Talk:Helen Thomas/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Official website hacked

I have removed the link to Helen Thomas's official website, as the site has been hacked and is currently compromised. I have removed the link, as one never knows if the site may be running exploits (I was prompted to download a "plug-in"). In the mean time if you wish to view the site and understand that whatever happens to your computer as a result of visiting a known-compromised site is your responsibility, you may click here.

I will be checking the site every so-often to determine when it's appropriate to re-add the link to the article. –ArmadniGeneral (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP

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

WP:BLP applies to all pages on Wikipedia. You cannot call a living person an "antisemite" or "stark raving mad" or "clearly entrenched in the leftist-jihadist alliance" without high quality reliable sources saying these things. That they are your opinions do not make them kosher, for lack of a better word, for you to spout them on this website. nableezy - 20:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone say we should include those things in the article?--Panzertank (talk) 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter, you cant include them on the talk page either. nableezy - 20:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

They have, been included. Get over yourself!--Panzertank (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

And I have removed them. Let me put this bluntly. If you, or anyone else, makes comments that violate WP:BLP you may be blocked from editing. nableezy - 21:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Watch your tone! I will report you in a second if you try these bullying tone and with me or anyone else. FINAL WARNING.--Panzertank (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not "bullying" you or anybody else. I am telling you what you can expect if you choose to ignore what WP:BLP says. You cannot say such things about a living person anywhere on Wikipedia. If you do, you may be blocked from editing. That is not a "threat" nor is it "bullying". It is part of a Wikipedia policy. nableezy - 03:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Websters Dictionary: an·ti–Sem·i·tism Pronunciation: \ˌan-tē-ˈse-mə-ˌti-zəm, ˌan-ˌtī-\ Function: noun Date: 1882

hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group

Helen Thomas said 'they' should get out of Palestine. She also stated that 'they' should go back home to Germany, Poland, and the USA. She was speaking of Jews. So she was saying that Jews should leave an area because they are occupiers. She didn't say the Jews should go to other parts of pre-1967 Israel, she said 'the'y should go back to Germany, Poland and the USA. So she is in the least saying Jews should leave the areas of land gained through the 1967 War and not even stay in Israel. She didn't mention the thousands of Christians, both Arab and Israeli that live in these lands. She didn't mention the thousands of Muslims that are not of Palestinian origin to leave, she made it clear she was speaking of Jews.

So by excluding other non-Jewish groups to leave that would also by classified as 'occupiers', she is being anti-Semitic by definition. The reason why she appears to be discriminating against the Jews is because she is not saying members of other religious groups who would be considered occupiers should leave, only those who are Jewish. So to say she is anti-Semitic is accurate.--Panzertank (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Allow me to provide a lesson in WP:OR and WP:BLP. You cannot use your own reasoning to call a living person "anti-Semitic" on any page within Wikipedia. You need to provide solid references to support this assertion, and the references themselves must make the conclusion that you are making. Please stop, or I will be asking for administrative intervention. If you feel the need to demonstrate that some person is an antisemite, get a blog. nableezy - 06:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, Nableezy is an anti-semite trying to hide the true nature and intent of Helen Thomas comments... There have been multiple people who have referred to the comments as Anti- Semitic... such as former President Bill Clinton Counsel Larry Davis called Ms. Thomas an "anti-Semitic bigot," and her comments were referred to as anti Semitic by former NYC mayor Ed Koch and by former WH press SECRETARY ARI FLEISCHER, both of whom are Jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetruthspeaker09 (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly, I dont know how I missed it. Now would you be so kind as to tell us what your primary account is? nableezy - 10:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[An editor] is an anti-semite? Do not say things like that. It is exteremly inappropriate.

By all means, cite reliable sources, but do not attribute views to other editors. Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

"I believe Helen Thomas is a X" is not acceptable, per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP.

"Helen Thomas is Y" is not acceptable, per WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:BLP.

"Bill Clinton described Helen Thomas as Z" is acceptable - if properly cited to a reliable source.

