Talk:Teresa Heinz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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]
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal


This article has become a political hack job, not a biography. The information about this woman's life is overshadowed by quick jabs and long diatribes intended to highlight implied negative traits. The overwhelming use of derogatory anecdotes in a biography without balance is unforgivable in a forum that purports to be a responsible disseminator of information.

Contents

[edit] Cristina?

On http://www.bbc.co.uk/portuguese/noticias/story/2004/03/printable/040304_lucasmendes.shtml they have Maria Teresa Cristina Thierstein Simões-Ferreira. I cannot find any other refences with Cristina as part of her name.

On a recent interview on Larry King Live, I recall her mentioning that she officially switched from the Republican party in response to some practices of a congressional candidate. Does anybody know more details? --NeuronExMachina 09:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Shove It

The "shove it" incident should be mentioned. Mike H 02:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I haven't heard of it. Why don't you go ahead and add it? Be bold! Nelson Ricardo 10:58, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I'll have to research it again. Mike H 15:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I added the shove it incident, with two references. Edit mercilessly. Mike H 16:25, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I modified it, because what the reporter was accusing of her of saying was not the way it was being reported. RickK 22:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

I think it is also worth mentioning that there's a history of anymosity between the Heinz family and that particular paper.

[edit] Madeleine Albright

It is said that she was a colleague of Madeleine Albright - what does this mean? RickK 22:47, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Since nobody has answered my question, I removed the section on friends and colleagues as unimportant. RickK 21:43, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I've Met This Lady........................

I was so shocked to discover that Sen Kerry's wife is the former wife of John Heinz. I had the distinct pleasure of meeting this woman as part of her entourage during the Xmas holidays in Pittsburgh, PA during the seventies. I worked for the city and I got to see first hand, the program the Heinz company has for their employees during the holidays. Apparently it was a tradition going back to Sen Heinz's grandfather. This tradition involves the company providing holiday gifts and a party for tgheir employees and immediate family. She was carrying the ball for the family then, and from what I hear from my firends in Pittsburgh, she has continued this tradition that binds this community with this family. Last night I heard her speech and I now have some hope that at least, America has a choice this Fall. Who are we going as a people in the next decade?

...Eric....

erh305@netscape.net

[edit] "Shove it" incident

The so-called "Shove it" incident is being covered in excruciating detail over on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review article. The section is hovering around 1000 words, and growing, which makes it already twice as long as the rest of the article. Therefore, I am inclined to spin it off into its own article. However I can't think of a good article title. If anyone has any suggestions, or would like to participate in trimming the version of events at the Trib-Review article, feel free to jump in. Some of the material, such as accusations of funding radical causes and of having an abrasive personality, may be relevent here. I've deleted some that was totally irrelevent to the newspaper, but it can be resurrected. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:58, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

good god. by all means spin it off. it's the only solution to petty political squabbles swamping an article. can't think of a good title, but try to keep it neutrally descriptive. Wolfman 01:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An exchange of words between the wife of an unsuccessful presidential candidate and an editor of a minor city newspaper does not deserve its own encyclopedia article. We shouldn't create one just to satisfy a rude anonymous editor who is probably an employee of that same newspaper. I'm sure we can cut the material down to an appropriate length. Gamaliel 04:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You lead - I'll follow. -Willmcw 09:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
well that would certainly be preferable. but be prepared for howls of outrage over "censorship". sometimes a basically pointless article can be useful to keep the political point scoring off the real one. but agreed, the incident doesn't actually deserve more than a brief mention. Wolfman 09:11, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Feel free to surf over with your red pencil and join in the cutting. (block that metaphor). -Willmcw 09:31, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)


Yes, the "rude" editor who noted that a certain unnamed person consistently used libel ("intentional lies") to castigate that newspaper AND the wife of a prominent political candidate. Yes, we trust him to edit something about either the newspaper or her.

And, regardless, that anonymous commentator doesn't want a unique encyclopedia article on a minor, trifling incident. The only reason the entry grew on the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review entry was because of misleading, inaccurate and, quite frankly, libelous language.

But mention such things and one becomes "rude." How about accurate? (unsigned by user:147.72.93.172).

