Jump to content

Talk:Jesse Helms/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

summary at the top

Resolved.

The name at the end of the summary should be Senator Robert Byrd, not George Byrd. I can't fix this because the article is semi-protected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbdullahHaydar (talk • contribs) 03:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fixed - good catch. Banjeboi 14:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed the "George" Byrd reference, but someone put it back it (along with a lot of other, equally nonsensical junk). Robert Byrd is a former KKK recruiter! Helms has never had any connection to the KKK or any other white supremacist organization. The two men are not comparable. NCdave (talk) 14:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
NCdave this is not a blog or a community forum where simply repeating your claims that Helms wasn't a segregationist, and was, at best, misunderstood on all the items people use to show he was a bigot and racist, somehow add up to your version of reality. You have correctly pointed out material that needed sourcing and other editors have added exactly that per policy. The sources indicated Helms held steadfast to his beliefs unlike Byrd, a person in the same profession at the same time who did not hold steadfast on these issues. Banjeboi 15:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Helms-bashing editorial comments

Cummon guys, the addition of weasel words like "has often been accused of" does not make it okay to call him a segregationist and white supremacist (in paragraph four of the introduction). He was neither.

Nor is it proper to insert unproven quotes (like those in paragraph three of the CBC section) of outrageous things that even Jim Hunt and Harvey Gantt never accused him of saying.

Nor is proper to insert blatant editorial comments, like the one claiming that he opposed "civil rights for gay men and women generally."

BTW, do you know what civil rights are? They are, by definition, simply rights enjoyed by virtue of citizenship. Unless you think that American citizenship confers a right to federally subsidized AIDS treatments, then an argument over special federal funding for AIDS treatment has nothing to do with civil rights. NCdave (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Again you make a good point amongst many others that are not so good. We should avoid weasel wording so I'll look to adjusting the segregationist item to clarify who stated this. All the other quotes seem to be well sourced. I see no problem with Helms' own words used to show his thoughts about gays and lesbians. Banjeboi 14:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Views on LGBT people

I removed the quote "widely criticized for his view" because it's violative of WP:NPOV. Whether we like it or not, a nice chunk of Americans have praised him for his views to the same extent that he was criticized by others. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

{{RFCpol}} User:NCdave is disputing and constantly removing material that suggests or says Helms was racist or accused of being racist.

  1. There is an ongoing dispute between User:Benjiboi and NCdave about the mention of racism in the lead section. Benjiboi believes that there should be mention that he is often accused of racism in the lead section, and NCdave insists that mention of racism accusations is inappropriate.
  2. There is an ongoing dispute between User:TexasDex and NCdave about several racist Helms quotes cited to the New York Times which NCdave does not believe are reliable. NCdave has deleted the cited quotes several times.


  • I feel that the obituaries recently printed will be able to point out what was most remembered of Helms, and from the most reliable sources: both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, as both are respectively considered liberal and conservative. Cull the comments made in newspaper obituaries throughout North Carolina. Do they regularly mention his actions and words regarding race? What about the NAACP in NC? Not being from NC, and not being directly involved in this article, I think it would be... conservative to say that Helms was conservative matters of racial policy.
  • Regarding the use of quotes in the NYT, unless it came from an editorial (which, maddeningly, some papers present facts in editorial they do not in articles), they should be notable and reliable. Not including the reporters who made their publications famous for making up stories, the NYT is one of the most, if not the most notable newspaper in the US. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The North Carolina NAACP had this to say:

"We in the Civil Rights community had deep and stark differences with Senator Jesse Helms' public policy positions. He opposed fundamental constitutional rights and the implementation of civil rights protections."

— WRAL http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3157766/
They stop short of saying "segregationist" or "racist" but other sources go that far, and further. Part of the debate is about those sources, some are Op-ed, some are books, but not many obituaries ("do not speak ill of the dead"?).
Speaking of sources: Regarding facts in editorials, yes it is maddening. Presumably one would get in trouble for using blatantly inaccurate facts to support your editorial column, so they have some element of reliability. That's not enough for Wikipedia of course, but the disconnect between the facts they mention in editorials and the facts they mention in news articles is annoying. --TexasDex ★ 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What's missing, presumably, is a "smoking gun" kind of quote, like George Wallace's "segregation forever" comment. Maybe Helms was a little to wily to come out and say something that obvious. There's also a disconnect. Didn't he adopt foster children of multiple races? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Since I've not kept track of the disagreements over the issues in Helms' articles, have you tried to state that during his political career, Helms was noted by Organization 1, Newspaper 2, Newspaper 3, and Writer 4, for voting against racially progressive policies, including Affirmative Action, and all the other ones? That way, you avoid that panic button term "racist". Was there something in particular that Helms did that was outrageous enough to illustrate this, such as Strom Thurmond reading the New York City phone book aloud to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act? --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An excellent point. Stick to the facts and let the reader decide if they equate to "racist" or not. George Wallace, for example, was a segregationist. Segregationism does not necessarily equate to racism, although they are close cousins. You can call Wallace a segregationist because he said he was. Unless you can find overt evidence of Helms being a racist, then the record must suffice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have at least a dozen books calling him a racist and another dozen calling him a segregationist, and, of course, many more articles and newspapers doing the very same. I didn't think we needed to pile on the refs as such but we certainly can. I expect that many quotes can be found but I hadn't started researching those as others were dealing with that aspect. I suggested we introduce a section just on "Social and political views" to help address each of the areas where we could then drill down with Helms' quotes and campaign tactics but given NCdave's pattern so far it would all be regularly discredited and deleted so it seemed we should try to resolve this matter first. Many of the obits skirted this by stating that Helms main issue was dealing with "issues of race". Per WP:lede it would seem that we should state the obvious though and not tease per se. I may just focus on the issue areas instead as playing to hot-button issues was Helms' forte and what drove his campaigns and political work. Banjeboi 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The wording Benjiboi is currently restoring is "Helms was an outspoken conservative and has been accused of being a segregationist by liberals and political scholars including USA Today's DeWayne Wickham who wrote Helms "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" from Ben Tillman, opposing school integration, the Civil Rights Act and the commemoration of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday." with about 10 citations for that statement. Putting it prominently in the lead might be a little bit WP:UNDUE, even given the quantity of the references, and I'm willing to compromise on wording and move it to a "social and political views" section, but I think it's important to include something to that effect. As for his record, there are several quotes that hint at racism, but NCdave keeps removing them, saying that "that NY Times reference is not a reliable source" because he claims, without evidence, that it's an editorial, and says that the author of it was too young to have actually witnessed the broadcast, which I don't think is relevant because it's a secondary source, not a primary source (primary sources may be WP:OR anyways). --TexasDex ★ 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The risk in citing anything that says "Helms was a racist" is that it's a matter of opinion. Someone could say "Bush is a fascist", but that doesn't make him one. Calling Helms a racist doesn't make him one either. But his (presumably) segregationist voting record is there for public view, and that can be cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced that this content is undue given that it's what was stated in the obits, the mainstream ones, at least, as part of an overview of his life. The more liberal media is far more blunt. I pulled a consensus of over a dozen mainstream outlets and then beefed up the most positive aspects to rework the lede. Many of the obits give a near laundry list of transgressions. I could see moving "USA Today's DeWayne Wickham who wrote Helms "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" from Ben Tillman," into a section on Helms' views but Helms was widely considered a bigot so we shouldn't water down the lede too much. Banjeboi 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this as a source for evidence of Helms' racism, sexism and bigotry [1] ? --Hardindr (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Comments on lead: In reading the lead (which seems to be the source of the controversy here), I have a few suggestions:

First, the sentences are too long and should be simplified. Secondly, I don't think that characterizing Helms as a racist or a segregationist should be in the lead. Rather, it will be just as accurate, less controversial, and more encompassing (what a lead should be) to state that Helms opposed many progressive policies regarding race in the US. Thirdly, the grammar and punctuation makes it unclear as to what racial programs Helms opposed. Lastly, and this may be the most important, it way too overcited. You can cite each incidence, such as integration(ref), Civil Rights Act(ref), and observance of Martin Luther King's birthday(ref)(ref). Otherwise, this statement alone has an astounding 13 citations! They are very distracting. Keep the three most "important": general, or from the most reliable or high profile sources, and include the rest in the notes within the citation (see Ref #91 in To Kill a Mockingbird).
Can one oppose homosexuality as a concept? I mean, did he oppose the existence of homosexuals, like...one might oppose the existence of rocks? I would change "nakedness" to "nudity" since nakedness makes me want to say it as "nekkidness" and that makes me giggle. Again, too many citations is distracting.
  • Helms brought "an aggressiveness" to his conservatism, likely because of his upbringing and start in a racially charged atmosphere, and used racial politics when the "going got rough" but combined that with cultural, social and economic conservatism.
This statement is confusing, as it alludes that being brought up in a racially charged atmosphere implies it makes one a racist. And I don't understand what "used racial politics" means. Can someone make that clearer or can it be dropped from the lead? Not trying to bring the lead down, but part of the confusion and controversy is coming from its structure. --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
All quite helpful and done, to a degree, and I've boldly added sections further down where drilling into details on social and political issues can occur. I've tried to simply split up the cites for now but there are so many sources I have no problem switching out for better ones. I expect, as well, that in the coming months more thoughtful and comprehensive articles will be written that can also help with this. More ideas to clean up the lede are welcome as I often write wonkish. Also, to clarify, I don't expect any of this to appease the editor for whom this RFC was opened as they pretty much deny anything negative about Helms is true but I think this will help add weight that more are giving feedback and the article is again improving. Banjeboi 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Early life section

The Early life section needs a bit more content; is our sum total of knowledge that his dad had a nickname? Banjeboi 04:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

References

Pro-Helms

 Done*The Jesse Helms Center

 Done*Liberty University's Helms School of Government

Anti-Helms
Likewise I've removed these external links per WP:EL. Generally we shouldn't have "pro" and "con" links, just links that would help the reader if the article was written to a featured article level. All of these should either be converted to content and references or removed altogether. Banjeboi 06:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Helms Center

FYI. The Jesse Helms Center has been around for over 20 years. The history section also has some useful material. Banjeboi 03:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. I've started a stub article at Jesse Helms Center and think a summary paragraph in the article would be appropriate - maybe in a "legacy" section? Banjeboi 00:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Views on LGBT people

I removed the quote "widely criticized for his view" because it's violative of WP:NPOV. Whether we like it or not, a nice chunk of Americans have praised him for his views to the same extent that he was criticized by others. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of racism

Good grief. I take a little Wikibreak, and come back to find this article filled with vicious smears, complete with bogus quotes of things he never said, which were deleted from the article months ago because they could not be substantiated.