Cheers, TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 09:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy is right. This is a systemic issue confined not just to Thomas but to media articles in general, where the ordinary rules of BLP and NPOV don't seem to apply. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

No, actually Nableezy should recuse themselves from this conversation, since their user page displays an obvious bias in the matter of the State of Israel. The accusation of sock-puppetry has now been made, and it may or may not be true. That is for someone more qualified to decide. Personally, I would like to see good sources of the "anti-semite" label before letting it into the article, and even then, the phrasing should be regarding the fact that she has been labeled as an anti-semite by those particular groups or such, and not a defining statement that she is. But seriously, Nableezy, how can you even participate on a non-biased level when the topic is related to these types of issues? Your user page is a political statement which basically echos what Helen Thomas said, from a Palestinian perspective.--Lfarmingham (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. I am capable of putting aside any personal views I have about this or any other topic and edit according to the policies of Wikipedia, namely WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:BLP. I need not be unbiased, my edits need to be unbiased. And Im not Palestinian, so it would be hard for me to say something from a "Palestinian perspective". But to the point, WP requires exceptional sourcing for potentially defamatory claims. If such sources are provided such statements may be made, if not they may not be. The point of this section was to remind people that WP:BLP applies not only to articles but to all pages on Wikipedia. And finally, there is exactly one thing on my userpage that is my own personal view, the rest are quotes from others. If you wish to discuss my userpage, the appropriate venue would be my talkpage. But I wont be recusing myself from anything. nableezy - 17:57, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

off-topic discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Looking at the history of your userpage, it was vandalized with a "stop the pro-palestinian mafia", so I assume you already have read the huge, and I mean huge, history of your talk page which is filled with accusations of bias and people seeing you as having an "anti-Israel" agenda. Therefore, the comments, and the suspicious appearance you make here don't really fit with an appearance of propriety. You also have accused someone here of being a sockpuppet, and you are being evasive about the contents of your user page. At the same time, from edits you have made and conversations you have had, I can see you will continue with the inappropriate behavior no matter what, and try and push a political agenda here, so I will cease wasting my time.--Lfarmingham (talk) 02:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) That is a wonderful idea. And my userpage is not something to be evasive about, but if you wish to discuss it please go to my user talk page. If you feel I am engaging in "inappropriate behavior" you are free to file a complaint. And if you feel my appearance here is "suspicious", a curious thing for an account with five edits before arriving at this page to say, you may file a complaint. Until you do so, read WP:TALK and try and keep your comments here focused on the article. nableezy - 03:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Why would I bother to file a complaint? I wouldn't want to slog through your talk page history if I were being paid to do so. Looking through a portion told me what I needed to know, and I don't need more verification. Also, predictably, you show up at my talk page and accuse me of sock-puppetry, and imply here that my lack of edits is indicative of such here. I expected that, since your talk page/history show that pattern as well. Here's the difference: aside from spelling/grammar fixes that I did anonymously, I never needed to have an account, since I mostly read Wikipedia, and don't edit. Possibly because I don't have something to drive me to do so, like for example trying to influence people's views of the Israel-Palestine issue. I've also had this account for about a month (signed up because I wanted to be able to participate in semi-protected articles. I made one edit, only after 3 days of discussion in the article. I also have not labeled the subject of this article as an anti-semite, and have said that I believe she not be labeled as such unless good sources have been provided, which I have not seen done. So I disagree with the people in this section who state that it is ok to label her anti-semite. But, nableezy was obviously using a sock-puppet accusation ("would you please tell us what your primary account is?") as a debating tactic. Completely inappropriate.--Lfarmingham (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)--Lfarmingham (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC) Good luck with that. In the meantime, as I already said, keep your comments here focused on the article. Your comments, like the ones in the past, are mostly nonsense not worth responding to, so I wont. Again, a talk page is for discussing an article, not what you think my motives are. I'll be collapsing most of this nonsense. nableezy - 13:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it should stay here so that people can see it. Nothing about this is off-topic, as it concerns your ability to remain neutral on the subject, and it's on the discussion page of the topic in question.--Lfarmingham (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, Nableezy may be on the "other side", but I have always found him to approach issues from a pragmatic standpoint. BLP is very very clear, one cannot classify someone as an "anti-semite" or whatnot unless they either specifically announce that they are (using those terms) or there is a number of very clear and credible sources saying such. Anything that could even be remotely considered OR, must be excluded. Just my 2 cents. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that I agree with collapsing/closing the discussion. There is a consensus here that Nableezy is correct on the facts and policies. Article talk pages are not to be used to make derogatory remarks or personal attacks on other editors, and that simple rule is stated in the headers of this very page. I will be re-closing/collapsing - KeptSouth (talk) 11:26, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Having one correct statement (as in, any accusations against HT should be well sourced) does not leave the rest of the conversation without value. Also, as activity basically had stopped in this section anyway, there is no need to declare it verboten by decree.--Lfarmingham (talk) 05:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