Tribfan (for want of a better name): Activities like lying, questioning the motives of fellow editors, making legal threats, and failing to follow the editing norms of Wikipedia (like signing talk-page posts) are indeed rude behaviors. When we get around to cutting down the text in the P T-R article I hope that you will conduct yourself in a more collegial manner than you have in the past or than you have exhibited here. Thanks, -Willmcw 20:12, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

This is beginning to seem like a cult, all these Wikipedia types jotting down opinion in the place of fact. Of the three names I notice from above, one continued to print what in law is known as an "intentional lie," a falsehood that he knowingly employed to characterize a commercial entity. In more common parlance, this is known as libel. To call it what it is, one is then receives the stamp of "rude."

I would call it accurate. If the "editing norms" of Wikipedia include libel, lying and fact-challenged analyses, then you get what you pay for, right?

Another name noticed from above continued to use partisan press releases in lieu of actual facts, easily obtained from paper copies of the newspaper itself, to paint the newspaper in a bad light. This careful mis-selection of "proof" to slur a large metropolitan daily went largely unchecked, and when it was corrected, the person who was right is seen as something less than "collegial."

The reality, of course, is that even the cyber world must conform to the rule of law. Unfair, malicious characterizations of people or institutions, without proof, is illegal. To say this is not so is to deny a thousand years of the common law. We wouldn't accept that sort of proofing at a newspaper, but we do when people try to frame it on the web?

How rude of me.

Update - the video link to this seems bad. I can't find a good link. It's getting older and more passe, but it would still be nice to have a working video link. 67.185.99.246 21:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name change

News services note that earlier in 2005 Teresa Heinz dropped Kerry from her name. The Heinz Endowment site lists her only as Teresa Heinz, Chairman. That would mean the redirect would be from Teresa Heinz-Kerry to Teresa Heinz.

Her name was never Kerry, it was a media invention, a al Hillary Rodham
I agree. But even worse is "Maria Teresa Thierstein Simões-Ferreira Heinz Kerry" which I am sure she has never been called in an actual setting. She seems to prefer to be known as "Teresa Heinz". I suggest we move the article to that name, and do the same with her name in the lede. -Willmcw 21:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Portuguese names can get complicated. Though no one might refer to her as such, that is her full complete name. Kinda reminds me of Alexis Morell Carrington Colby Dexter Rowan. Nelson Ricardo 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Can you show me an official source which calls her that? Names don't necessarily keep accruing with every marriage, like barnacles. For example, many women in the U.S. drop their middle names when they marry and shift their maiden name to the middle position. -Willmcw 05:58, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Official, probably not, but see here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Maria+Teresa+Thierstein+Sim%C3%B5es-Ferreira+Heinz+Kerry%22 Nelson Ricardo 17:39, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Gee, that is a remarkable list. However unless she actually calls herself that, or is called that in official documents, then I think we should not insist that it is her name. If it is her "real" name, maybe we should move the article to that title. -Willmcw 22:33, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Her name is Teresa Heinz. She supposively changed her name legally to Teresa Heinz Kerry during the campaign, but I can't find any record of it. In February 2005, she began using Teresa Heinz, dropping the 'Kerry'. This has absolutely nothing to do with John Kerry - according to her publicist, she never really got over the death of her first husband. --65.96.79.39 01:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

the consensus seems to be quit talking about it and change it already. go ahead, no one argued. wiki policy is that the article title is the most commonly known name (unless it is somehow incorrect). since the election is long over, most who know her know her because of her philanthropy, where she has never been known as anything other.

This entry seems unpardonably to violate POV. I erased it. It is not worthy of an encyclopedic entry, and seems to simply trumpet a political view that is unsupported by even cursory sourcing.

'This quotation is emblematic of the incident's coverage, which largely failed to note its broader political context. The Tribune-Review is owned by a highly influencial conservative, Richard Mellon Scaife, and throughout the election cycle the newspaper served the pro-Bush agenda with demonstrable faithfulness, focusing its local efforts primarily on the drama's prominent Philadelphian. Without this context or some exploration of the agendas of all its key players, the incident (such as the "Understandable" utterance) was only partially understood by viewers and readers; ultimately, its effect was to help keep public debate fixed on the level of tabloid distraction.'

