mountainous area that served as a refuge for ancient persecuted sects. There are 20 of those in Lebanon, 14 of them Christian, 5 of them Muslim, and one Jewish. If a person belongs to the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch, that means that their heritage is a mix of ancient Syrians and Greeks of the Syrian tetrapolis (Antioch, Apamea, Laodicea, and Seleucia Pieria). After the fall of the Byzantine controlled Levant at the hand of Arabs and then the Turks, those inhabitants got scattered in Syria and Lebanon. Helen's parents were from Tripoli, Lebanon, which isn't too far from Antioch. Today, many people who have no clue about the history of the region label everyone as Arab, even the people who inhabit it have become brainwashed to even forget their own history. It's sad. John.hayek (talk) 04:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- There is no requirement that one be a Greek to join a Greek Orthodox church -- membership in a church does not confer or determine ethnicity. There are multiple sources that say she is an Arab, that her parents immigrated from Tripoli, a city in Lebanon, and that she is a Christian. However, since the forces at work on this article will not allow the well sourced information regarding her ethnicity into the infobox, I won't add it back at this time. KeptSouth (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
[redent]@John.hayek - I am responding to your comment
KeptSouth, you obviously don't know anything about the Middle East. The Middle East is not like the US, if one belongs to a "denomination", it's because they decided to join a church. In the Middle East, a person's ethnicity is defined by what "sect" one belongs to. The "sect" that one belongs to has its own history and that includes that individual's ancestors'.... Lebanon is a mountainous area that served as a refuge for ancient persecuted sects.
You are saying that membership in a particular church in the ME during the days of the Ottoman empire determined or definitively indicated ethnicity and that the Orthodox Christian church was comprised of "sects". I disagree, but in fact, your unsupported assertions and argument are somewhat irrelevant because we do not know what church Thomas' parents belonged to in the ME. We do know they belonged to a Greek Orthodox church in Detroit, Michigan. According to American custom, that did not make them Greek, but it did make them Christian. We do not know why they joined that particular church. Thomas says hers was the only Arab family in her east Detroit neighborhood; it is possible they joined that particular church because it was the closest Christian Orthodox church. Regardless, Mr. & Mrs. Thomas' membership in a Greek Orthodox church nearly 100 years ago did not take away their Arab language or their self-identification as Arabs, or Helen's self identification as an Arab.
I will post a few clear references about Thomas' religion, ethnicity and national origin below, and then I will re-add this information to the article. If this is unacceptable to you, then I suppose we will have to go to ANI. I trust that you will avoid the uncivil behavior, name calling and innuendo that you sometimes employ when someone opposes your view on middle east issues. My motivations and orientation are simple, and you need not waste your time by speculating any further. The reason why I hold a view which is counter to yours is because your opinions here are counter factual and based upon unsourced assumptions which are often tangential and sometimes totally off topic. It is very simple. Reliably sourced and relevant information belongs in the article, unsourced and irrelevant trivia does not. — Best regards KeptSouth (talk) 10:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[redent]@John.hayek You say:
This Arab-American thing is so inaccurate that even the official website of Lebanese Americans classifies Lebanese Americans as only 10% Arabs (that's counting the Muslims in) [3]!
The site is not official and it makes very doubtful and undocumented claims such as there is separate "language" called Lebanese. The site also says that only 10% of all Lebanese Americans are Arab, based on a "census for Lebanese Americans are hence obtained from the Christian churches in which most of them attend". Again, very dubious, unscientific and unsupported assertions. The only thing that is certain about this website is that it is written by someone who does not speak English very well.
What matters to this article is what Thomas says she is. She says she is of "Arab background" in the Rabbi's interview. I find it curious that people here are effectively inserting words and terms into what she did say based on their own very large assumptions. And, at the same time, some of these same editors delete and/or deny the portions of Thomas' remarks that are quite clear. I will post Thomas' words here, as transcribed by a RS. I will also post a quote from one of her books. This should settle the matter, for all who are following the Wiki polices, and guidelines and acting in good faith. — Best regards, KeptSouth (talk) 11:07, 15 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)
- 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)
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)
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)
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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- "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)
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)
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)
Controversy and Resignation
It seems odd that the section Controversy and Resignation has only one titled subsection (as of June 12, 2010). Should there be a second subsection, entitled something like Repercussions? 72.130.181.15 (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I made the Nesenoff article
Hi everybody, I made a quick sweep of the internet and created the David Nesenoff article out of what I was able to find. Please feel free to contribute.--Louiedog (talk) 15:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Arbitration
I'm shocked. I tried and tried to come up with proper wording in the lead which is supported by reliable sources, is linguistically sound, and above all is NPOV. Yet, some editors are hell bent on seeing it written incorrectly and no amount of reasoning will do; I've tried everything.