How about verboten (nice) by consensus-of-all-but-one? Nableezy's ability to remain neutral is off-topic here: Why would I bother to file a complaint? If you can't be bothered taking your complaint to an appropriate venue, why should we be expected to pay attention to further off-topic griping? I've collapsed this off-topic discussion again: if you have a genuine complaint against any editor I'll be happy to help you take it to an appropriate venue. TFOWR^{idle vapourings} 08:02, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Controversial Remarks on Israel from YouTube

Don't be fooled by the sweet face of this little old lady. She's a (blp vio removed). She should be fired and sent packing back to Detroitistan. I'd be very happy to see this (blp vio removed) limping away from Washington on her walker with her wrinkled little tail between her legs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.18.72 (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas did not make those remarks outside a white house jewish heritage event. This is partisan lies. This wiki should not be used as a political football, especially for minorites. The fact is, she works in the white house, not at some jewish event. IMHO the whole idea of putting "controversy" heading in a BIO, at the convenience of whomever is trying to smear Helen's reputation is horrible. --Kanliot (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

this is a completely biased and false entry. the fact that she works in the White House does not in any way contradict the fact that she was at an event at the White House celebrating Jewish Heritage. Nobody is smearing anything ... they are merely reporting statements made by the individual in questionDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

While this video is getting quite a bit of play on pro-Israel blogs, a Google search reveals no reliable sources to indicate the significance of any controversy arising from Thomas' remarks. Thomas herself has already issued an apology on her personal web site, but without reliable, secondary sources, this section could (should?) be removed for lack of verifiability. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

The mere fact of this entry in attempting to remove the mention of these statements evidences controversy regarding the statements. Further, this entry acknowledges the apology issued by Thomas, further supporting the controversy to which it gave rise, otherwise their would be no need for an apologyDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

It clearly meets verifiability, whether it meets weight or reliable sourcing is a seperate issue. This was a pretty inflamatory statement, I am quite suprised that it hasn't recieved much coverage. If such a statement had been made by Beck or Hannity it would be front page news. Arzel (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced YouTube with a Fox News link. Oren0 (talk) 01:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Solution: change the section headline to "Anti-Israel Bias". Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.121.62.146 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The statement is anti-Semitic. If she would of said, "All blacks should go back to Africa", would there be a doubt that she was racist? Why should we doubt she is anti-Semitic?--Panzertank (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Although she might not be clear about the difference between 'Jew' and 'Zionism', it's hard to identify her statement as anti-Semitic, since there are also some Jewish groups against Zionism. She also stressed that those Jews in Palestine are occupiers. The question is whether they are occupiers or not. If they are, her statement that Jew should 'get the hell out of Palestine', although she has taken it back, is self-consistent.Chenchiheshang (talk) 15:12, 5 June 2010 (UTC).

This is nonsense. If she had said all Zionists out of Israel then it would be anti-zionist ... she said all JewsDahveed323 (talk) 03:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC).

You are mistaken on 2 counts: the Jews you refer to (Satmar Hassidim for example) are not anti-Zionist; they simply refuse to recognize an Israeli state that is not precipitated by a messianic event. And nonetheless, many of these Jews who dislike the state of Israel (as it exists) still live within its confines. What Thomas said is that NO JEWS SHOULD EVEN BE LIVING in that territory, i.e. - that a person's religious affiliation is grounds for their just removal - that even metic status is unacceptable. This is advocacy for religious discrimination, and anti-Semitic at its core.

My first image of the Jews-against-Zionism is Yisroel Dovid Weiss. I watched several his videos on Youtube. There are pretty many other videos featured with Jewish people, who are strongly supporting Orthodox Judaism and clearly against Zionism. As you have mentioned, some of them are living in Israel, but they are clearly saying: (1)Zionists are occupying Palestine; and (2)they wanted Zionism is peacefully dismantled, and they want to live peacefully with Arabic people just like 100 years ago. I had no idea about Satmar before you mentioned, so it's not in my reference; but thank you for reminding me that, and I appreciate. Back to Helen Thomas. Although I don't think she was careful enough to choose her words, I think her intention is not so obscure that people might misunderstand. She mentioned 'occupiers', 'go back home'. As we all know, Jewish community has already been existing in Palestine for centuries. And according to those Jewish people I mentioned, they were living peacefully under Islamic rules. So I think Helen Thomas was not intending to let these Jews go to Germany or Poland, since Palestine is their home. So I don't think your interpretation--no Jew should live in Palestine--fits Thomas's remark very well.Chenchiheshang (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

This analogy is not correct. The zionists have occupied Palestine by force. The blacks have been transferred to America against their will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.208.229.137 (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, I don't want to get dragged into a long-winded debate about the deep history, politics, and religious/ethnic affiliations that go into the modern Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Neither of us is probably expert enough to do them justice, and they do not prove anything on the topic of this discussion, which is the statements of Ms. Thomas. Wikipedia is not a forum for original research or contemporary debate. Here is a transcript of her statements in the video.

"Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine...Remember, these people [Palestinians] are occupied, and it's their land. It's not Germany it's not Poland...They can go home...to Poland, Germany...and America, and everywhere else."

(When the interviewer clarified whether the second "They" meant Jews, she didn't correct him.)

When Helen says that "home" is the several Diaspora countries, the only common denominator left for the people she's describing is Jew, and it is not any more unreasonable to call this anti-semitic than it is to say that "those people" are good with money or clever or bad at sports. Helen left even the 6-10 mile wide U.N.-recognized state of Israel off of that list of "home". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.62.167 (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Joseph Farah, former Hearst Corp. employee, and head of WorldNetDaily, the largest independent online news source, has called for her to be fired by Hearst Corporation and bar her from the White House Press corp. It's definitely a controversy and her weak apology of late, IMHO, has not brought it to rest. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=162621 99.235.39.210 (talk) 07:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

A senile remark has no business being on Wikipedia. Nutmegger (talk) 00:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive of statement: http://www.webcitation.org/5qGvsCvQF. I note there's arguably no contrition, retraction or correction. Analogy: I deeply regret telling my broker to buy XYZ stock just before XYZ went belly up, but that's just because it turned out to be a bad gamble. I feel no contrition, and an unwilling to make an apology or issue a retraction or correction. Helen, in a pseudo-question to President Obama, had

1. just characterized as a deliberate massacre the deaths that occurred as Israel resorted to the use of force to defend its territory and people from the Hamas flotilla.
2. complained of use of the term deeply regret as not strong, and yet she uses it herself. Seems clear to me that she meant what she said but in hindsight, wishes she hadn't actually said what she said, because of the backlash expressing her feelings has created.

I think what we are not agreeing upon is largely depending on the different interpretations of Gaza flotilla raid happened recently. Since there are different descriptions about what really happened (Israel didn't offer the videos showing how they killed those demonstrators, and those demonstrators didn't offer a solid interpretation about the violence against the armed IDF, who boarded one of the ships through fast rope). So I think no more discussion about Helen's intention is needed, until we both agree on the basic fact about Gaza Flotilla raid, and Gaza blockade. Last but not least, pleas sign after you edit the discussion page.Chenchiheshang (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The last page edit that is marked as undoing vandalism was certainly not doing so.--W☯W ^t/c 01:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources used in the article state that she was referring to the Jews, not to Israel. Andjam (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is true, however, I (personally) think it is a misrepresentation of the primary source YouTube video. Given Wikipedia policy, I think you're right to stick with the interpretation given by the reliable secondary sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 07:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Ashkenazi Jews. Note her mention of Germany, Poland, and/or America... — Rickyrab | Talk 18:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is currently incomplete. Thomas has been dropped by her speaking agency. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/06/helen-thomas-dropped-by-agency_n_602225.html

In addition, given that she made incredibly anti-Semitic remarks that she herself admits are indefensible, this entire descussion should be changed to "Anti-Semitic Remarks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fairedits (talk • contribs) 21:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

did she say _jews_ get out?

the article misquotes her and makes libellous statements —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.252.100 (talk) 14:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

YES Take a look at this link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.179.176 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

She absolutely did say that the Jews should get out of "Palestine." The country's name is Israel. Fairedits (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

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

1. She could have been referring merely to the Israeli settlers in the UN-designated Palestinian territories of the West Bank and East Jerusalem or the Syrian Golan Heights.
2. She could have been referring to the leaders/founders of the Israeli government that expelled Palestinians from their homes and confiscated their property in the 1948 and 1967 wars.
3. She could have been referring to all European Jewish immigration subsequent and/or prior to the 1947 UN partition plan.
4. Given the context of her remarks, it seems unlikely that she was referring to the indigenous Jewish population of the region who had lived there prior to the founding of the Zionist movement, but I suppose that is a possibility as well.