I don't have time to fix all the problems now, but I've flagged the article with a neutrality and accuracy disputed tag. NCdave (talk) 22:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The above RfC was started before you went on break, the ANI thread was started within an hour of your last edit at that time. Banjeboi 00:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the first I've seen it.
For what it's worth, I've just come from an event in Raleigh honoring Sen. Helms, where several speakers who know him well told us about the man they knew. One of the speakers was an elderly African-American lady, and she told how, many years ago, she sought his help. "He won't help your kind," someone had told her. But help her he did, way beyond her expectations. "With Jesse Helms there were no 'kinds,'" she told us. "He loved everybody."
Neither she nor anyone else who knew Sen. Helms would recognize the caricature in this appalling article as resembling the man they knew. NCdave (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Mightn't it be possible for a racist to have lapses in his racism, or for the account of a single person to be outweighed by a greater number of other accounts? The notion that Jesse Helms "loved everybody" hardly squares with obituaries of him such as this one. (Or would the LA Times be a pinko rag, cynically smearing Helms with lies?) -- Hoary (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
It is, of course, possible that anyone is secretly racist, Hoary, but before you level the accusation of racism, both decency and WP:V require that you should have proof. With Helms, there is none. There are plenty of examples of his political enemies accusing him of having racist motives for his positions, but no examples of Helms, himself, actually confirming those accusations. NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear NCdave, please expedite providing your specific complaints regarding both neutrality and accuracy. Exactly which of the sources do you consider unreliable, and why? Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
None of the sources that claim Helms was racist, segregationist, bigoted, white supremacist, etc. are reliable & verifiable. NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The source that he considers unreliable is the New York Times, on the grounds that the quote appeared in an article written by somebody who wasn't old enough to have remembered the quote firsthand. He's disputed all sorts of stuff in this article, some rightfully so but most of the stuff he's removed as "false" we've been able to reinsert, occasionally they did need better sources but part of this whole debate seems to be that he can believe no ill of Helms and refuses to accept the many undercurrents of racism in Helms's campaigns and actions. --TexasDex ★ 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
"The" source? Wrong. None of the sources for the racism accusations are reliable.
What's more, what you refer to as "The New York Times," was not a NYT news report. It was actually a 2001 opinion piece in the health section by Health reporter Kevin Sack. The article reported, apparently for the first time anywhere, something that Sack accused Helms of saying approximately 38 years earlier: "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that has thus far left him free to clog the streets..."
Kevin Sack turned four years old back in 1963. So where did he hear it? We can only guess. He cites as his source, "television interview, 1963."
A secondary source would be a (typically contemporaneous) news report about the outrageous remark. (A primary source would be Helms, himself.) It is safe to assume that baby Kevin didn't see the supposed interview himself, at age 3 or 4, and recount his recollection 38 years later. So his opinion piece is plainly not even a secondary source at all. It is at best a tertiary source, with no indication of what the actual secondary source was.
We should all be able to agree that "television interview, 1963" is not a real reference, because it is impossible to verify. WP:V requires that, "the source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." "Television interview 1963" is obviously not such a citation. So even if Sack were not too young to have witnessed the supposed interview himself, we would not accept "television interview 1963" as a reference in Wikipedia. Adding another layer of indirection by citing an opinion piece which cites its source that way just makes the reference even weaker.
If you could find a 1963 NY Times news article with that quote, that would be a reliable secondary source. But an opinion piece written ~38 years later, with no real references, is certainly not a reliable source for the accusation that Helms ever actually said such a thing.
On 13 July 2008, discussing that accusation, I asked, "If you really believe that Helms said that, then I suggest that you track down a reliable source. Find news articles contemporaneous with the event, which report that he said it, or find a recording or transcript of the supposed television interview." Of course, nobody has done so. They can't, because there is no reliable record of Helms ever saying such a thing in 1963, or any other time. NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying the piece is an "opinion" but can't back that assertion up. Nowhere on the page does it suggest that this is an opinion piece or editorial. That's the first problem with your argument. The second, more fundamental problem, is that we rely on reliable sources for our information, and the New York Times is a reliable source. In fact it is one of the most reputable news agencies in the country. Your doubts about the authenticity of that quote are bordering on original research since you can't find any source to contradict what a very reliable source is saying. I brought up the issue on WP:RSN and there was a general agreement that the NYT was a reliable source for that.
Another point: I don't believe that the NYT is 'citing' the editorial at all. It is asserting the quote as true (something we at Wikipedia may safely rely on given the reliability of the NYT) and saying where it was uttered, that is, it was said by Helms on a TV editorial (our article mentions that he had his own TV show so this is perfectly sensible). Your arguments about the age of the author are still completely irrelevant because there are generally tapes and transcripts, and he could have easily checked them to verify that Helms said that. I may never convince you that he actually said that, since you refuse to believe anything bad about him, but I don't need to convince you, I just need consensus, which I have. --TexasDex ★ 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
NCDave, it's hardly surprising that an event honoring Helms would be rather glowing about him, I would expect the same of any event about anyone. Let's stay focussed here on what isn't accurate according to reliable sources. What you know to be absolutely true won't be changed by a wikipedia article but neither is the reverse true. We go by verifiability not truth. Banjeboi 21:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there are no reliable sources to support these "racism" charges, and there are plenty of people who knew him who are certain that he was not a racist. WP:V says:
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation... As Jimmy Wales has put it:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced... –Jimmy Wales
Kevin Sack's "television interview 1963" is a perfect example of speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information. There's no indication of who supposedly interviewed Helms, nor where, nor why (he didn't run for Senate until 1972), nor even what the date of the alleged interview was. The only thing clear is that Sack did not learn of this alleged television interview by watching it himself back in 1963, because Sack would have been only 3-4 years old at the time. NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I realize that issues with NCDave have been addressed before. As the editor who inserted the "totally disputed" tag on July 31st, NCDave has the burden of presenting his case here, both with regard to neutrality and with regard to factual accuracy. Is there a time limit on how long we have to wait for him to do so? Surely not forever. Thanks. --Art Smart (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
The RfC, I believe, runs 30 days so we have just under two weeks for it My suggestion is to see if more input is forthcoming as this process has indeed helped the article. I would support looking at consensus to remove the totally disputed tag after the RfC has resolved. Banjeboi 21:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Arthur, you are mistaken about the burden of proof. WP:V says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Benjiboi, the RfC is already archived; indeed, it had already been archived by the time that I first read it. Why do you think it "runs 30 days?" I didn't respond there because I don't think we're supposed to edit the archive. Am I mistaken? NCdave (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


"University of Negroes and Communists"

One of the many poorly sourced accusations which have been reinserted into the article is this one:

Helms once referred to the University of North Carolina (UNC) as the "University of Negroes and Communists." (Charleston Gazette, 9/15/95)[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1346]

I tried very hard to chase down a reliable source for this, back in February. As with all such accusations, there was no reliable source to be found. In February I wrote here on the Talk:Jesse_Helms page:

Two weeks ago I added a citation request for one of the smears of Helms which was supported only by an accusation on the notoriously leftist FAIR web site. The accusation was that, "in one [WRAL] editorial he labeled the University of North Carolina (UNC) the 'University of Negroes and Communists.'" That claim stretches credulity. If there were documentation available for such a thing, you can bet that his U.S. Senate opponents would have dug it up and used it against him (in other than whisper campaigns). Since they did not do so, it is a safe bet that no such documentation exists. So I am not surprised that nobody answered the citation request.
Nevertheless, I tried hard to find a real source for that accusation. There just isn't any. There is neither a transcript or a recording of such a remark, and no accuser even gives a date on which he was claimed to have said it. The Wikipedia article referenced a FAIR article[2] with a laundry list of accusations of racism against various people. It makes the charge that Helms used that phrase, but does not give any indication of where or when he supposedly used it. However it cites the name of a newspaper as its source, and gives a date. Well, I found the newspaper, and the referenced article. The newspaper isn't in North Carolina, it is in West Virginia (where Helms' editorials were never aired)! What's more, the article wasn't even a news article, it was a 1995 Helms-bashing editorial, which said that Helms started out in politics as "a segregation-forever crusader" (which is transparently false), and also claimed that he had once "dubbed UNC the 'University of Negroes and Communists.'" And there the trail stops. The West Virginia newspaper gave no source for the accusation. If (as the Wikipedia article claimed) the remark was made on the air, in one of Helms' WRAL editorials, then it would have had to have been prior to 1973, which means that there is no source for the accusation dated within twenty-two years of the latest date when the remark could have been made!
Being unable to find anything remotely resembling a reliable source for the accusation, and no citation from a reliable source having been produced by anyone else, I've deleted the accusation. NCdave (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet Arthur Smart has again reinserted this accusation into the article. Nobody has found any verifiable source for it. The only reference given is that same old F.A.I.R. article, citing that same old discredited Charleston, WV newspaper editorial.

If Helms had actually ever said such a thing, and if it could have been proven, then his Senate opponents would surly have crucified him with it. Those were among the most expensive Senate campaigns in American history. Jim Hunt and Harvey Gantt had very sophisticated opposition research operations. But they could not find any provable examples of Helms ever making any explicitly racist remarks. From that we can safely conclude that no such proof can be found. NCdave (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on this specific instance, rather I'm discussing your logic that if something negative existed about Helms, it would have come up in campaigns. I understand what you're trying to say, but that logic isn't sound, and certainly doesn't hold up on wikipedia. Saying that if something existed, it definitely would have shown up in a certain instance is original research. The fact that a specific allegation about Helms wasn't used in a campaign against him doesn't automatically prove the allegation false. Dayewalker (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick search of LexisNexis turned up plenty of results. Many of them are editorials, and some of them attribute the phrase to campaign literature during the "wake up white people" campaign (where, it should be noted, Helms was the publicity manager), but there is at least one or two that credit Helms with it directly. I'll fix the references later when I have more time. Honestly I'd be surprised if he wasn't responsible for the aforementioned altered photo, although it may never be proven.--TexasDex ★ 21:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment

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

User:NCdave is disputing and constantly removing material that suggests or says Helms was racist or accused of being racist.

  1. There is an ongoing dispute between User:Benjiboi and NCdave about the mention of racism in the lead section. Benjiboi believes that there should be mention that he is often accused of racism in the lead section, and NCdave insists that mention of racism accusations is inappropriate.
  2. There is an ongoing dispute between User:TexasDex and NCdave about several racist Helms quotes cited to the New York Times which NCdave does not believe are reliable. NCdave has deleted the cited quotes several times.