Therefore we need to take this to arbitration. Please someone, show me how to do it. Thank you. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hi Fandriampahalamana. First off, this seems like a content dispute, happens alot in this project :). Second, please try to assume good faith about other editors who could easily attack you and say similar things about yourself(I am not doing that). Thirdly, mabe if we could get more non involved folks to chime in, that always helps? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- The way these words have been changed and reverted numerous times doesn't show good faith to me. I'm not saying anything bad about anyone in particular, but it seems to me (after trying everything) that some editors are hell bent to write it their way without conforming to grammar and NPOV, therefore why waste time? It will anyway end up in arbitration, so let’s take it there now. Can anyone please show me how? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Mlive.com puts it this way: "In the wake of the controversy, Thomas has retired..." CNN puts it this way: "Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, amid furor over ..." Both sources are reliable. Editor F insists on selecting the latter quote. Arbitration would doom F, because arbitrators invariably prefer the less highly charged language, in an effort to promote consensus. Precis (talk) 07:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I should hope that the arbitrators are more capable then that. Anyway, arbitration says that it is as a last resort. Wonder when that happens. To me it already is a last resort but maybe for the fun of it I'll give it a try. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Response section; Deletions of RS-referenced material
It seems that this is becoming bloated with opinions from alot of folks. Is this really necessary per undue weight? Anyways, --Tom (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- If those opinions are in RSs, and on-point, it is appropriate. It is not undue weight if people are expressing the opinions, and RSs are covering them.
- It may even be that certain opinions not in RSs, such as Nader's, may be appropriate as well. Though I notice that it is not that arguably non-RS opinion (is the dreams.org really an RS?) which you are seeking to delete, but rather RS opinions.
- On another note, kindly stop deleting RS material. As I have discussed in edit summaries, and on your talk page, and which I have warned you for here and here.
- As discussed in greater length there, you've deleted relevant material from an RS column on the bald assertion that it is not notable -- but as it is an RS publication, the view (which is directly on point) expressed in that column is notable. Your assertion to the contrary, bald as it is, is unsupported and your contemporaneous edit warring is disruptive. You've done it again, even after being warned, here.
- Similarly, your deletion of the phrase "abruptly", used by countless RSs to describe the nature of her resignation and reflected in 150,000 ghits, is inappropriate for the reasons detailed on your talk page. I would appreciate it if you would stop edit warring there as well.
- Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should we include commentary from 1,000s of folks from 1,000s of sources? Just stick to a few/some reaction from notable sources, that should suffice. --Tom (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- At last count, we were not reflecting the 150,000 ghits. Nor 1,000s of folks. I believe we limited ourselves primarily to RS-sourced statements, and something a bit shy of 1,000s of such comments. Though the Nader comment in something called CommonDreams.org may not be in an RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:04, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Should we include commentary from 1,000s of folks from 1,000s of sources? Just stick to a few/some reaction from notable sources, that should suffice. --Tom (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
This is a BLP, we have higher standards than "somebody said something". nableezy - 16:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- RS-reported ones. I don't see 1,000s of RS-reported statements. Neither in the article, nor in the real world. As to Nab -- yes, we do ... perhaps we should delete the CommonDreams.org ref and accompanying text?--Epeefleche (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you should. All that nonsense, from whatever site, op-ed editorial, whatever. It all should go. Well maybe not you, as you are already at 3 reverts in the last few hourse, but that material should be removed. nableezy - 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've pulled out the CommonDreams.org stuff - it seemed to give WP:UNDUE-weight to the positive reactions, which I gather are thin on the ground. Hezbollah should be enough, surely? TFOWR 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Editorials and op-ed's from non-RSs may be nonsense, but from RSs they are certainly appropriate on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, they arent. But if you feel so strongly that things like entries at huffingtonpost should be restored, by all means reinsert the Zogby comment with this as the source. This is a biography of Helen Thomas, not the posting place for anybody who was quoted in a newspaper. Who cares what "former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee" thinks about what happened, why does that matter to a biography of Helen Thomas? This is all people finding quotes to support whatever opinion they want to amplify about this person and saying "its a RS". The threshold, meaning the minimum barrier, for material on Wikipedia is being verifiable. That does not mean everything that has ever been printed in a so-called reliable source should be included in an encyclopedia article. There are thousands of op-eds that say wild, demeaning, and sometimes racist things about people. We arent under any obligation to repeat any of that crap. nableezy - 18:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Editorials and op-ed's from non-RSs may be nonsense, but from RSs they are certainly appropriate on wikipedia.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've pulled out the CommonDreams.org stuff - it seemed to give WP:UNDUE-weight to the positive reactions, which I gather are thin on the ground. Hezbollah should be enough, surely? TFOWR 17:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Yes you should. All that nonsense, from whatever site, op-ed editorial, whatever. It all should go. Well maybe not you, as you are already at 3 reverts in the last few hourse, but that material should be removed. nableezy - 16:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
(removed comment)
- And who exactly is my pup? You didnt address a single one of my points, Im guessing because you cant. nableezy - 20:06, 17 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)