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

Given the difficulty in interpreting her remarks and given the passion it has stirred up would it not be appropriate to include her remarks verbatim in the article. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 22:12, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe so. There is a new article up on FoxNews that makes it clear Thomas was referring to "Israelis" and not "Jews" as a whole. I'll add the new reference and make the changes. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

the way the article is currently written reads that she said "jews" which is, simply put, NOT what she said. it's been locked so someone should correct it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.43.167 (talk) 22:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thomas didn't "somewhat ambiguously state" anything. To argue otherwise would reveal one as either uninformed or a patent liar. Helen Thomas made it clear that in her opinion the Jews should leave the Middle East. Reviewing the conversation between her and the interviewer in context removes any doubt. One doesn't need to conduct a linguistic Conversation Analysis (CA) to categorize the turn constructional components and taxonomies to describe the clear meaning and intent of what she said. Specifically, when asked about Israel, she said "They should get the hell out of Palestine" and go back to Germany and Poland. She didn't say that the Israeli's should leave Gaza and the West Bank. She knew exactly what she was saying and so do the rest of us; to claim otherwise is disingenuous. Additionally, when asked about the Jews getting the hell out of Palestine (commonly understood to include the entire area, particularly among you antiSemites who deny Israel's right to exist), she reiterated her point by adding the United States as a destination to which the Jews should return as well. She specifically replied to the question from the reporter, "So you're saying that the Jews should go back to Poland and Germany," by adding "and America, too." The video is right here and you can't lie your way out of it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aeqb8h0I-Bg . So yes, she made it clear that the Jews should get the hell out of the Middle East. There was no equivocation, no ambiguity and no clarification necessary. Helen Thomas reiterated her position with crystal clarity when she responded to the interviewer's follow-up, referential question. To claim otherwise is a pathetic attempt to whitewash the patent AntiSemitism that currently infects the leftist-jihadist alliance, in which (blp vio removed). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangelodiluce (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

How do we know Helen wasn't referring to Palestine, Texas? — Rickyrab | Talk 18:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 76.103.217.159, 7 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} add final section "RETIREMENT", basing perhaps on http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/06/gibbs-helen-thomas-remarks-off.html should include the incident of her remarks, and its repercussions up to and including retirement 6/7/2010. Change "is" in 1st sentence of article to "was", similarly later as required. 76.103.217.159 (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Ronnotel (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

opinion inserted into article

somebody interjected a little opinion into this article, after stating helen's quote correctly..... [you can see opinion in brackets below].

can somebody correct this?

Thomas replied, "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine,"[12] and added that the people are under occupation. [Of course she was absolutely correct as occupation by Jews on Arab land is why we have so much trouble today.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.107.144.188 (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No bias please, possible solution.

Also quote the reasons, verbatim if possible why her organizations and affiliates dropped her, so to speak. Perhaps this could shed some light on her meaning. In the related articles section you could add 'dementia'(it should be considered considering her age) or 'elderly people in prominent positions for example , if such and article exists. (207.177.14.173 (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC))

Adding dementia into the article amounts to original research. Furthermore, there's no reason to believe dementia is at fault in this instance. --98.207.107.112 (talk) 21:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's not dementia that caused Helen's remarks, it was personal bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.24.163.159 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First Paragraph Needs More Updating

I suggest that the following sentence needs an endpoint inserted, since it's no longer open-ended. Suggest adding on as follows (update in bold):

Thomas covered every president of the United States from the later years of the Eisenhower administration, coming to the forefront with John F. Kennedy and serving until the second year of the Obama administration.

Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.220.71.232 (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Mention of Facebook Group to Get Her Fired

I think there should be a mention of the facebook group, http://www.facebook.com/#!/group.php?gid=126661017357187&ref=ts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.122.104.217 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? nableezy - 02:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Too many June 2010 References

This article is short and half of the references are related to her comments about Israel made in June of 2010 when she was almost 90 years old. While Helen Thomas has been critical of Israel, she has also been one of the really great female journalists of the past 70 years. To have this many references related to a late-career statement misrepresents this woman's life and contributions. Because her recent statements have ended her career as a White House reporter they are important, but this many references politically slant the article to the negative. They are clearly unfair to Helen Thomas and should be cut by 75%. Villagehiker (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it at this point. Once the situation settles down the references can be narrowed down to the most informative cites and and the article can take on a more permanent structure. When events change fast it's not necessarily a bad thing to bloat the article in the short term and refine it a short time later. In fact, isn't that one of the purposes of the discussion page?grifterlake (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Villagehiker. This seems to be a common problem in Wiki articles about journalists and writers, and seems to reflect a systemic bias. Sure, it may "take care of itself," or it may not. Look at Stephen Ambrose, which seems mainly intended to describe what a bad dude he is. Certainly we need to describe her issues in detail, but that needs to be placed in the perspective of a sixty year career. CheeseStakeholder (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the refining process is already showing an improvement to the article, as of the writing of this comment. References have been expanded as the article has dramatically grown in size and substance while taking on what will probably be its more permanent form. When you have people from oppositional perspectives editing an article it *will* tend to take care of itself, especially if people hash out their differences on the Talk Page instead of getting into editing wars. I doubt that we've seen the end of new events regarding Thomas, and there will probably be a lot more added to it if she doesn't fade away into obscurity. grifterlake (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Washington Post

FYI, per this article in the Washington Post:

After becoming a columnist, Thomas lost that privilege. But she continued to ask questions during televised news conferences and was often sharply critical of Israel -- so much so that the late Tony Snow, as press secretary for President George W. Bush, once dryly thanked her for offering up "the Hezbollah view."