  • I feel that the obituaries recently printed will be able to point out what was most remembered of Helms, and from the most reliable sources: both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, as both are respectively considered liberal and conservative. Cull the comments made in newspaper obituaries throughout North Carolina. Do they regularly mention his actions and words regarding race? What about the NAACP in NC? Not being from NC, and not being directly involved in this article, I think it would be... conservative to say that Helms was conservative matters of racial policy.
  • Regarding the use of quotes in the NYT, unless it came from an editorial (which, maddeningly, some papers present facts in editorial they do not in articles), they should be notable and reliable. Not including the reporters who made their publications famous for making up stories, the NYT is one of the most, if not the most notable newspaper in the US. --Moni3 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The North Carolina NAACP had this to say:

"We in the Civil Rights community had deep and stark differences with Senator Jesse Helms' public policy positions. He opposed fundamental constitutional rights and the implementation of civil rights protections."

— WRAL http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3157766/
They stop short of saying "segregationist" or "racist" but other sources go that far, and further. Part of the debate is about those sources, some are Op-ed, some are books, but not many obituaries ("do not speak ill of the dead"?).
Speaking of sources: Regarding facts in editorials, yes it is maddening. Presumably one would get in trouble for using blatantly inaccurate facts to support your editorial column, so they have some element of reliability. That's not enough for Wikipedia of course, but the disconnect between the facts they mention in editorials and the facts they mention in news articles is annoying. --TexasDex ★ 16:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What's missing, presumably, is a "smoking gun" kind of quote, like George Wallace's "segregation forever" comment. Maybe Helms was a little to wily to come out and say something that obvious. There's also a disconnect. Didn't he adopt foster children of multiple races? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Since I've not kept track of the disagreements over the issues in Helms' articles, have you tried to state that during his political career, Helms was noted by Organization 1, Newspaper 2, Newspaper 3, and Writer 4, for voting against racially progressive policies, including Affirmative Action, and all the other ones? That way, you avoid that panic button term "racist". Was there something in particular that Helms did that was outrageous enough to illustrate this, such as Strom Thurmond reading the New York City phone book aloud to filibuster the 1964 Civil Rights Act? --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
An excellent point. Stick to the facts and let the reader decide if they equate to "racist" or not. George Wallace, for example, was a segregationist. Segregationism does not necessarily equate to racism, although they are close cousins. You can call Wallace a segregationist because he said he was. Unless you can find overt evidence of Helms being a racist, then the record must suffice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
We have at least a dozen books calling him a racist and another dozen calling him a segregationist, and, of course, many more articles and newspapers doing the very same. I didn't think we needed to pile on the refs as such but we certainly can. I expect that many quotes can be found but I hadn't started researching those as others were dealing with that aspect. I suggested we introduce a section just on "Social and political views" to help address each of the areas where we could then drill down with Helms' quotes and campaign tactics but given NCdave's pattern so far it would all be regularly discredited and deleted so it seemed we should try to resolve this matter first. Many of the obits skirted this by stating that Helms main issue was dealing with "issues of race". Per WP:lede it would seem that we should state the obvious though and not tease per se. I may just focus on the issue areas instead as playing to hot-button issues was Helms' forte and what drove his campaigns and political work. Banjeboi 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The wording Benjiboi is currently restoring is "Helms was an outspoken conservative and has been accused of being a segregationist by liberals and political scholars including USA Today's DeWayne Wickham who wrote Helms "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" from Ben Tillman, opposing school integration, the Civil Rights Act and the commemoration of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday." with about 10 citations for that statement. Putting it prominently in the lead might be a little bit WP:UNDUE, even given the quantity of the references, and I'm willing to compromise on wording and move it to a "social and political views" section, but I think it's important to include something to that effect. As for his record, there are several quotes that hint at racism, but NCdave keeps removing them, saying that "that NY Times reference is not a reliable source" because he claims, without evidence, that it's an editorial, and says that the author of it was too young to have actually witnessed the broadcast, which I don't think is relevant because it's a secondary source, not a primary source (primary sources may be WP:OR anyways). --TexasDex ★ 18:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The risk in citing anything that says "Helms was a racist" is that it's a matter of opinion. Someone could say "Bush is a fascist", but that doesn't make him one. Calling Helms a racist doesn't make him one either. But his (presumably) segregationist voting record is there for public view, and that can be cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also not convinced that this content is undue given that it's what was stated in the obits, the mainstream ones, at least, as part of an overview of his life. The more liberal media is far more blunt. I pulled a consensus of over a dozen mainstream outlets and then beefed up the most positive aspects to rework the lede. Many of the obits give a near laundry list of transgressions. I could see moving "USA Today's DeWayne Wickham who wrote Helms "subtly carried the torch of white supremacy" from Ben Tillman," into a section on Helms' views but Helms was widely considered a bigot so we shouldn't water down the lede too much. Banjeboi 18:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
How about this as a source for evidence of Helms' racism, sexism and bigotry [3] ? --Hardindr (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
F.A.I.R.? You're joking, right, Hardindr? You might as well just use Jim Hunt's campaign literature.
Baenjiboi, the people who knew Helms well certainly did not consider him a bigot. That people with an axe to grind "considered him" a bigot, or a racist, or a Martian, doesn't make him one. The things they believed are illustrative of their own prejudices, not his. NCdave (talk) 04:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

<outdent>Comments on lead: In reading the lead (which seems to be the source of the controversy here), I have a few suggestions:

First, the sentences are too long and should be simplified. Secondly, I don't think that characterizing Helms as a racist or a segregationist should be in the lead. Rather, it will be just as accurate, less controversial, and more encompassing (what a lead should be) to state that Helms opposed many progressive policies regarding race in the US. Thirdly, the grammar and punctuation makes it unclear as to what racial programs Helms opposed. Lastly, and this may be the most important, it way too overcited. You can cite each incidence, such as integration(ref), Civil Rights Act(ref), and observance of Martin Luther King's birthday(ref)(ref). Otherwise, this statement alone has an astounding 13 citations! They are very distracting. Keep the three most "important": general, or from the most reliable or high profile sources, and include the rest in the notes within the citation (see Ref #91 in To Kill a Mockingbird).
Can one oppose homosexuality as a concept? I mean, did he oppose the existence of homosexuals, like...one might oppose the existence of rocks? I would change "nakedness" to "nudity" since nakedness makes me want to say it as "nekkidness" and that makes me giggle. Again, too many citations is distracting.
  • Helms brought "an aggressiveness" to his conservatism, likely because of his upbringing and start in a racially charged atmosphere, and used racial politics when the "going got rough" but combined that with cultural, social and economic conservatism.
This statement is confusing, as it alludes that being brought up in a racially charged atmosphere implies it makes one a racist. And I don't understand what "used racial politics" means. Can someone make that clearer or can it be dropped from the lead? Not trying to bring the lead down, but part of the confusion and controversy is coming from its structure. --Moni3 (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
All quite helpful and done, to a degree, and I've boldly added sections further down where drilling into details on social and political issues can occur. I've tried to simply split up the cites for now but there are so many sources I have no problem switching out for better ones. I expect, as well, that in the coming months more thoughtful and comprehensive articles will be written that can also help with this. More ideas to clean up the lede are welcome as I often write wonkish. Also, to clarify, I don't expect any of this to appease the editor for whom this RFC was opened as they pretty much deny anything negative about Helms is true but I think this will help add weight that more are giving feedback and the article is again improving. Banjeboi 21:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There's a terminology problem here. When a Christian refers to "homosexuality" he is not usually referring to a condition, nor to the people who have that condition, which is characterized by sexual attraction to members of the same sex. Rather, he is referring to practices, such as sodomy, which are sinful. Helms was an orthodox Protestant Christian (and a member of a fairly liberal Baptist church), and the Christian scriptures tell us that sexual activities outside marriage are sinful: not just homosexual activities, like sodomy, but also heterosexual activities, like adultery and fornication. Helms, like most Christians, objected to efforts to legitimize such activities with the stamp of societal approval. NCdave (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with calling Helms a racist, or a segregationist, or a white supremacist, is simply that he was none of those things. The only people who called him such things were his political enemies. He said that he was not a segregationist. The imaginary quotes of him saying outrageously racist things have no reliable sources to substantiate them, and it is a foregone conclusion that no reliable sources for them will be found, since if there were such sources then Hunt and Gantt would have found them and used them to devastating effect in their Senate campaigns against him. NCdave (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
We aren't calling him a segregationist or a racist, or anything. We're simply listing his actions (which some people might consider racist) and noting that an awful lot of notable sources publicly stated that they considered him racist. This is a fact, it is not disputable and it is worth inclusion in the article. The only real question is whether it deserves such a prominent mention in the lead section, a point that Moni3 already made. I think it should be included, but not in such detail and not for so many paragraphs. Elaboration can be in the social views section, and his actions of course belong in the history section under the appropriate year.--TexasDex ★ 15:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think part of the issue is that we're still in process with quite a few sections needing to be created. I would support moving the laundry list statement to the social/political views section except it only currently covers two areas when we know there are more to cover. I'm open to ideas still. Banjeboi 21:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
The only people who considered Helms racist were his political enemies. There is no reliable evidence that he actually was ever a racist. There certainly is no evidence of racism in his lengthy Senate career, nor in his management of WRAL-TV (where he hired a famously integrated team).
The unsupported slurs of his political enemies have no place in Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to report that other people "considered him racist," no matter how numerous those people were. Should we report in the article on Obama that many people consider him a racist and/or a communist? The two statements are both true: many people did consider Helms a racist, and many people do consider Obama a racist and/or a communist. But politically controversial people like Helms and Obama always have numerous critics who think awful things about them. That is not WP:notable. NCdave (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a good look at these articles: Cultural and political image of Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright controversy. Notice that it says an awful lot about what people say or believe about him, including saying that a certain percentage of people believe he is muslim. The second article has a comment by Ann Coulter, the most insane right-wing commentator I know. Criticism of a person, by prominent and notable sources, does have a place in Wikipedia, as long as it is not presented as fact, not given undue weight, and attributed to the person who said it. Check WP:NPOV and you will see it says almost exactly that. --TexasDex ★ 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. I agree with what NCdave is stating about what a Christian might mean when referring to homosexuality (may be referring to the acts of being homosexual instead of being born that way) but we also have to avoid OR and inferring what they did mean or why they said it. Other people can do that and publish those thoughts but we can't. We can offer instances where Helms said something and critics claimed it was ____ but we can't state he is because of it. Banjeboi 11:17, 9 August 2008 (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.

"Unreconstructed Southern conservative"?

