Talk:Helen Thomas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Helen Thomas article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Further edits

Perhaps fixing the hyperlink in note # 4 would be helpful. -- Benji

Couple things I think can improve this article:

Current version now says "Thomas has come under criticism by some, including conservatives and traditional journalists...". Per this section of the NPOV article , can we have a few names?

And since her recent quote about killing herself just won't go away, I'd like to suggest some changes. Note first the article in The Hill News - you have to scroll down a bit. Compare this to the text of Matt Drudge's article which reads

"Veteran wire reporter Helen Thomas is vowing to 'kill herself' if Dick Cheney announces he is running for president. The newspaper HILL first reported the startling claim on Thursday. "The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself," she told the HILL. "All we need is one more liar." Thomas added, "I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does." "

Note that the current version here on Wikipedia borrows heavily from the Drudge piece, apparently taking her comment as a genuine suicide threat rather than hyperbole, for which we should seriously consider getting her medical help. Drudge's POV is far from N; it looks like his treatment is meant to delight those in his audience who would love to dismiss her as a crazy old lady.

So how about making the last paragraph more apeasing to the liberal left, like this:

"An incident in July 2005 illustrates both Thomas' own opinions and her critics' response. Following up on previous remarks about Vice President Dick Cheney's power, she expressed her personal distaste with the possibility of a Cheney presidential bid, comments which were quoted in The Hill. [1] Her comment “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself” was presented in the Drudge Report as an actual vow to commit suicide, quite possibly to paint an unflattering portrait of Thomas' sanity."

Comments? Phaseolus 05:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see where the account in The Hill is substantial different than what Drudge reported. From the article in The Hill:

But asked this week if she is promoting a Cheney candidacy, Thomas made it clear she isn’t. “The day I say Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I’ll kill myself,” she told The Hill. “All we need is one more liar.” Thomas added, “I think he’d like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.

Neither Drudge, nor the current state of the article, make any comment if Thomas' comments to The Hill are a genuine suicide threat or hyperbole. Nor for that matter does the original Hill article.
More so, this article is not about Matt Drudge, and there no need to comment on his motives of why he regurgitated The Hill's item about Thomas. There is no reason to attribute motives to him, just as there is no reason to take Thomas' comments for anything more than she said.
I believe the current form of the article to be satisfactory.
— Linnwood 09:33, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

The current edit, while not the way I would write a Helen Thomas encyclopedia entry if I were god (I'd omit the whole paragraph) makes my point very nicely: Drudge's version is substantially different than The Hill's precisely because Drudge isolated a few sentences, presented them without any context, and presented her statement as a "vow" and a "startling claim". Since practically no one is startled by someone using hyperbole, Drudge is making a statement about what Thomas said by his choices of words. The earlier language in the article replaced "vow" with "went so far as", but copied Drudges' "startling claim" language.

I speculated on Drudge's motives here on the talk page because I thought it was germane to the discussion of whether this episode belonged in the article. Thomas apparently let her guard down while talking to a fellow journalist, and Drudge took the opportunity to make some hay. I believe Drudge's airing of the story is the only reason that several Wikipedians have added this episode to the article, so yeah, I brought him up.

My question is, why does this even belong in the article? As controversies go, this one's more manufactured than genuine. It's akin to including Bush's bicycling problems and dropping the dog on the tarmac, or Clinton's chatting up female college track athletes or remarking about the attractiveness of mummies in their respective Wikipedia articles. Sure, the stuff actually happened and with a little work can be spun into minor controversies, but that kind of stuff simply isn't very important. Phaseolus 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "I'll kill myself" Quote

I removed the last edit that had added "conservative sites claimed" regarding the quote. The Hill is a physical "dead-tree" paper and is not "cobservative." In fact The Hill is noted for it's nonpartisan tone. — Linnwood 15:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More comments on the "I'll kill myself" Quote

Evidently "The Hill" quoted Helen Thomas engaging in a bit of hyperbole, and Matt Drudge thought it would be a hoot to tell his readers that she's threatening to kill herself if Dick Cheney was elected President. She's not seriously threatening suicide; that bit doesn't belong here. Also -- I'm new here, feel free to slap me down if I'm wrong, but "Thomas has come under criticism by some, mainly conservatives..." is more factually accurate and more NPOV than "Thomas has come under criticism by many, including conservatives...", is it not?