Not sure how, even if, this should be included. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 18:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Begging the question

Then, after another question she added, "America and everywhere else."

This line, added on June 8, provides no context for Helen's answer, because it suppresses the question. The question in question is short, so one must question its omission. It can be found in a number of reliable sources, for example,

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127538667

72.130.181.15 (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaction or Outrage – Ok or Offensive

Why are we using the word "reaction" when both sources, #2 and #3 say that it was due to "outrage" to what she said which was "offensive and "reprehensible". I would think that it should read:

"Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of outrage to offensive comments she made about Israel in a video interview with RabbiLive.com".

The president of the United States called it offensive. She herself agrees that her words were offensive and therefore apologized for it. So why are we sugar coating her comments?

If this isn't acceptable for some reason and it is somehow not neutral to someone, then I would suggest that her words speak for themself and it should read:

Thomas retired on June 7, 2010, in the wake of reaction to comments she made in a video interview with RabbiLive.com that the Jews "get the hell out of Palestine".

What can be any more neutral then her own words? Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

more detail, please

I was surprised to find that there is little specific information on Helen Thomas' journalism, aside from the recent controversy. At first I thought she just had a stubbish article before the Israel comments--but it's not like she was a total unknown before this. For one thing, her comments against the Iraq War, which she made the one time Bush let her ask a question, received a lot of coverage. Then I looked back in the page history and saw that, lo and behold, over half the article used to be devoted to her work during the Obama and Bush administrations: [1]. And there two sections were in August 2009 pared back to--absolutely nothing [2]. It's as if the Barack Obama article had an overlong section on the health care bill and editors then decided not to cover his legislative agenda at all. I understand there are concerns about recentism and neutrality, but the solution would be to add more detail on the rest of her life. Right now the article is too heavily focussed on the Israel remarks, with no context to explain Thomas' stature prior to the incident. Reinstating these sections would be a start toward correcting this imbalance, though they did need some trimming (can't do it myself because the article's protected). 67.187.92.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC).

I was surprised to see so little written about Thomas' nearly 60 years of journalism as well. It looks like most of it was deleted after a talk page discussion. I think the concerns of recentism can be addressed through including more details from her earlier journalism. I'll go ahead and resurrect the lost section and see if it can be worked in. Gobonobo ^{T C} 19:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I was involved in that but who knows. Could that "material" be trimmed for now? --Tom (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I think I did see your name in there. I'm trying to find sources to use for Thomas' journalism in previous administrations. It'd be nice to have more content from before 2000, since the article seems to lack heft for a person with her history. What I've dropped in there could definitely use some cleaning up, so feel free. Gobonobo ^{T C} 22:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, my comments at the time were along the lines that this article gives scant attention to her first 30? years of work and then goes into painful detail about the last 10-15 years. Anyways, not that big of a deal, hopefully these things work themsleves out over time and with attention. --Tom (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

cat:antisemitism

This category does not belong on this page. The category is to be used to categorize pages that relate to the topic of antisemitism. Even if we assume that her remarks were actually antisemitic, and that would require several high quality sources saying that, this page has nothing to do with the topic of antisemitism. nableezy - 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, the appropriate tag would be cat:Anti-Zionism or cat:Anti-Israel. The addition of the "Anti-semitism" category appears to be a roundabout attempt to skirt WP:BLP. Of course, it all depends on what the reliable sources say, and none that I have read have raised the specter of anti-semitism. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Nableezy. Per BLP, this cannot be included unless very reputable third-party sources describe her Anti-semite...and even then, one should tread cautiously before labeling *ANYONE* as such. --nsaum75^{¡שיחת!‎} 22:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldnt even say "anti-Israel" is appropriate here. The word "Palestine" can have several different meanings, and depending on what is meant by "Palestine" in this quote that changes the meaning quite a bit. If by "Palestine" Thomas meant those territories within the British Mandate that Israel occupied in 1967, she is effectively saying that Israel should withdraw from those territories, which is not exactly an extreme position or something that can be called "anti-Israel". If she meant by "Palestine" the whole of the area west of the Jordan river within the British Mandate then she is effectively saying that Israel as a country should not exist but rather the whole of the area should be a single Arab state, which admittedly is an extreme position (most people who argue for a binational solution do not say that current Israeli residents should leave). Until there is some clarification on what exactly she meant by saying "Palestine" I think we should stay clear from labeling the comments as anti-X. There are a number of Israelis, Jews, and Zionists that say that Israel should withdraw from the occupied territories, I dont think we should be labeling such a statement as "antisemitic", "anti-Israel", or "anti-Zionism". nableezy - 22:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point, and I've gone ahead and removed the category altogether. It seems unfair to lump Thomas into any of these categories over one comment she made in a 50+ year career. I think we would need to see a reliably-sourced, consistent pattern of anti-Semitism/anti-Israel sentiment before any of those categories are added to the article. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

This was already sort of settled before. Someone decided to move the conversation out, *again* (what a surprise). Tempted to move it back in.--Lfarmingham (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Buscari2, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change references to Wayne University to Wayne State University because that is the name of the school and how it is usually referenced.

Buscari2 (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: There is a caption stating the school is now Wayne State University. At the time of her attendance it was Wayne University, and that is how it is referenced under Education. She did not attend Wayne State University, she attended Wayne University. SpigotMap 16:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

What the lead should say

The "Early life and career" section already says that she was born to Lebanese parents. I suggest adding a note to that section saying that Thomas describes herself as being "of Arab background," with an appropriate citation, and taking "of Lebanese Arab descent" entirely out of the lede. That clarifies that "Arab" is a term that she has used for herself. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree it should stay out of the lead: the full detail is just one paragraph further down. Jonathunder (talk) 04:19, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Editorializing

• Thomas: (still laughing) Remember, these people are occupied and it's their land. It's not German, it's not Polish ...
• Nesenoff: So where should they go, what should they do?
• Thomas: Go home.
• Nesenoff: Where is the home?

The last two lines above (entered on June 9) have been copied incorrectly from the transcript. See

• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127538667

As for the first line above, "Polish" should be changed back to "Poland", because that's what she said. Finally, the first wiki link in the first line above is subtle editorializing, whether intended or not. It is not up to editors to assume she was referring to people in the occupied territories. Hamas, for example, views all of Israel as occupied. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 20:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

"Controversial" and two remarks not one

I removed the word controversial as I explained that the word “controversial” is in itself controversial and POV.

Also I added that her comments were made not only about Israel but also about the Palestinians; that they are occupied. To leave out any one of her remarks would again not be NPOV. Fandriampahalamana (talk) 21:59, 9 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)

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)

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. TFOWR^{idle 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? TFOWR^{idle 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. TFOWR^{idle 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. TFOWR^{idle 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)

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. TFOWR^{idle 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. TFOWR^{idle 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)

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)

"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)

I reverted it for now. --Tom (talk) 19:58, 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)

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

{{editsemiprotected}}

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". TFOWR^{idle 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"). TFOWR^{idle 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)

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; [3]. nableezy - 23:45, 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.

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) [4]! 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)

[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) [5]!

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)

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)

If you have to ask :) ....seriously see WP:RFAR/G...but this is the last resort I believe, maybe try WP:DR first. Also the WP:BLP/N is well watched and others will help there. --Tom (talk) 22:07, 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)

Palestine-Israel arbitration enforcement notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Fences&Windows 21:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fences -- Are you not aware, perhaps, that this specific article was identified as not being part of the A-I conflict? Just this week?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What is A-I? You mean "Palestine-Israel"? No, I'm not aware and the decision is mistaken: the enforcement covers "editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood." This article is now connected to this area due to the nature of her resignation. Fences&Windows 01:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