The term "Unreconstructed Southern conservative" is a strange neologism, as it is probably never used before (not even in the article about George Wallace). And the link "unreconstructed" links to "Reconstruction", which was ended long before Helms was born, making it an anachronistic term. Chimeric Glider (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't base usage on one article because another does or doesn't use it. Also the phrase, in context is "He was perhaps the last unreconstructed Southern conservative". And I believe this refers to Helms' ideas that forced mixing of races, or however you want to phrase it, was a bad idea. I do agree with NCDave, in part, that calling Helms a racist doesn't seem fair or completely accurate. His actions did seem to suggest the label was close but he was very much a conservative in many ways. Having stated all that, Helms was also greatly responsible for the culture wars in American politics which then transcended into many arenas of US culture. Banjeboi 21:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, I realize now that the above reply might not have addressed your concern, "unreconstructed Southern conservative" in this context is correct as it was used, as are we using it, to suggest he is amongst the last of those who are termed as such. It helps put his conservatism in content that he grew up with that atmosphere. The early life section can easily be expanded to show where some of this came from. Banjeboi 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"Unreconstructed Southern conservative" is a slur, falsely implying racism.
Helms was Southern (because he was a citizen of NC), and he was certainly conservative, but that's not what the phrase means. It does not mean simply that he was a southerner, and he was a conservative. It means he was racist, or segregationist, or both.
In that sentence, the word "southern" is not being used to describe Helms. If it were, it would be redundant to the point of silliness, since we're talking about a North Carolinian. Rather, the adjective "southern" is used to modify the meaning of the word "conservative." The phrase "southern conservative" means a particular kind of conservative, slyly hinting at racism. When the word "unreconstructed" is added, the sly hint becomes a plain accusation, since white racism is the one and only thoroughly outdated and peculiarly Southern attitude.
I don't think anyone doubts that this phrase is code language for "racist" or "segregationist." Chimeric Glider obviously made the association, in his reference to the famously-segregationist George Wallace. Unlike Helms, Wallace was a well-known supporter of legally enforced racial segregation.
Benjiboi certainly knows it, too, as he showed when he wrote "I believe this refers to Helms' ideas that forced mixing of races, or however you want to phrase it, was a bad idea." (Aside: Helms said no such thing about mixing of races!!)
In fact, Helms was not an "unreconstructed Southern conservative." He was just a plain conservative. He was a pro-free-enterprise, anti-big-government, pro-life, anti-communist conservative. There was nothing particularly southern about his conservatism. This slur, implying that he was racist, has no place in the article. NCdave (talk) 20:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually Helms has said that he felt forcing people of different races to mix was a bad idea. I believe I read this in context of the school busing issue toward the beginning of his career. Now whether he meant it as mixed races are bad, or as forcing people to do something was bad or something else I don't recall but he certainly is quoted as saying it. And no, I really don't see this phrase as a slur but as more an explanation of where Helms was coming from. It was amongst the quotes in the major media and if they meant it as a slur it went over my head. Banjeboi 11:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Support of non-democratic leaders

In the section "Fourth Senate term (1991-1997)" the following should be added to the third paragraph, after "Helms was a supporter of the late Chilean President Augusto Pinochet."

General Pinochet seized the presidency in 1973 in a coup orchestrated by Henry Kissinger and the U.S. CIA that resulted in the assassination of Chile's democratically elected president, Salvador Allende (ironically on 9/11/73)and brutally suppressed all opposition to his rule as dictator.

— (Sources: Howard Zinn, A People's History of the U.S., New York: Harper Collins, 1999; Peter Dale Scott, The Road to 9/11, Berkely: U. of California Press, 2007; among many others.)

Helms also supported General Raoul Cedras who, with other military officers, seized the presidency from the first democratically elected government of Haiti in 1991 and ruled the country as dictator until 1994, when he and other members of the junta were forced out and flown by the U.S. to comfortable retirement in Panama. Helms defended Cedras on the Senate floor as the appropriate ruler for Haiti, contrasting him with the elected president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide, whom he called a "psychopath."

— (Sources: Randall Robinson, An Unbroken Agony, New York: Basic Civitas Books, 2007; and others. I saw Helms endorse Cedras on U.S. TV newscasts.)

Helms also supported Jonas Savimbi, brutal leader of a rebel group that fought against the elected government of Angola. While calling himself a social democrat (as stated in his Wikipedia entry), Savimbi refused to accept the results of the 1993 election, deemed to be fair by international observers, in which he was defeated and continued to fight a guerilla war against the government until he was killed in 2002.

— (Helm's support of Savimbi in the Senate is a matter of public record, but I do not have a reference at hand.)

I believe that adding this information is important in view of the claim by George W. Bush and others that Helms was an advocate of democracy. Mexken (talk) 19:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I added formatting to help show what actual text was being proposed. Banjeboi 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that is very inaccurate. Let me count the ways.
1) Kissinger and the CIA did not "orchestrate" the Pinochet coup.
2) Pinochet did not suppress all opposition to his rule as dictator; rather, he (eventually) allowed repeated free and fair democratic elections -- which he (eventually) lost.
3) Pinochet was brutal, but Allende was even worse. Allende was in the pay of the KGB, and compounded his brutality with ruinous Marxist-Leninist economic policies, and the destruction of basic private property rights, on the Cuban model. Pinochet had astonishing success in turning around the economic fortunes of the Chilean people. His economic liberalizations and free-market reforms, and his gradual process of political liberalization, left Chile with a bright future. As Otto Reich has written, "Today, thanks to the KGB files smuggled out of Russia by Vasily Mitrokhin, we know that Allende was receiving payments from the KGB. There is no doubt that if he had succeeded in his plans, Chile today would be an impoverished Communist prison like Cuba, instead of a shining example of democracy and prosperity. With some compassion and self-discipline, Pinochet could have been remembered as a liberator and not a despot. He was both." In other words, Helms was right about Chile.
4) Haiti is a closer call. Cedras and Aristide were both horrible, brutal rulers. To justify support for either of them, all you have to do is examine the other, unfortunately.
5) The government of Angola that Savimbi fought against for so long was a murderous, brutal, Marxist dictatorship, which conquered and ruled with the aid of Cuban mercenaries, held typical communist sham elections, and murdered their opponents. Savimbi led a true liberation movement, seeking freedom for the people of Angola. Helms was absolutely correct to support Savimbi's UNITA movement. NCdave (talk) 08:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Helms foreign policies should be included as appropriate but not because George Bush admires them. These should be kept in context of his other views - anti-communists/cold war thinking being a major influence. Banjeboi 21:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
1)Project FUBELT says otherwise. According to Henry Kissenger: [We] "didn't do it," [but] "we helped them...created the conditions as great as possible."
2)It was the Carter administration who forced Pinochet to adopt a constitution facing increased US criticism
3)You can say the same about Adolf. "Oh but Y is worse, so X is completely acceptable". Allende's worst was nationalizing private enterprises, which is no match for Pinochet's torture camps, forced dissaperances, the Caravan of Death, Operation Colombo, Condor etc. As for Chile's so-called economic recovery, it's largely attributed to Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys, as opposed to the economy of neighboring Argentina under Videla's similar military junta. And it's quite amusing to see you quoting Otto Reich, as someone involved in the Venezuelan Coup spreading nosense about the so called Plan Z straight out of Pinochet's propaganda dept.
4)Ditto
5)This is someone whose fundings largely came from mining blood diamonds and was involved in the murders his of his close advisors, who ironically is also a self-proclaimed socialist/Maoist, and prolonged the Angola Civil War by rejecting the Lusaka Protocol. The lesser of two evils is still evil, just ask the Taliban. Being an US ally doesn't mean that you should be commit various crimes and get away with it.--60.242.159.224 (talk) 08:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Macon?

Why is Nathaniel Macon listed under "See Also"? This makes no sense on its face; one may just as soon list Jerry Falwell. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthehistoryguy (talk • contribs) 20:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories

I removed some categories [4] because I'd mistakenly overlooked that we had sections dealing iwth the topics. The categories were promptly restored, which I endorse.   Will Beback  talk  00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Dixiecrat?

The article places Helms in the "Dixiecrats" category. Can anyone show that Helms was ever a member of the States-Rights Democratic Party? The article is silent on that explicit identity, except for assigning him to the category. Rammer (talk) 04:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