Phaseolus 05:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

She said it, that's all there is to it. You can't debate the neutrality of someone's exact words. It's a simple fact, she said it. AriGold 14:33, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, she said it, but it's a question of editorial judgment, so you can debate the neutrality of including something in an article, in a particular context, phrased a certain way. Phaseolus 03:30, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Putting up this quote, "I'll kill myself" add as much as encyclopaedic knowledge to wikipedia as if i go add the quote by Harry Belafonte about Condi Rice being a house negro. Project2501a 05:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotes add real knowledge to the articles. They are words spoken by the principals themselves. Truth, when she stands naked, can be alarming and frightening. 69.19.14.28 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

[edit] More edits

Regarding the conference room seating: Without any links to supporting documentation from the WH press office, both reasons given are speculation, I've labeled them as such. The thing about administration spite for unfriendly opinions will always be speculation; if the other reason is supported with official word from the WH we can upgrade it to 'rationale' or something.

I removed that clause from the 'Thomas has come under criticism...' sentence. If we have links to a journalist's (or opinion columnist's) criticism, let's consider putting 'em in. And if she's being criticized for being biased to the left, it's pretty much a given that conservatives would be doing most of the criticizing. Omitting the whole clause makes it tighter & doesn't detract from the paragraph.

I removed the loaded language from the 'kill myself' paragraph, now it's more neutral & more tightly written. As I've edited it, it doesn't seem to fit under the "Criticism" heading, I moved it to the main section.

...and a minor stylistic tweak here and there.

Phaseolus 15:26, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worst President Ever quote

Anyone know a source for her quote that George W Bush is the worst president ever?

Everybody says that. Its sort of like a buzz word, that and IMPEACH. You see the signs everywhere you go and you hear people shouting the slogans out to each other on the street and at public events. As far as I can tell its sort of like a national fad. Google it for an image and you get more than 7470 hits Federal Street 00:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Former Reporter...

Helen Thomas can no longer legitimately be called a reporter. She is, for all intenents and purposes, a columnist. Reports are, at least superficially, unbiased in their reporting. When was the last time that Thomas wrote a news article?

Surely a former reporter should know how to spell "intents." This is slanderous and doesn't belong here in wikipedia.

[edit] Columnist...?

"Helen Thomas can no longer legitimately be called a reporter. She is, for all intenents and purposes, a columnist. Reports are, at least superficially, unbiased in their reporting. When was the last time that Thomas wrote a news article?"

Uh, just about every publication, online & in print, has an opinion page. It's been a legitimate part of "reporting" since its inception as a media form. Just because she tends to have a more liberal opinion in her writings doesn't negate her legitmacy as a reporter. Look at the Wall Street Journal's editorial page: conservative to the core. The editorial section of the SINGLE paper in my home town is quite conservative as well. If Thomas is too liberal then the only way to level the field is to eliminate editorial sections from every publication in the country. Not happenin'!

She no longer works as a reporter. An opinion column is only commenting on news, not reporting it. A columnist is not the same as a reporter. If that is all she does now she is correctly to be labeled a -former reporter- or -retired reporter-.

"Helen Thomas (born August 4, 1920) is a former/retired news service reporter, a Hearst Newspapers columnist, and a member of the White House Press Corps."

There is no disrepect meant by it. Bush 41 is former president Bush, Bill Clinton is former president Clinton. It's just accurate, even though the original post was meant as a jab at the political leanings of her writing.

She reports her own point of view. Aren't you interested in what she thinks?69.19.14.28 23:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

[edit] Who interrupted who...?

"Her question concerned the war in Iraq and the president's justifications in waging it. During his response, Thomas also fired off several follow-up questions prompting the president to interrupt her frequently."

- This statement could be phrased in a better way. She didn't 'fire-off' follow up questions. She was interrupting the president, rather than the president interrupting her.

[edit] Questioning the President...