No. Palestine-Israel is P-I. A-I is a broader category, which includes P-I. The A stands for Arab. The decision was taken by a number of sysops, and it was on the basis that this article is not in the A-I area (a direct contradiction with your conclusion) that an editor was found to have not violated his ban on editing articles in the A-I area, "broadly defined". This decision was taken this week. Subsequent to her resignation. How do you square the two?--Epeefleche (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You should include a link to any such decision for verification, so we can find out if it's Arbitration Committee or whatever making such decision. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If I may interject, Ep is referencing WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive64#Nableezy where admins said that this particular edit was not a violation of an ARBPIA topic article ban as Helen Thomas, unlike, say, Hamas, is not so inextricably intertwined with the A-I conflict that any edit to the article is related to A-I conflict per se. nableezy - 08:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>That makes sense, since obviously much of it isn't. And what is relevant is covered by WP:ARBPIA and this notice is therefore relevant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The arbitration enforcement is about the Palestine-Israel conflict. To the extent that the content of this article applies to that conflict (and some of it does), it falls under this arbitration enforcement notice. Wikilawyering about this does not help: the purpose and spirit of the arbitration is to prevent bitter disputes about this conflict from disrupting things, and the only reason this article is now being hotly contested is that very conflict. Basically, everyone needs to be on their best behaviour. No edit warring, no poorly sourced opinions, no BLP violations. Fences&Windows 19:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Nab -- he is correct that the ban I had in mind was relative to editing articles which (or whose edited parts) are broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Tim Song found that this article did not fall within that category. (I, btw, felt at the time that it was within that category, as Fences apparently did by applying the above even narrower P-I template -- but defer to consensus). I find the close on the basis that this is not "broadly related to the A-I conflict" to be inconsistent with Fences' tagging it as within the (subset) P-I conflict. And we do strive for consistency on wp.

As mentioned, my view differed from Tim's view (and matched Fences' view). But I happily deferred to Tim's consensus view. I don't care at this point which view is adopted, but IMHO it behooves us to be consistent. Which, IMHO, we are not being.

I have no idea what Fences' allusion to wikilawyering is about. We have inconsistent, diametrically opposed, official actions based on directly conflicting views as to whether this article falls within the A-I (or subset P-I) confict. I'm asking that that be addressed. Dismissive inapplicable comments about wikilawyering do little to address the issue of inconsistency that I've raised.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares? F&W is correct that the reason this article has been heated recently is because of her remarks and subsequent retirement. TS was correct that not all parts of this article is within the topic area. Why you care so much is not something I am qualified to address. But the end result is that there should be no edit-warring (covered by WP:EW), no BLP vios (covered by WP:BLP) and no poorly sourced opinions (covered by WP:RS and WP:BLP). Is there anything that is really a problem here? nableezy - 20:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it so hard to realize that some edits to this article may fall within WP:ARBPIA whereas others may not? T. Canens (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm lacking in intelligence. And that, as you suggest, is the problem. It's admittedly somewhat challenging for me to understand how an edit: (1) with regard to the word "Arab", (2) relative to a ban "broadly construed", (3) not only to sections relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, but to articles relating to it -- does not fall within the Arab-Israeli conflict. While the article as a whole does.

As I hope I've made clear, I'm not seeking to re-open the question of Nab's topic ban/possible violation. I'm simply seeking a consistent treatment on wikipideia, one way or the other, of the issue of whether this article is within the A-I conflict. If it is, then certainly an edit to the word Arab would have been a violation. If its not, then the tag is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably because you see the word "Arab" and are unable to determine its context. What does the ethnicity of Helen Thomas have to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict area? If I had for instance edited something about the current drama that would undeniably be within the conflict topic area. But what does her ethnicity have to do with the A/I conflict? nableezy - 22:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll avoid discussing my thoughts on bans "broadly construed", and the fact that your band was not limited to sections that related to the A-I conflict, but also extended to articles that related to the A-I conflict (which the added template says it is). I'm not seeking to reopen the question of whether you violated your topic ban. I'm simply seeking consistency.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:37, 20 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)

There are 1,000s of reliable sourced statements about reaction to Thomas's comments. Which ones do we include and why? --Tom (talk) 16:31, 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)

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).--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. nableezy - 20:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I am guessing that would be me? Woff, Woff, --Tom (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the section could be whittled down a bit, but should leave the impression that the reaction was largely negative. IronDuke 22:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. It seems like undue weight to spend so much of the article dealing with the controversy over her remarks and her resignation. I'd suggest this is to some extent recentism at work: it's a big story that broke in the near past, and there are lots of sources. That doesn't mean it's appropriate to turn the article into a laundry list of various reactions. I think the article would be better served with a briefer summary. I'm also not convinced that we need to have the verbatim exchange. And in either case, I think it would be better to incorporate the section into the rest of the article; there are so many headings and subheadings now, it makes it a bit difficult to follow. Shimeru 08:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect link in quote

There is a link in a quote removed here: [6], that link went to the Palestinian territories, but in the quote from the Chicago Sun Times, she did not say "Palestinian territories", she said "Palestine", so the link was of course incorrect, original research and a BLP violation. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the link being removed, if there may reasonably be any ambiguity as to what she was referring to.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)