[edit] Heinz's Jewish Ancestry

No one has bothered to put any information about Heinz's Jewish ancestry to insert in to the article yet? She comes from a mostly Sephardic family, which are the Spanish/Portuguese Jews (instead of the European ones, which are called the Ashkenazim). Actually it seems that her mother (Irene Thierstein) was an Ashkenazi Jew, and her father (Dr. José Simões-Ferreira) was a Sephardic Jew, so by all accounts she is a 'mixed' Jew! --172.165.177.99 06:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Made a Clarification

I have clarified the part of the article referring to the Heinz family to make it clear that the family and the company are not the same thing. --ukexpat 19:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mozambican American?!

Since when are people anachronistically accorded the national background of the states that replaced the colonies wherein they were born? 'Mozambique was a place' is not reason enough to connect her to a country that was born when Mrs Heinz was an adult and did not even live in Mozambique! This nation was born 37 years after Teresa Heinz was. Giving her Mozambican heritage perpetrates presentism. However much she cares about Mozambique, she was a Portuguese born in her country's colony of Mozambique. I will remove those categories (again). Any objections? SamEV (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Do we call George Washington British, since he was born in a British colony? Heinz was born in a place called Mozambique. It was called Mozambique when she was born there. Nobody called it "Portugal". Further, she grew up there, so it is not just an accident of birth. I think the categories are proper. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Will, George Washington was British, until 1783, when the US officially became an independent nation and he became a citizen of it. But Mrs Heinz did not become a Mozambican citizen. When Mozambique came into being in 1975, she was already a US citizen. Mozambique represents its own country, with its own nationality, citizenship, ethnicity, etc. Btw, it was called Portuguese East Africa when she was born. She's from an overseas, former part of Portugal, not the independent state of Mozambique. SamEV (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
If you want to create correct categories, such as "Portuguese East Africans", that are more precise then I won't object. However it is incorrect and misleading to omit all categories that refer to the place where she was born and raised. Places change names, but it doesn't mean people weren't born in the place. I don't think we have three categories: "People from St. Petersburg", "People from Petrograd", and "People from Leningrad" - it's the same city regardless of the name. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A silly dispute? Too bad you feel that way, Will. Anyway, you seem to misunderstand. The issue here is her ancestry, which is being misrepresented as "Mozambican American". That's not about her place of birth, AFAIK. By all means, please enlighten me concerning this; point me to the Wikipedia policies or guidelines about those ancestry, birth, ethnicity, etc categories and I will drop this. And here's a similar example: Alexander Hamilton was born in St Kitts and Nevis, then a British colony. He's not categorized as a Nevisian American. He was British, and became American. The fact that there is now (since 1980) a nation called St Kitts and Nevis is not reason to make him retroactively a person of Nevisian ancestry, which is what adding "Category:Nevisian American" to his article would indicate, as I understand. Again, sincerely, if my understanding is incorrect, I'd like very much to be shown where it says so. Thanks, Will. SamEV (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Pardon the "silly dispute" comment. It's not silly, just unneccessary. Regaring Hamilton, he might well be labelled a "Category:Nevisian American", and probably isn't only because no one has ever gotten around to creating that category. He isn't categorized as a "British American" either. India used to be a British colony, and had been for a long time when Mahatma Ghandi was born, but I wouldn't call him "British" just because he was a born and raised in a colony owned by Britain. More generally, there aren't hard and fast rules for categorizing people by place of residence, birth, or heritage. One standard that's generally used is that wee should use categories that follow how a person self-identifies. Her bio on the foundation she heads says "Teresa Simoes-Ferreira was born and raised in Mozambique in East Africa."[1] It doesn't say that she's a Portugese American, or that she is of Portugese descent. She might not dispute those, but she is proud of growing up in Africa. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
You may be right about Hamilton. We'll see how that turns out. You bring up Gandhi. Well of course it would be wrong to call Gandhi "British", Will. But you do know that Gandhi was a British citizen, right?[2] I presume you also know that he fought to change that: He fought to create an independent Indian nation. When he got his (and his countrymen's) wish, he ceased to be a British citizen, of his own free will, and became a citizen of India. Nothing of the sort happened with Teresa Heinz. She was born in one of her country's (Portugal's) colonies, then left, gave up her Portuguese citizenship and became a US citizen, hasn't gone back to her birthplace, and has said she does not intend to go back.[3] Eventually that colony became its own country, but she's not part of that. She was Portuguese, and after that, American. A Portuguese American. I'd suppose that the lack of hard-and-fast rules does not mean that everything goes. Besides, you say: One standard that's generally used is that wee should use categories that follow how a person self-identifies. Ok, then: you note that her bio says she was born in Mozambique; but where does it say she self-identifies as a "Mozambican American"? You go on: It doesn't say that she's a Portugese American, or that she is of Portugese descent. Well wonder no more. As to whether she considers herself a Portuguese American, here's one particularly useful link (PDF) There you'll see her happily receiving the award as the Portuguese American Woman of the Year (my emphasis). (Also, here's something you missed on the same site you gave: "Some of her earliest childhood memories reflect her family’s experience, as Portuguese citizens living in the African colony of Mozambique..." [4]) As for her feelings about Mozambique, sure, she has fond memories of growing up there, and wants to help the country. On the other hand ... well, I alluded to it above, but let her tell you herself: "Like many former white residents of Mozambique, Heinz Kerry has never returned here. She has no friends or relatives here, nor any desire to visit. "I have basically not wanted to go back home since, because I just didn't want to see all the kind of changes," she says."[5] SamEV (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, call the place what you want, I think we should include categories for the subject's place of birth/upbringing. 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Beback (talk • contribs)
I have no problem with that either. I only object to its name. (And again, it's not about the name "Portuguese East Africa" or "Mozambique"; it's the giving her the wrong ethnic or ancestral background purely based on place of birth) How about a compromise: rename the category to People born in Mozambique or Americans born in Mozambique? SamEV (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
People born in Mozambique is fine with me. I think Americans born in Mozambique may be too specific to be a useful category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. We're agreed, then. I'll make the changes now. SamEV (talk) 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
P.S. As I understood it, we were talking about all the similar categories: German-Mozambican, Portuguese-Mozambican, Mozambican-American, etc. SamEV (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