"Around the third week of March 2006, she was discussed a lot in the news after asking the president in an extremely harsh and attacking manner questions about the War in Iraq."

Talk about a biased sentence. Her questions were not extremely harsh, nor were they particularly attacking. Why not just write, "Around the third week of March 2006, she was discussed a lot in the news after asking the president questions about his motivation for the War in Iraq." Or, just scrap the sentence because the issue is dealt with more specifically in the preceding paragraph.

[edit] Questioning the President...

I agree, that sentence is extremely biassed. It's probably best to simply Quote Thomas, and let the reader decide if what she asked was harsh or attacking.

This is what she said: "I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your cabinet -- your cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?

The president's response was to get agitated and talk around the question. A transcript can be exchanged here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603270001

Furthermore, the right wing pundits like FOX News's Bill O'Reilly, MSNBC's Don Imus and Tucker Carlson, and others, referred to Thomas as "An Old Bag" (Imus), "reporter turned propagandist" (Carlson) and saying "I would have laid into that woman, and I don't care how old she is" (O'Reilly). Leave it up to Bill O'reilly to fantasize about beating up on an old lady.

[edit] Questioning the President...

Here is what I would suggest:

ON March 21, 2006, at a press conference, President George W. Bush called on Helen, after years of ignoring her. Helen asked "I'd like to ask you, Mr. President, your decision to invade Iraq has caused the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, wounds of Americans and Iraqis for a lifetime. Every reason given, publicly at least, has turned out not to be true. My question is, why did you really want to go to war? From the moment you stepped into the White House, from your cabinet -- your cabinet officers, intelligence people, and so forth -- what was your real reason? You have said it wasn't oil -- quest for oil, it hasn't been Israel, or anything else. What was it?" The President never answered her question to her satisfaction, there was a lively exchange between the two, with President Bush and Helen Thomas interrupting each other. Bush moved on to another reporter's question, but not before commenting (about his exchange with Thomas) "I didn't really regret it. I kind of semi-regretted it." The Conservative media wasted no time in attacking Thomas for allegedly being disrespectful. Conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly, from Fox News, said "I would have laid into that woman, and I don't care how old she is... I would have laid her out, saying, 'How dare you?'" Other conservative commentators and pundits had much less flattering things to say about her, as well.

Too much stew from one oyster. What's wrong with what's in the article at the present moment:
On March 21, 2006, during a White House press conference, Thomas was called upon directly
by President Bush for the first time in three years, leading to a spirited exchange
between Ms. Thomas and Mr. Bush.
This includes a link to a transcript of the press conference; the reader can follow that and read the entire exchange, and draw their own conclusions -- rather than cluttering up an article with a lengthy description of a soundbite that will most likely be forgotten in a month or two. Brandon39 05:37, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine. I was responding when the section was altered by some freeper and was way too biassed.
I was wondering, though, isn't it relevent to mention how much she's now being attacked by the right for the question she asked? Listening to the morning talk radio, watching MSNBC, CNN, and the unfair and unbalanced FOX news, they're literally engaging in mostly ad hominem attacks, but the reaction from them is very vicious and disrespectful to her. It should at least be mentioned in passing, such as "The Exchange prompted many Bush administration loyalists and conservative commentators in the media to attack her insultingly for the next week."
Or is there a reason why the reaction shouldn't be mentioned?
Mostly, it still seems like making a lot out of a little. A more accurate reporting of the reaction would probably be something like, In the days following her exchange with President Bush, Ms. Thomas was the subject of considerable criticism by conservative commentators and considerable praise from liberal commentators. But that doesn't really tell us much that we couldn't already guess, does it? It just seems to me that this story is a nine day wonder, and that we've already got (more than) enough on it. The only reason it's notable at all is that Bush hasn't called on her in a long time, while in years past she had been a fixture at W.H. pressers. Normally, a two minute exchange between a liberal reporter and a conservative president who disagreed with each other, and made no news at all, wouldn't even rate a mention. That's my view, anyway. Brandon39 17:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helen Thomas receives wonderful gift of roses from the DemocraticUnderground.com...