this may help and this book calls him the Dixiecrat Republican. Agreed it should be clear in the text, unsure if content was removed that did so. -- Banjeboi 09:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view states that articles are supposed to represent "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources". This article clearly does not, and represents merely a hatchet job on Jesse Helms; I certainly cannot see a single 'positive' comment in the article - and that of a Senator that was re-elected four times! Bastin 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The article has degraded a bit since it was last overhauled. There certainly are positive things as well as well-sourced less than positive things. We don't look to write positive or negative but simply state what reliable sources cover. I'll look to clearing out some of the items that may have been injected that likely should be removed. The first sentence however does state - was a five-term Republican United States Senator from North Carolina who served as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 1995 to 2001. -- Banjeboi 19:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've removed a few items. Could you please list specific actionable items that you feel are not NPOV still? If not we should likely remove the tag. -- Banjeboi 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Apologies for overlooking this reply; I have been recovering from swine flu, and haven't quite been with it! (hence my other recent edits being about Lithuania...) It may also explain why I think it's worth overhauling an article of Jesse Helms - a man whose policies and politics I myself found appalling (but I digress).
The problem isn't that the statements aren't supported by sources. This is a very well-referenced article. But as WP:NPOV makes clear, and as I quoted, the article has to reflect the balance of reliable opinions out there. This article does not. it reflects, instead, picked and chosen statements from various obituaries and op-eds. For example, it quotes the NYT's various editions of his obituary, but it excludes vast swathes of it, instead citing simply that which casts Helms in a bad light.
The predominant issues are the biased account in the introduction (I have gone some way to making it reflect the balance of obituaries: most of which focus on his role in the conservative movement and do not just list his bigoted opinions, as this article does) and the treatment of his 'social and political views' (which is a hatchet job, pure and simple). Bastin 15:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Let's not misrepresent sources in our enthusiasm to find defenses of Helms. The WSJ editorial piece that is cited as calling him "no racist" says in that same place that he "exploited racial tensions". It's fine to add such defenders of his racial politics as can be found, but whitewashing, as it were, is not in order. (I would also suggest that most people would find it difficult to say that someone who "exploits racial tensions" and opposed integration, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act is "no racist", but apparently at least one editorial writer at the WSJ disagrees.) - Nunh-huh 18:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, the piece does not state that. It couches its criticism of his campaign tactics by attributing them to 'his critics', and then gives them only limited credence by saying 'they have a point'. If the Wall Street Journal believed, verbatim, what you just wrote, it would have attributed it to itself. You know, in the way that it stated unequivocally 'Helms himself was no racist'. Besides which, you will note, as I did in my edit summary, that it is already mentioned in the next paragraph. I am not 'whitewashing' the article - I am allowing both sides to be stated in proportion to their preponderence in reliable sources. If only something like that were made Wikipedia policy...
I think you'll find that most conservatives oppose government employment regulation qua government employment regulation. Helms gave James Meredith and Claude Allen their first jobs in politics, when noone else would give them a hearing, and ran a number of editorials in the 60s praising Harvey Gantt (oh, the irony) and others that broke the race barrier at schools. That is, he was not a racist. He wasn't even a segregationalist. He was simply rather laissez-faire on the issue, as he believed that the best way to overcome racial disparity and discrimination was to let the free market punish those that refused to hire the best employees just because they were Black. That happens to be a very common position advocated by the Wall Street Journal, National Review, Reason, Human Events, American Spectator, and so on. It is not a single editorial writer that finds a hole in that logic of yours.
And this isn't enthusiastic defence of Helms, or even a search for defences of Helms, thanks. I support gay marriage, full abortion rights, free trade, and drug decriminalisation, and hold a number of other policy positions on which Helms was outspoken against (geez, and I'm an atheist activist to boot). I'm clearly not doing this to advance the legacy of a man that I would defend in casual discourse. However, this is defence of the principles of Wikipedia, which are being trodden upon by those that wish to misrepresent, if anything, the policy of NPOV, as I quoted above. Bastin 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
The piece absolutely states that he "exploited racial tensions", which you seem to have removed. If you say "they're right, they have a point that he exploited racial tensions", you've agreed that he exploited racial tensions. That is certainly "not" mentioned in the next paragraph. If it's important to state this editorial writer's opinion that Helms wasn't a racist, it's only fair to also note that he is also of the opinion that Helms exploited racial tensions. That's not a misrepresentation: that is NPOV. Selective quoting, as you want to do, is not. - Nunh-huh 20:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
First, the writer does not put it in the same terms, and that's for a reason; he or she explicitly believes that Helms was not a racist, and actually thinks it beyond question or equivocation. He or she also believes that there is some truth (that is the implication of 'you have a point, but...') in the accusation that Helms exploited racial tensions - but some truth is not complete concurrence, so it cannot be taken as his or her opinion. Second, nonetheless, it does state that Helms used racially-charged language: in the next paragraph. Once again, I suggest that the introduction not state twice the same accusation, especially when it is done so unequivocally in the fourth intro paragraph. I think mentioning each side once in the introduction is fine, so I'm not averse to the current situation. Bastin 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
I've obviously missed the place in the introduction (or indeed, the article) where it states "Jesse Helms exploited racial tensions". Could you please point it out for me? And the "other side" of being called "no racist" is being called "a racist". I see no place in the article where we quote, say, an editorial writer, saying "Helms was a racist". Yet surely such editorials exist in far greater number than editorials saying he wasn't a racist. To "equalize" unequal viewpoints - to emphasize one in the name of fairness in excess of the amount of support that opinion actually carries - is a violation of NPOV, not an act in furtherance of that policy. Why is the WSJ's characterization of Helms as "no racist" worthy of inclusion in the introduction, while the Washington Post's characterization (in the column "Jesse Helms, White Racist") as "the last prominent unabashed white racist politician in this country" isn't? --Nunh-huh 20:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
It says that he "employed racially charged language in his campaigns and editorials". I think that's pretty much the thinking behind the WSJ's concession. On the second question, that isn't the Post's editorial opinion. There is a difference between editorials and op-eds. The WSJ is an editorial - it is attributed to noone because it represents the WSJ's corporate position. The Washington Post article is attributed to David S. Broder - it does not represent the Washington Post's corporate position, but his own personal position, which is less notable than the Post's or the WSJ's.
Nonetheless, despite it being the opinion of said columnist personally, it is conceded under 'Second Senate term', where Broder's opinion is stated and that article quoted. Accusations of racism are then levelled again under the 1990 reelection bid, Fourth Senate term, and its own entire section (the naming of which 'Racism' rather then 'Race' or 'Race relations' is, I believe, POV, as is the secion called 'Homophobia' instead of something like 'Gay rights' or 'LGBT rights'). Bastin 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
"Employed" and "exploited" are two different things though, aren't they? And though there is now one quote of someone calling Helms "no racist", there are now no quotes of anyone calling Helms a racist anywhere in the current article, though such quotes could easily be supplied (just as a first pass, Don't sanitize Helms' racist past, and Jesse Helms, American Bigot). And where you've selected out the "no racist" quote from the WSJ piece, you've decided to leave out the parts where they note that his campaigns were demagogic, that he abused his senatorial power, and, yes, that he exploited racial tensions. You've taken a eulogy and treated it as though it were biography - or worse, history. - Nunh-huh 21:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I see reasons to look at perhaps tweaking some language but not that we have erred in either omitting or adding anything to an undue extent. -- Banjeboi 07:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You may say that as an insider having written the article yourself, but any impartial analysis would suggest that an awful lot was omitted and an awful lot added that should not have been. The introduction had no reference to his role in Ronald Reagan's career, and no reference to his leadership of the conservative movement and religious right. It still makes no reference to his role in reforming the United Nations or in advocating human rights in Cuba or China. It still makes only the most passing reference to his advocacy of low taxes and his Damascene conversion to sponsorship of AIDS funding. These are major, nay defining, issues in Jesse Helms's career, too, and that is borne out in the references that are cited.
Instead, the introduction was a list of legislation that he opposed, designed and crafted to cast Jesse Helms in as bad a light as possible. It had - in its first paragraph, no less! - a quote of a sole professor, in a non-reviewed source, that is contested in that very source that is cited by another guest. The above comment of yours - that the introduction made factual statement of his Senate tenure, is perhaps most damning of all. The article on Adolf Hitler has an entirely factual and unemotional first paragraph, but dedicates the rest of the introduction to reflecting popular and academic criticisms of him. Fair enough. But Jesse Helms's article read just like that, and - believe it or not - Jesse Helms was no Adolf Hitler. Bastin 13:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You may have read the wrong article then. Here's the version before your edits. You'll note the lede does in fact prominently mention Reagan, conservatism and aludes to the religious right - a POV term by the way. And as an insider I overhauled the article sticking only to what reliable sources supported. If the sources didn't discuss any "defining issues" then I didn't dwell on them either. Your bad faith assumptions cause me concern but I'll dig through the vast changes to see if indeed there has been any constructive changes. -- Banjeboi 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
You question whether my edits had any constructive changes (I have made 19,000 before, y'know; I'm not a vandal), and I'm the one making assumptions of bad faith? Please.
I do, however, apologise for having forgotten that little paragraph. Nonetheless, that state of affairs was still not balanced, dedicating - as it did - more than half of its words to the very long and implicitly critical 'he didn't like gays or blacks or other people' paragraph (that is now two paragraphs). For the introduction to be balanced, it still has to address the issues above. In their obituaries cited elswhere in the article, the NYT calls the Helms-Burton Act his most famous act, the WSJ says that he stood out for being an anti-communist, Time spends most of its obituary discussing his foreign policy positions. How do you conclude that they weren't important enough to justify inclusion in the introduction except that passing mention to 'opposing communism' near the end of a long litany of his grievances?
You claim not to have 'dwelled on' race and sexuality. Huh? In fact, by making them the only 'social and political views' mentioned, you're making a pretty clear statement yourself. Hence my suggestion, below, in line with other politicians' articles, to collate and expand his policy positions. Because, whatever you may think, racism was not his 'policy' just because he opposed government regulating private institutions and enterprises' employment and admissions procedures (and homophobia was never a 'policy' he advocated, even if he believed that the government shouldn't fund healthcare for people that increased their chances of acquiring a communicable disease). Nor, for that matter, was racism even his personal position (although I have no doubt that he hated gay people).
And, yes, religious right is a loaded term - a pejorative one to describe people that believe in imaginary dead carpenter friends, in my opinion - but one that is supported by sources almost universally (and has this article, which makes no statement of offence from the term, despite its discussion of the terminology itself), and so is not POV. You see, I'm not trying to whitewash Jesse Helms (as I have been accused) or blackwash him (that's not a word, but if it were, it would be the state of this article a few days ago), so I don't particularly care whether some unreliable sources think some terms are loaded. Bastin 15:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The social views section was not my idea but I felt it did ease the weighted concern and helped pull detail out of the lede at the time hat didn't need to be there. I have suggested that his campaign against communism should be included but it was pointed out that that info is already everywhere. I have not dwelled on any topic that was not supported by reliable sources. You seem to feel I am the sole author here, I'm not. Like most articles this developed organicly in part due to folks tagging items that needed reference or fixing. Thus bits and fits helped expand some parts while others were ignored. By rolling in and slapping POV, then making blanket staements about how others have failed in various ways you've completely shot a hole through collegial collaboration. Unfortunately we'rve had teh same experience on this article at least twice before. It was reasonably stable before your arrival. I hope the article doees ideed improve but plopping - Wall Street Journal editorial called him "no racist" - in the lede is stepping in the wrong direction. -- Banjeboi 03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm no fan of Jesse Helms, but this article is ugly and biased. It's not a question of which quotes are reliable and which aren't; it's a question of providing all relevant points of view on the subject. See WP:POV. Don't confuse the politics with the man. Jesse Helms was beloved by many of his constituents because he worked hard to help the people of North Carolina. This smear campaign in what's supposed to be an encyclopedic article is disgusting. The lede should provide an overview of his life and should touch on some of the controversies, but the details should be saved for later in the article, and they must be balanced. ThreeOfCups (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring political positions

I acted boldly to reorganise the part about AIDS funding because that is the format that is used by almost all other politicians. That is to say, when their views on a certain issue require in-depth examination, they are taken to another section (see, well, most politicians), or even a separate article (see Category:Political positions of United States Senators).

This is important, because it gives scope for topical treatment of each issue in turn - when an individual's views change or are brought out by different events (as was the case with Helms's views on AIDS funding, race relations, and LGBT rights), they can be brought together without being conflated or regurgitated. The same is true of controversies, which may be referred to in the main section insofar as they are important to tell the narrative, but separated if they become so in-depth that they detract from it. Clearly, that has been the case here. The other important thing is with regards to the presentation of the 'social and political views' section; currently, 'Racism' and 'Homophobia' are taken into that section... as if his political views were entirely based around homophobia and racism. Hence my accusation of it being a hatchet job above.