<- I missed this when I looked before, but there are Category:Portuguese-Mozambican people and Category:Mozambican-Portuguese that seem to cover this. They are applied to folks like Alberto da Costa Pereira, who were born before independence. I'm not sure why there are two categories, but I hate to see a third that covers the same ground. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

They're a different thing, and different from each other. Note the placement of the elements. Portuguese-Mozambican refers to people of Mozambique (not just colonials born there, but people really tied to the country) who are of Portuguese heritage. Mozambican-Portuguese are the opposite: people in Portugal who are of Mozambican heritage. Btw, Pereira's example is a bad one, as his article states: "Alberto da Costa Pereira (born in Nacala, Mozambique, 23 December 1929, died Lisbon, 25 October 1990) was a Portuguese goalkeeper. He was from a colonial white family." So that category contradicts the article it's in. He too belongs in "People born in Mozambique" (though I'd prefer "Portuguese born in Mozambique", but you'd reject it as too specific). SamEV (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This area of categorization needs some work. There may be many Portugese born in Mozambique, I just meant there'd probably be only one American born there. If you can go through the relvant categories and articles to make them rational then that would help. It might be worth posting a note on talk:Mozambique to see if there are other viewpoints. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I really see no problem with creating a category which starts out with just one person. I'll put checking out those other cats and articles on my 'to do' list. I'll go check out Mozambique talk right now. SamEV (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind one-entry categories either, but I've seen objections. I don't know what the policy language or current CfD norm is. A good practice with categories is to write a line saying what the intended scope is. And of course to categorize new categories so they aren't orphaned. I'm afraid that dealing with this article's categories is like picking at a thread on a garment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, let's just wait and see what happens to the new category and take it from there. I wrote simply that it was people born there, the country or the former colony - it's not exactly an academic difference; but enough of that. I'll try my best, reading about the relevant Wikipolicies as much as possible. And yeah, I'd rather be done with the whole thing, too. SamEV (talk) 00:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for seeing it through. The trouble with many categories is that they are blunt instruments, and with many individuals the ethnic, national, and social heritage is unusually complicated. Most of these ethnic categories have gone through several revisions. It's a clumsy system. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It's done now. I updated the list at Mozambique talk to reflect the changes. SamEV (talk) 16:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)