On Thursday, March 30, 2006, members of the DemocraticUnderground.com delivered a large gift of roses as a token of their appreciation for Helen Thomas's life long accomplishments and recent efforts to demand the truth from President Bush.

To read the story about the delivery of the roses, click here:[2]

To read a thank you message from Helen Thomas to the DemocraticUnderground.com, click here:[3]

"Photo of the Day" of Helen Thomas with roses from TheHill.com: [4] Photo by Sara Henderson

At the Hearst Newspapers Bureau, Helen Thomas is surrounded by roses sent to her by well wishers who enjoyed her recent exchange with President Bush in the White House Briefing Room. --TheHill.com[5] Friday, March 31, 2006.


[edit] Status of the article

Are you guys kidding me? The article was in deplorable condition... It's got a basically one long chunk ... and all you guys worry about is the quote? Try to cleanup the article first then argue about politics. Mineralè 04:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnicity

It may or may not be important but Helen is Arab-American, something I found interesting. I know of no other Middle-Eastern reporters covering the White House (male or female), certainly not continuously since 1960.

It keeps getting changed back and forth between Lebanese and Syrian. Does anyone know with certainty which it is? Kasreyn 22:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For quite some time I thought she was Lebanese because that is the most prevalent of claims. However, an editorial review at Amazon.com of her book Front Row at the White House : My Life and Times says that she was born to Syrian immigrants. If someone can retrieve this book and confirm this information then this dispute would be solved. But what is interesting is that Khalil Gibran was Lebanese but he referred to Lebanese people as Syrians, and that Lebanon in his time was known to Westerners as Syria; he lived from 1883 to 1931, Thomas was born in 1920. So, I'm puzzled as to what her nationality is, but I think that it is safe to put Syrian for now. --Inahet 02:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing it up, Inahet! Kasreyn 09:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In 1920 both Lebanon and Syria was under direct control of France, besides I'd say that nowadays her nationality is US. Raphael1 11:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Her nationality is certainly American, but her ethnicity appears to be Syrian. These are not incompatible. Kasreyn 12:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
It frightens me, that after all those years of her career as a journalist, her ethnicity suddenly became an issue, because it has a parallel in history when ethnicity resp. race was an issue in Europe. Raphael1 11:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No one is making a big deal of her ethnicity, but in an article about her life, I think it's interesting to note that she is the daughter of immigrants. Also, her parents' nationality might explain some of her views on American foreign policy. Europe's Nazi history has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A.V.

Not quite true. My interest in determining her ethnicity comes from my involvement with the article on Ann Coulter, which I am heavily involved with. Among Coulter's many outrageous remarks is a fairly cut-and-dried slur against Thomas's Arab ancestry. In order to cite Coulter's bigotry, I had to determine if what she said about Thomas was even true. So at least one person is making "a bid deal" of it: Ann Coulter. Cheers, Kasreyn 01:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for Bush

The article says that in March 2006, President Bush called on her for a question for the first time in three years (ie, he must have taken a question from her in late 2002/early 2003). In the trivia section, though, it says that he's only ever taken one question from her. Can someone verify which of these is true and delete the false one? Deusnoctum 18:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bush administration

I've rearranged some stuff, chopped out most of a lenghty transcript, and made all this stuff a subset of her career as correspondent. We don't need a seperate section for every offhand comment she makes. This stuff also needs to be fact checked and sourced, as some of the source links have disappeared, apparently as the result of a poor cut and paste job. Gamaliel 03:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Syrian or Lebanese?

Thomas' ethnicity was just changed from the latter to the former, with this used as a source. First of all, we should not be using Amazon.com book advertisements as informational sources for an encyclopedia. Second, while the Amazon review says she is Syrian, if you scroll down to the review from Kirkus, it says she is Lebanese. Also, the following reference works state that she is Lebanese:

  • Contemporary Heroes and Heroines. Vol. 3. Gale Research, 1998.
  • Encyclopedia of World Biography Supplement, Vol. 19. Gale Group, 1999.
  • Current Biography, H.W. Wilson Co., 1993.