The main section of the article, involving the chronology of a person's life, should tell the events insofar as they are important to the narrative of that person's life. Bastin 21:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Very bad change in my opinion, as it ghettoizes AIDS, race relations, and LGBT rights, segregating them and shoving them down towards the bottom of the page where they will be less read. They need to be integrated with Helms career, not marginalized. - Nunh-huh 05:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
That isn't how most other high-profile senators are treated. Events of a politician's life are detailed in chronological order to provide a narrative, to show progression from one event to the next. In this case, his position on AIDS is separated into two different sections, plus a discussion under 'homophobia' (as an aside: yes, he was a homophobe, but opposing government healthcare isn't evidence of it - it is evidence of not being a socialist - so, whilst it did elicit him to make homophobic statements, his position on AIDS is not an integral part of that section).
Yes, mention them in the narrative section where appropriate (say, if he ran an editorial supporting or opposing desegregation in the 60s, mention it in the 'Early career' section in passing AND perhaps discuss it under 'political positions), but don't disrupt the entire narrative (e.g. don't repeat 'he thought homosexuality was disgusting' after every reference to AIDS, as it previously did).
It's like Adam Smith digressing on the price of silver for 30 pages; if it detracts from the main narrative, it should go under an appendix. That is what is done for most other politicians: who have separate sections for political positions, controversies, and family life simply because they are such large sections that tend to contain information unimportant to the chronology of one's life. Bastin 18:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I suppose the difference between us, then, is that—apparently unlike you—I don't see his opposition to providing healthcare to people with AIDS, which was, despite what you imply, a direct result of his hatred of homosexuals and homosexuality, as a footnote, or an appendix, but rather as an integral part of his career. It did not consist of a single action but of repeated actions taken at all stages of his career. I understand that if you're trying to make him "look better" you'll minimize it by making it seem like one action, but that's far from making the article more neutral; it's slanting it. - Nunh-huh 20:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you didn't read what I just wrote. That is, mention it in the chronological order, and then have a discussion at the end. Do not have random discussions in the middle of the article as and when a given topic comes up - as that defeats the point of chronology in the first place. Yeesh. Bastin 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I both read and comprehended what you wrote: what's unclear is how it relates to the actual editing you're doing. If I'm not mistaken, what you have chosen to label as 'random discussions' were in fact, not random, but statements from the time period involved. You've eliminated them from the chronology, and so distorted the history by lumping them together as if they all occurred at once. - Nunh-huh 18:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Here is the pre-Bastin version of the article. I suppose it might be a good idea to compare the two versions and see if Bastin has improved the article. If he hasn't, we should be discussing alternatives to his unilateral revisions which have been made against consensus and collaboration. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you understand the process of collaboration. I have made almost solely additions, not deletions. My modus operandi is to cite every article written in newspapers of record, in order to avoid any bias, either through citing unreliable sources (on which the article used to be based) or through selective citation (on which the article used to be based). The newspapers so far covered for the sections that I've written have been the New York Times, the Times, the Economist, and the Financial Times, to which I intend to add the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. Are you really disputing that these are reliable sources or that I have cited them consistently? Because it sounds like sour grapes to me. Bastin 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I hardly think the reverts of other editors here from you and User:Byates5637 are symbolic of "collaboration". I suggest you stick with reliable history and political science books, which are at odds with your assessment of Helms' political career. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Which reverts? Please, tell me. Tell me again how the New York Times isn't a reliable source. Pleeeeeease tell me the New York Times is biased in favour of Jesse Helms and conservatives; I'd dearly love to hear that thesis! On the last point, I haven't finished referencing his entire career; you must pay attention to the edits that I've made before passing comment on said edits. Bastin 00:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Your reverts are in the edit history, and I do not have time to waste playing games with you. I don't think your edits are supported, and at least three editors find fault with them. Viriditas (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Op-Ed sources

Using an op-ed to support statements, such as that Helms always made race an issue in his campaigns, is against Wikipedia policy for the following reasons. First, let it be noted that it is an op-ed. That is to say, it cannot be attributed to the Charlotte Observer, but to the opinion of a single journalist - that is, Jim Morrill.

  • WP:RS says that 'mews reporting is distinct from opinion pieces. An opinion piece is reliable only as to the opinion of its author, not as a statement of fact, and should be attributed in-text'.
  • WP:SUBSTANTIATE says that 'a biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth'
  • WP:POV says that articles 'should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists'.
  • WP:REDFLAG says that 'claims that are controversial or embarrassing ... require high-quality sources'.

Since that statement meets that criterion, and has been flagged up by two editors now, and one editor has simply put the same Morrill quote back in, unattributed and unbalanced, it is clearly a red flag. As such, it needs good sources. An op-ed is NOT a good source, so it would have to be attributed ('Jim Morrill thinks that...'). Furthermore, because Jim Morrill's opinion has not been established as that of a 'main scholar or specialist' (if you can establish it, prove it with more reliable sources), it does not even warrant inclusion by virtue of it being his opinion. Hence it being deleted. Bastin 10:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Jim Morrill is a political reporter and that piece was not an op-ed. It is offline presently but I would agree it should not be used if it was. I wouldn't have ever used it if it were an op-ed. All your other statements rather hinge on that alone - as Helms is well known to use exactly those tactics to be a very successful politician. The direct quote summed it up best and is why it was used rather that summarizing several sources. -- Banjeboi 02:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


  • Morrill, Jim (5 July 2008). "Race was always an issue in Helms's campaigns: He helped build a powerful Republican coalition, but critics said his tactics were divisive". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved 2008-08-27.
Looking at the title of the article as well should be apparent this was not an opinion piece. We are also using a direct quote so there is less chance we are misinterpreting this source. Do you have any other reason this content and source cannot be used? -- Banjeboi 03:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I've now read the article (having taken out another subscription - you're lucky I have such a great job, otherwise I wouldn't be able to do that for free!), and you are wrong. That section is quoting HARVEY GANTT: "Jesse Helms definitely used a lot of what I call wedge issues to his advantage politically," Gantt said Friday. "He was a master at using fear ... whether it was communism or gay and lesbian groups or African Americans. He won elections that way and never lost." Obviously, that isn't a reliable independent source. Bastin 11:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like the quote was misapplied not that it was false or undue. So this actually is an article or are you stating it is indeed an opinion piece? Can you post a copy for others to see as well? -- Banjeboi 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed an opinion piece, written as part of compendium of various authors' opinions on Jesse Helms's death; the rest are a balance of positive and negative, as well as the 'official' editorial board-approved obituary, which is fairly balanced (funny that only the most negative quote of the most negative article was picked out, eh?). You'll note that, as the opinion of which you were defending the inclusion was one of his political rivals, you really don't have a leg on which to stand even if you think the article is fair game. On your last request, neither I nor Wikipedia has licence to reproduce it, although that you'd want that article reproduced out of the thousands written about Helms is unsurprising. Bastin 08:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Bastin, I agree that the sources Benjiboi is using could certainly be improved, but the content you are removing is supported by reliable sources so I'm a bit concerned about your deletions. It is a matter of historical record that Helms supported D'Aubuisson and either refused to recognize or ignored his connections with the death squads who were responsible for killing civilians. This is covered in numerous sources, including Link's Righteous Warrior (2008). It is also a matter of historical record that Helms was known for using the race card in his campaigns. In The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality (2001) Tali Mendelberg writes: "Jesse Helms remains the anomalous example of a politician who continued to use explicitly racial appeals after the early 1970s...even he has, from the beginning of his statewide electoral career, mixed implicit and explicit racial appeals." (100)[5] The book received the Woodrow Wilson Foundation Award from the American Political Science Association.[6][7] Viriditas (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Then feel free to cite them. See how collaboration works? Bastin 16:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen you collaborate with anyone here. What I need for you to do is to show some good editorial judgment. You and User:Byates5637 removed content related to the race card campaign tactics Helms relied upon, and these deletions were not only unsupported, but indicative of poor judgment considering his record on this issue. If you can't be bothered to do research, then you shouldn't be removing material. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
No, you're right. I haven't. Because noone else has made any constructive edits since I started editing this article. But, hey, I have worked with the existing material and left it where it is verified by reliable sources.
See, you don't seem to understand the principle of verifiability. It's Wikipedia's central policy, so it's quite important for you to get your head around it before criticising my edits. What one writes ought to be supported by references. Since that statement was entirely the statement of opinion of a non-independent, unreliable source, it had no place whatsoever. If you have a reference to support a similar statement, which does not rely on the opinion of Helms's political opponents, insert it. Don't expect me to do everything - because we've already seen you object to that. Bastin 00:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Bastin, your edits have been criticized by three editors. Verifiability is precisely the thing you didn't do. If you had, you would have noticed that it was already published by a reliable source. You also didn't actually challenge the material, but deleted it because you didn't like the author. Your comments above are extremely immature and childish. Claiming you are the only editor making constructive edits here, tells me that you are failing to assume good faith and you bring a jaundiced eye to this topic. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it was a pretty factual statement. I'm not saying others can't make constructive edits. I'm saying they haven't. Perhaps 'substantive' would be a better expression. What passages have been added to the article since I started editing it except by me? In fact, how many sentences have been added in the time I've written a dozen subsections of heavily-referenced prose? I don't think too many have.
Sorry, but accusing me of ignoring verifiability when I've added 170 reliable source references, covering every single clause I've added to the article is absurd. You seem not to understand the actual content being discussed. What I deleted was a Harvey Gantt quote that was not attributed to Harvey Gantt; yes, it was published in a newspaper, but only as a chronicle of what Harvey Gantt thought. That, however, was not what this article said. Hence, I deleted it.
If you think Harvey Gantt's opinion is important, say so, and you can attribute the quotation to him. I would refute it, and request an out-of-state source that shows that Harvey Gantt's opinion on Jesse Helms's attitude to race relations is more significant than anyone else's. If you can't do that, please don't attribute undue weight to his personal opinion. This is covered above, and I don't see why I need to explain it again. If you think Harvey Gantt's opinion is more important than the literature suggests, there's an entire article dedicated to Harvey Gantt that needs some editing - that would be constructive on your part. Bastin 02:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed KAL 007 section - again

I've again removed this section as being poorly sourced and likely too trivial. No disrespect to the victims but is anything in here worth keeping and sourced reliably? -- Banjeboi 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Benjeboi, I request that the section be put back. I think that it is very well sourced - including the Dec. 10. 1991 letter of Senator Helms to Boris Yelsin, the letter of Helm's Chief of Staff on the Committee on Foreign Relations, Admiral Bud Yance, and the New American Magazine article by Warren Mass. As far as trivial, I don't think that Helms' innvolvment in KAL 007 matters was trivial for the development of KAL 007 affairs in general, and certainly not for the Yeltsin response of handing over finally the 9 years concealaed "Black Box", nor was it trivial to Helms himself. The latter assertion is based on personal written communications with the International Committee for the Rescue of KAL 007 Survivors, and based upon the the experience of numbers of others with Helms on the matter, including Warren Mass, author of the New American Magazine article above referenced. Worth reading! Please reinstateBert Schlossberg (talk) 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

There may be something here but I'm not seeing a reliable source that this is terribly notable to Helm's biography. Last time I went looking for sourcing in the many books and article it wasn't mentioned at all. That suggests that it was not that pressing of a concern but one of many chapters of his interest. -- Banjeboi 15:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
Removed again - -- Banjeboi 23
18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I have restored again. Please don't remove again. If you disagree, let's call in others. It is clear that this personally followed Helms through his succeeding years, even to the extent of bringing Flight 007 at various speaking engagements, including his encounter with the children of the flight, and it is clear that he followed this through professionally on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, even to the extent of issuing a study and on the basis of that, according to his Chief of Staff, Rear Admiral Bud Nance, writing to Yeltsin about it to find out where the camps were that the passengers were being held and enquiring about Congressman Larry McDonald. KAl 007 had a lot to do with Jess Helms and vice-versa. Here is the Helms letter with interrogatories to Yeltsin: http://www.rescue007.org/helms_letter.htm Bert Schlossberg (talk) 03:29, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the section again, as per the discussion above. There doesn't seem to be any reliable secondary sources showing this to be a major factor in his life, certainly not deserving of its own dedicated section in his biography. Dayewalker (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Here is a secondary source, The New American. Helms wrote Boris Yelsin about his encounter with the Grenfell girls at Anchorage. That's a primary source. This secondary source speaks about the same encounter and is in the deleted section

"KAL Flight 007 Remembered

Written by Warren Mass Monday, 01 September 2008 It has been 25 years since Korean Airlines Flight 007, carrying 269 passengers and crew, including Congressman Larry McDonald of Georgia, was fired on by a Soviet fighter jet off the coast of Siberia. At the time, McDonald was chairman of the John Birch Society (a subsidiary of which publishes THE NEW AMERICAN).

Although several speakers eulogized McDonald at a Washington, D.C., memorial service 10 days following the September 1, 1983 attack, the words most remembered by both this magazine’s editor, Gary Benoit, and this writer were delivered by the late Senator Jesse Helms, who passed away on July 4. Senator Helms, along with Senator Steve Symms of Idaho and Representative Carroll Hubbard, Jr. of Kentucky, were headed for the same conference in Seoul, South Korea, as was Congressman McDonald, but on a different plane (KAL 015). Both planes, flying on schedules just minutes apart, stopped at Anchorage, Alaska, for refueling, and passengers from each could deplane and stretch their legs. McDonald decided to stay onboard, but Senator Helms opted to visit the terminal, where he mingled with passengers from the doomed KAL 007. During the layover, Helms met two little girls who were passengers on McDonald’s plane, Noel Anne Grenfell, five, and her sister Stacy Marie, three. The senator spoke about the encounter to the 4,000 people gathered at the McDonald memorial service, and often again in the years that followed:

I’ll never forget that night when that plane was just beside ours at Anchorage airport with two little girls and their parents. I taught them, among other things, to say I love you in deaf [sign] language, and the last thing they did when they turned the corner was stick up their little hands and tell me they loved me."

2. Here is a secondary source that tells of Helms initial involvement with KAL007 that led, according to Admiral Nance, to his letter to Yeltsin. This secondary source informs us of the Study he commissioned, using CIA, as ranking member of the minority staff of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. The secondary source is Insight Magazine, Timothy W. Maier author - http://web.archive.org/web/20010919141246/www.insightmag.com/archive/200104171.shtml

Dayewalker, I have provided two secondary sources.Bert Schlossberg (talk) 14:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This seems like pretty minimal coverage. During his senate career Helms must have written dozens if not hundreds of letters to officials. While his minimal involvement may be relevant to the KAL 007 article, it's only a small footnote to his biography which is probably too obscure to mention in a short biography like this.   Will Beback  talk  17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Redux

Schlossberg has been at it again, spamming this article and a bunch of others with material linking to his KAL 007 conspiracy website. But what is needed here are mainstream, reliable secondary sources, not links to supposed copies of letters on that website, not cites to John Birch Society publications, not mentions of the highly dubious Insight on the News.

However, there actually is something to be said in this timeframe about Helms and Foreign Relations Committee actions related to the Vietnam POW/MIA issue in this period, and I have added that to the article, using as sources the thorough Link biography (already used in many places in this article), Associated Press stories, and the New York Times. I've also explored staff aide James Lucier's role in all this. And I've stated that Lucier did actually believe in the KAL 007 survivors theory. But I haven't found any reliable, secondary source that says that Helms believed in that theory, and given that Lucier was soon fired for going off on his own on policy matters, it's very important to distinguish here between what Lucier believed and what Helms believed. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Pop Culture?! Really?!

Is the Pop Culture section really appropriate to Wikipedia's profanity standards? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.121.184 (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a profanity standard. However, policy does require that additions be related to the subject. That is, for example, if an article about Jesse Helms quoted the joke verbatim, it would be defensible to include it in the article. A single joke told by a single comic, without any such third-party reference, is not notable. So I've deleted it. Bastin 01:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Conclusion to paragraph on Carter-Panama-Helms makes absolutely no sense

This is my first post/interaction with wikipedia.

I am not a skilled computer user, nor do I have any facility with html.

I am, however, a former journalist and an avid user of wikipedia.

I am finally joining because it pains me to see such a useful resource be so regularly hampered by cross-editing that renders many articles unreadable.

There is a problem with the following paragraph:

When Carter announced, on August 10, 1977, the conclusion of the treaties, Helms declared it a constitutional crisis, cited the need for the support of America's allies in Latin America, accused the U.S. of submitting to Panamanian blackmail, and complained that it threatened national security in the event of war in Europe. Helms threatened to obstruct Senate business, proposing two hundred amendments to the revision of the United States criminal code, knowing that most Americans opposed the treaties and would punish congressmen that voted for them if the ratification vote came in the run-up to the election. Helms announced the results of an opinion poll showing 78% public opposition,[56] but Helms and Thurmond's leadership of the cause made it politically easier for Carter,[54] causing them to be replaced by the soft-spoken Paul Laxalt.[57]

The last sentence ("Helms announced the results of an opinion poll showing 78% public opposition,[56] but Helms and Thurmond's leadership of the cause made it politically easier for Carter,[54] causing them to be replaced by the soft-spoken Paul Laxalt.[57]") makes no sense.

Helms and Thurmond's leadership of the cause made it politically easier for Carter to do what?

Helms and Thurmond were replaced by Paul Laxalt 'in what capacity?'

I assume they were replaced as leaders of this cause, but that is entirely unclear as it reads presently.

I wanted to tag this article with these comments, and I apologize for my lack of facility with the wikipedia interface - I could not figure out how to execute a tag, and thought it better to provide commentary than risk mucking anything up in the actual article through user error.

If someone can educate me on the use of tags, that would be most appreciated. If someone would prefer to just turn an edited version of this comment into a tag, that would also be more than satisfactory.

Ultimately, whichever users are active in editing/improving this page should fix this defective paragraph. I dare not intrude by presuming to do so by my own hand, and am not even confident in my divination of the intended meaning.

Many thanks,

Jmmj80 (talk) 23:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This article needs to have a link to an LGBT category

Clearly Mr. Helms had opinions on this subject and shaped policy dictated by these opinions. Therefore he needs to be linked in some way to the LGBT category. There is a link in regards to his racism, therefore one should also be included regarding his opposition to the rights of LGBT people. --DCX (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. It will lead to bias and POV edits.MickeyDonald (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Albright in intro

The bit about foreign policy in the intro I find odd. "He had strained relations with the State Department, but he got along with Madeleine Albright". Was she the only Secretary of State he got along with, or were there others? If he got along with others, why mention just her? And if there weren't others, why don't we say that? Mention others and/or chop Albright if she weren't the only one, or highlight the uniqueness of their relationship, or chop the sentence entirely. Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

"Clinton needs bodyguard" quote

"Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard."

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/23/us/helms-takes-new-swipe-at-clinton-then-calls-it-mistake.html Changed it. This type of quote should be exact. Mydogtrouble (talk) 13:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

helms's votes on black, federal judicial nominees.

A user by the name of 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111 is trying to edit war a removal of my credible information about how Helms voted for African-American Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's confirmation in 1991. This is not a WP:Synth, which is what he's trying to say. I'm not stating material not explicitly stated by the source:it explicitly states that he voted for Thomas on the two references I provided. The section has a sentence that reads that Helms blocked "black judges from being considered for the federal bench"; however, it makes no mention of how he voted to confirm Clarence Thomas – an African-American – to the Supreme Court, a FEDERAL court. In other words, Helms did vote for a black federal judicial nominee. That sentence standing alone leaves the misleading impression that he opposed all black candidates for federal judgeships, when it is not the case. I'm just balancing the article out. 2600:1006:B129:DF07:14E8:C473:9B00:7111, if you're reading this and disagree with me, do not REVERT my changes, or I'll report you for edit-warring (you don't need to break the 3rr to be blocked). Try to reach a consensus first; try to compromise. I'm a reasonable guy. Regards, Cali11298 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

How many black judges did Helms obstruct? Quite a lot. If you want to tell the reader that he confirmed Clarence Thomas as a federal judge then you should not present it as a rebuttal to the truth that Helms was a racist white who worked tirelessly to limit opportunities for most blacks. In fact, Helms confirming Thomas was a continuation of his conservative stance, in step with conservative Republicans, in opposition to liberal Democrats such as Al Gore. Helms was active in bashing Anita Hill, after she brought damning testimony against Thomas. So your example of Thomas cannot be used to paint Helms in a favorable light. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The problem is you are definitely adding the 'rebuttal' as OR and synthesis. The fact you claim you are not leads me to believe you have not read those guidelines or cannot understand them. Better to move on from this, there are plenty of sources describing the racist legacy of Helms, and I think only fringe sources would argue. So in addition to OR and Synth, Weight would also apply. Dave Dial (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • sigh*, fine. I'll add info about how Helms voted for Thomas, but, per Binksternet's request, I won't add it as a rebuttal to the charge that Helms is racist. I'll add it under a new header "Supreme Court nominees". In fact, I'll include how he voted on every Supreme Court nominee during his tenure, just so that you don't get the wrong idea. Cali11298 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
If biographies of Helms list his Supreme Court votes as if they were significant, then you are on solid ground. If they don't, then you are once again violating WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Let the sources speak. Binksternet (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright, Binksternet, look at the page now. I've added a new header under "Supreme Court nominees" which lists his votes. How do you feel about it? Cali11298 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
You did not pay any attention to my advice. Your addition runs afoul of WP:SYNTH because you did not quote any source which discussed the Supreme Cournt nomination votes as being significant as a group. You pieced together the voting record from various sources, but none of them describe Helms' Supreme Court voting record as a thing worthy of mention. Binksternet (talk) 15:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

University of Negroes and Communists

An anon ip has removed the quote that Helms "proposed building a wall around UNC-Chapel Hill (which he dubbed "the University of Negroes and Communists") to contain its "liberal" influence". Source- CBS News 2009

I've found many sources for this quote, some from his 2008 death and a couple from 1995.

Charlotte Observer 2012 The Dispatch(Lexington, North Carolina) 2002 The Buffalo News 1995 San Jose Mercury News - Oct 20, 1995 In any case, I would suggest that since this has been sourced from at least 1995, there would have to be multiple sources stating that Helms did not make those comments to even begin the conversation of removing the quote. Preferably with Helms denying he said it. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Attribution of this quote has been debated. According to the Charlotte Observer, he did not say it and WRAL has removed it from his obituary. Any reason it should stay?--RadioFan (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
In the Observer O-pinion blog (previous link), Taylor Batten quotes the head of the Jesse Helms Center as saying that the UNC line was a "fabrication" with "zero basis in reality." They also say that WRAL-TV removed it from their obit after Dodd complained. So we have one source disputing the UNC quotation. The Observer also provides several references where the quote can be found. So the Batten piece supports the view that the quote is disputed insofar as one expert disputes it, but it would be inaccurate to say that "according to the Charlotte Observer, he did not say it." According to a single expert quoted in the Observer, he didn't say it, while twelve journalistic sources quoted in the same article attribute the quote to Helms. Batten's conclusion is that the quotation is disputed, not that it didn't happen. Flies 1 (talk) 22:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

And yet, was it important to him, or was it just positioning for power? I found this clipping which I had saved as somehow typical of most politicians:

Minutes of "delightful" conversation Senator Jesse Helms says he had last April with Pakistani Prime Minister Bhutto: 60
Number of minutes after the conversation ended that he introduced her to the Senate as the leader of India: 10

This was in 1995, and yes he was chairman. highbeam sfgate Google news link Shenme (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

NPOV - Bias

Tarc, please keep your bias to itself and out of this Wikipedia article. I already know your biased by that edit summary you gave where you flat-out called helms a bigot, so don't bother denying it. Were not mind-readers, we can't tell whether helms was truly a racist deep down or whether he wasn't. It's not a simple fact matter, such as saying 2 + 2 = 4, its a matter of opinion. We shouldn't be stating opinions as facts with Wikipedia's voice; we must be clear it's only the opinion of his critics that he is a bigot. "Helms ran an ad playing to white racist fear" is a perfect example of personal, unencyclopedic commentary. I thus changed it to highlight how only his critics felt the ad was racist - I wasn't "whitewashing" anything. Therefore, I'm reverting your change as you haven't given a proper argument (note: whitewashing is not a sound argument). Sophia340 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

single-purpose accounts are not welcome in this project, especially on controversial articles/topics. The Harvey Gantt political advertisement is a historical example of race-baiting in American politics, and is frequnetly cited as such. There is no wiggle room here. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


Yuck, I see this has been bounced around a lot in section Social and political views, between phrasing such as
"Racism" / "Homophobia"
vs
"Views on minorities" / "Views on homosexuality"
Blech. I see a section above from 2008. I think a person can be legitimately be described by their own actions, so the mewling 'views' feels wrong as definitive summary of these topics. Partly because if the section is about his views, then where are the 'views' of others regarding these characterizations covered? Hmm, but then what is this whole section about? The hagiographic repetition of what he himself said?
So I'm wondering if a good starting point for discussion is asking "what is this section supposed to relate - views attributed to him, or views about his attributes?" Or some well-delineated set of both?
Shenme (talk) 23:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, I'll say this. History will look at Helms in a harsh manner concerning these issues. There are many politicians that held similar views, earlier in history, that won't have such harsh criticism of their views. The era of ones service probably will have more to do with how one is viewed than most anything, because of the coverage in sources one gets will reflect the era. And Helms was out of step in many of his views and political actions. A relic from an era long past. But I am not against shaping those section with a more neutral tone. Although I think that will be short lived, and more reliable sources will describe Helms in a even harsher manner as time goes on. Also, I would be against any proposal based on these sock puppets that have inundated this article with their bogus outrage and misplaced indignation. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules do not allow editors to make their own judgments whether harsh or benign. Rjensen (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
As said earlier, it is the historical narrative of American politics that has largely describes some of Helms' actions, such as the Gantt ad, as overtly racist. We follow what reliable sources have to say on the subject. Tarc (talk) 00:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia rules allow editor judgements all the time, harsh and benign. But as I said, based on reliable sourcing. Which is what we have here. I often defer to you on historical facts, but on this I have to strongly disagree. Dave Dial (talk) 00:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Masonry Category

Noticed one of the categories for the Jesse Helms article was Anti-Masonry even though a source in the article mentions Helms was a Freemason. Unless there's some evidence suggesting he left the Lodge and spoke out against it, I might remove that category. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

"self-described 'redneck'"

One of the many dubious attacks on Helms in this article is that he was a "redneck." In fact, the article calls Helms a "self-described 'redneck,'" and cites three references to support the claim.

However, the first two references are dead links, and the third points to an anti-Helms op-ed (which is not a reliable source, anyhow) that doesn't use the word redneck at all. In my almost a quarter-century in North Carolina, I can never recall Sen. Helms referring to himself as a redneck. Nor did the folks around here think of him as a redneck: a courtly Southern gentleman, yes, but not a redneck.

I also know that he was a longtime major financial supporter of the local classical music station, WCPE, which certainly doesn't fit a "redneck" stereotype.

(Comment: I am Deborah Proctor, the GM of WCPE, just mentioned. The Senator helped our classical music station several times. He helped us get a technical rule amendment with the FCC which allowed us to broadcast with a full power signal. His last Bill was the "Small Webcaster Settlement Act of 2002" (PL 107-321) passed on Dec. 4, 2002. It was extremely helpful to WCPE and many other independent and non-profit webcasters. It allowed us to stream our station on the web (today, theclassicalstation.org). On my first visit to his office, wandering about trying to find my way to the 4th floor, I chanced upon a very small and quite antique elevator in a nook of the building. The elevator had a sliding, grated door, just like you see in the movies. An elderly black gentlemen operated it; he greeted me with a warm and gentle smile. This would be a very important meeting and I was alone and a bit nervous. As the elevator man seemed like a kind person, I asked him how Senator Helms was. We smiled at each other, he paused a bit, and then said: "Well, I'll tell you. He's the only senator who knows my name, he'll say "Hello" and "Good night" to me, and he'll always say "Thank you" to me." I doubt that man would speak ill of Mr. Helms. 71.55.81.90 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC) DSP 1/17/2016)

Obviously, I cannot say that Helms never referred to himself as a "redneck," but I am certain that he did not do so habitually. He was known for his humility and self-deprecation, so perhaps he made a tongue-in-cheek joke like that sometime. But even if so, such a remark would seem to fail WP:notability, unless there is reason to believe that it was a serious or frequent self-description.

Anyhow, when and where did Jesse Helms supposedly call himself a "redneck," and what documentation is there for it? NCdave (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

It's in the second reference but I was unable to get a cached copy on Google and I think it's too soon for the Internet archive (the Wayback Machine). Here is the obituary in full:

I don't know where the Newsweek article right before it was moved but I'll restore that link as well. Banjeboi 11:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The source calls him a 'self-described 'redneck, but gives no evidence for this. No setting, no context, no evidence, just a bare quote. Does that qualify as a source?--MartinUK (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes. if we have other relaible sources either disputing this or providing extra context it could be expanded why or when he would state this. -- Banjeboi 19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Jesse Helms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Mostly a success. The last archived URL was unsuccessful. --1990'sguy (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality concerns

This article has neutrality problems. The section entitled "Views on race" violates WP:UNDUE, as it is extremely long, and it repeats, in an unnecessarily detailed way, the 1993 incident with Carol Moseley Braun and the UDC patent extension. As I just stated, this info is already repeated in the section entitled "Remarks re Moseley Braun and Clinton." Do we really need to mention this twice?

Also, the "Views on race" section uses long quotes and excerpts from magazines, newspaper articles, TV interviews, and etc. These long excerpts are unnecessary, and the entire section, as well as other parts of this article, violate WP:NPOV. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

In doing research for another need, I read through this which has a lot of neutrality issues, unsubstantiated claims and comments, etc. For example: "Although his editorials created controversy, they also made him popular with conservative voters" - there is no source, and while I'm certain I could logically conclude controversy (as pretty much everything racial was controversial at that time, regardless of side), there is no evidence of controversy, no evidence of conservative voters or popularity - which is subjective without context. The UNC quote is another example as it leads to an op/ed blog - thus not a credible source - and the blog actually makes no case either way. So a quote "he might or might not have said" by an opinion of UNC being "liberal" shows another issue with objectivity. In fact, it seems the run up to his party switch gets progressively opinionated, more dubiously sourced or not sourced at all (and in one several areas, the source doesn't exist). I'll wait a bit for input but this Wiki needs some rather stringent cleaning sticking to facts. If anyone has any input or debate, I'd be glad to hear it before making a sweeping edit since so much of it is incorrect. Seola (talk) 14:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Looking through the article, it is clear that there is a problem with neutrality, and that unnecessary repetition of material (including of some extremely inflammatory comments and statements) is part of that problem. I have cut back some of the repeated material, and I think more cut backs are necessary. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Jesse Helms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Errors a-plenty

This article features many errantly-phrased/ confusingly worded paragraphs, and countless unsourced claims. SecretName101 (talk) 07:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Such as? Removing unsourced claims can be done by anyone, just make sure you leave a descriptive edit summary so other users know why you're blanking content. Primefac (talk) 12:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesse Helms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jesse Helms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesse_Helms/Archive_5&oldid=1136841569"