I hope this will settle the matter. Gamaliel 20:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up, Gamaliel! This article has been going back and forth on that one for some time now. Kasreyn 15:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you provided sound sources, so I guess the matter is settled. But it can't hurt to see what her autobiography says. --Inahet 21:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No wonder she loves Hezbollah so much. Couldn't resist. But rather than being totally subjective, that comment may just be an exaggeration. Minutiaman 23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)23:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement would be better if she was Syrian, not Lebanese.--2ltben 22:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The statement works whether she is Syrian or Lebanese. I'd like someone to prove me wrong that more Lebanese support Hezbollah than Israel in this war. Minutiaman 02:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Support for Hezbollah was low amongst the Lebanese until Israel started destroying the infrastructure and the civilians started to die, and it rose sharply after Qana. It wasn't until Israel starting attacking the Lebanese, not Hezbollah, that support rose, and at the beginning of the war the Lebanese were blaming Hezbollah, not supporting them.--2ltben 23:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I never said that Lebanese support for Hezbollah was ever or always high, but I still doubt that the Lebanese people (the country on average) ever had higher support for Israel than Hezbollah. I very much hope I'm wrong, since it would make me sad if the country with the "Western capital of the Muslim world", diverse people (at least religiously - I don't know about other factors), and a relatively moderate government supports a terrorist group endangering their security and indentity (it is a state within a state) more - even if the support is not wild - than a democracy that only fights in self-defense (granted, when given the opportunity, its attacks are "disproportionate" but if it appears weak its neighbors may gear up to try to destroy it; they'll tried several times already - but I disgress). Minutiaman 03:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC) (darn, sometimes I forget to check whether Wikipedia signs me out)

At the time her parents immigrated to America, the country they were living in was the Ottoman Empire, in a part then called "Syria" but that now belongs to Lebanon. It's silly to argue about whether she's of Syrian or Lebanese ancestry, since until the end of World War I, everyone we would today call Lebanese was considered Syrian. —Angr 18:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "heated exchange"

I'm lost about the significance of the "heated exchange" at the bottom of the article. It seems to be pushing POV, and although full balance should be given with regard to viewpoints, this is an encyclopaedic article, not a forum for editors to air warring opinions. Can anyone explain the significance/reasoning behind it? /Blaxthos 17:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The exchange is verbatim. For that reason, it does not reflect the point of view of anyone except for the two speakers. It is an instructive example of dialogue, as is the inclusion of the earlier exchange between Thomas and Bush, which was not seen as "pushing POV." We may conclude from User:Blaxthos's characterization of it as "pushing POV" that User:Blaxthos is not happy with the exchange.69.19.14.28 23:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Benighted

[edit] Fidel Castro

Approximately 10 years ago I heard a radio report of a question asked of Fidel Castro. He was asked the difference between him and the US President. He said that '...he doesn't have to take questions from Helen Thomas". If this can be found, I think that it would be an interesting addition to this article.75.82.208.152 02:27, 12 November 2007 (UTC) Inadvertently logged outLorenzoB 02:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colbert Video Missing

Part 1 of the Colbert clip is no longer available on the page that is linked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.116.224 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Resignation from UPI

No one on Wikipedia has more surviving edits which highlight criticisms of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church than I do, but one reason may be that I think a minimum standard for an encyclopedia ought to be accuracy (and thus fairness), and references should back up what is asserted. The 2 references to the Thomas resignation from UPI make no claim that her resignation was accompanied by statements that could be interpreted as protest, and there is not even any direct claim that it was in protest. One reference cites a colleague commenting on the timing. We should stick to what the references actually say. -Exucmember (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually quite proud of the sentence I ended up molding that information into: I added a quote that suggests both the motivation behind her choice and her reluctance to denounce the change outright, along with some reorganization (notably, into a separate section—for aesthetics, mostly, if anyone has any objections). In other news, I hope that sort of tragedy never touches the New York Times. Wikimancer (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks good! Thanks for tracking down a good reference and rewriting the passage. -Exucmember (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Media Links

I removed the links to clips of Thomas with Colbert as the domain they were linking to had expired and was now parked. (138.38.217.52 (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC))