Talk:Octavia Nasr

Senior Middle East Editor

The intro says that she was dismissed from this role. This is the first time I hear it and it is not back up by any source. Can someone confirm this? Else I think it's best to remove it. --A Gooner (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You should read the rest of the article. The WP:Lede is just a summary. Mhym (talk) 08:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Fadlallah

The respective article duly states all necessary info over there. one must read the info before commenting. Regardless of one man's evidence there is no evidence to say he was tied to the group nor is he a "cleric" to the group. Cleric he may be, but the sentence says "Hezbollah" followed by "cleric" which he was not. The reason given here for the removal was changes upon the second removal. If one wants to challenge it (which is in his right) then it would help having a coherent arguement. At any rate, this has been brought to discussion to gain consensus. When that is done we can agree to change.Lihaas (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Read Nasr's tweet. Now read it again. She herself pretty clearly called him, I quote, "Hezbollah's giant". There is plenty of evidence on this as well, see his article; this is no WP:OR. Most importantly, WP:BLP no longer applies to him. No need to give the poor cleric benefit of the doubt. It's time to stop beating dead horse and add some truth. Mhym (talk) 06:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Her mention of him as an "hezbollah giant" is her opinion (hence the apology). If there is such evidence then cite and show it. "see his article" does NOT reflect that because I have come from his article, i've edited more than half that article. BLP or not without any requisite source affirming connection it if WP:OR. Show the sources to support assertions. The truth is when backed by sources!

Its curious that the statement above goes off on a Red Herring instead of discussion the fact of his affiliation. Read his article if you want. The "beating the dead horse" logic is completely untrue because the debate is still locked. To challenge the edit you need to affirm your view. Lihaas (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Right... Really unexcited in continuing this discussion. "i've edited more than half that article" is a terrific argument. Maybe I should rewrite George Washington's article and argue there that he was a Russian spy. Out of curiocity - what kind of "requisite source" you are looking for? Like a membership card with a big green "Hezbollah" stamp? Or like a payrole roster and deposit slips? Or perhaps a picture of him teaching "introductory explosives" class at a "Hezbollah University"? This is silly... But seriously, the only formal way to find out is his own statement and he probably never publicly admitted being a member of a terrorist organization. Why would he? On the other hand, there are hundreds of books and newspaper articles which claim that based on various sources (try Google News). And none really argues against, at least that he never was one. Time to go with consensus on this. Mhym (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Octavia Nasr. Obviously it's not the place to coatrack a spectrum of views about Fadlallah or Hezbollah. Sean.hoyland - talk 02:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So did you even READ his article? instead of attacking a phrase that "ive written half the article" -- that phrase incidentally means i have obviously read it. you have still refused to provide an affirmation whatsoever for your claim. My statemetn is based on cited fact right here in wikipedia not that im "really unexcited in continuing this discussion." If you dont want to do so then don't, that still doesnt make your point fait accompli! The source stated on wikipedia explains what is needed, if you cant find sources to back your claim then that is either WP:Synthesis or WP:OR and has no room on wikipedia.

If you continue to refuse to cite your opinion then it will not hold water. I've asked 3 times for sources for you and continue a Red Herring arguement and attack to avoid inserting your POV.Lihaas (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Reaction

I removed this section without prejudice. I simply don't believe that it fit the Octavia Nasr article as a vio of WP:DUE. If you think that the incident deserves its own page (kind of like Mel Gibson DUI incident), go for it, start an article, lift the deleted section and see if it survives. I don't believe this passes WP:RECENT but this is arguable. In any case, please do not restore. Mhym (talk) 22:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mhym

First, I think having a section which deals with a "controversy" should accurately reflect that controversy, and not only put in a tiny portion of the story, such as what someone's bosses believe the reasons for being fired were.

I think if we agree to separate this section from the Nasr article, the entire section should be removed, rather than only putting part of it. For example, you mentioned that "reactions" should not be in this piece, and yet quite conspicuously CNN's "reaction" to her Tweet was included, but not her support from the Arab community, published in Politico, Salon, and NY Times. So, I think you should either delete the entire section, and leave like one sentence, directing readers to a more complete article, or allow one paragraph of balance to what is otherwise a one-sided position suggesting there was no controversy regarding her firing.

The portion of the article you want removed has been reporting in many important and mainstream publications, and therefore merits being discussed. I will remove most of the piece until we can have an agreement as to the extent of coverage of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveng72 (talk • contribs) 23:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CNN reaction is obviously more important than that by NYTimes since they fired her... Right now the section as written is ridiculous (CNN is unfair, pro-Israel, etc.) I will wait until all anons move away and rv the whole thing back to a stable coherent version. Mhym (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I agree - if you make a separate page which survives WP:AfD, this section of the Octavia Nasr's page should be made signicantly shorter. You go ahead, WP:BB and start a new page. Mhym (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

First, I'm not interested in starting a new page. I frankly don't think the controversy merits that kind of attention. The news has moved past Nasr's firing, and I'm not sure the degree of magnitude the issue merits. To the degree this controversy is reflected in Nasr's bio on Wikipedia, it should be balanced, neutral, and fair.

The fact that CNN's reason for firing Nasr is or is not "more important" than the Arab-Americans unhappy with her firing is besides the point. This section is covering statements made by Nasr that were "criticized for [her] perceived show of sympathy" for Hezbollah. It stands to reason that this opens the door to admit evidence of those who "supported" her statement as well, namely Arab-Americans. Moreover, why does this section reference the "media watchdog group" Honest Reporting's assessment of the situation, but can't include others like, Salon's Glen Greenwald, who think the firing was unjustified? A fair reading of WP:DUE shows that while so-called minority viewpoints don't always merit being discussed, they can be discussed where it is "clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view." This viewpoint was reflected in the NY Times, Politico, and Salon, all major news sources are hardly a marginal story.

The section I added began with discussing the Arab-American community's view of the firing, indeed its outrage, and fits within the meaning of WP:DUE. Lastly, as written, this article unfairly implies that Nasr supports the Holocaust, and terrorism, neither of which are statements that any source has attributed to Nasr. If those viewpoints are to be imputed to Nasr, so should Fadlallah's support for women's rights, which is likely the reason she supported him (rather than the other views attributed to him).

Your position is, quite simply, that any support for Ms. Nasr cannot be included because it is merely a "reaction" to her statement. That is utterly ridiculous, and an abuse of editing. I do not engage in wiki-wars, so I'm not going to go back and forth on this. But if you lay out a coherent compromise position, I will entertain some way to balance this section other than the section I added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.136.171 (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for compromise and for shortening the section: Keep the first paragraph, which contains the tweet which started the controversy. Delete the second paragraph, and replace it with something like: "Her remark was criticized by A, B, C,... " Provide references for A, B, C, ... (Do not include the reasons for the criticisms of her remark. If people want to find out more about Fadlallah, they can go to his wiki page.) Keep the third paragraph, and add to it Nasr's clarification of her intent. Put in one additional paragraph, something like: "Her firing was criticized by D, E, F, ..." Provide references for D, E, F, ... (Do not include the reason for the criticisms of her firing. If people are interested in reasons, they can look up the references.) 72.130.181.15 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Mhym' seems to be trying to take over the article with his personal POV in 3 debated on this page. He seems not to want to add what he doesnt approve of. Another article is not warranted for this page because things fit in quite nicely. CITATIONS draw parallels and as in all "reactions" sections the related responsed have to be balanced out regardless of an editors whims.

That said the IP suggestions seem to have something valid. we can discuss that further.Lihaas (talk) 01:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Helen Thomas

I removed a sentence about Helen Thomas which violates Wikipedia policy on several levels. It contained a wikilink to Palestinian Territories, a subtle form of original research in violation of WP:OR, not to mention WP:NPOV. Did Thomas want ALL Israeli Jews to go back where they came from, or just Jewish settlers? We could debate that point, but it is not up to Wikipedia editors to publish their own interpretations. There are several reliable sources in which commentators describe Thomas's remarks as antisemitic. Suppose a Wikipedia editor had written: "Thomas resigned in the wake of the controversy caused by her antisemitic remarks". That sentence too should be removed, since Wikipedia should strive for a neutral point of view. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreement over what spin to give that past incident does hardly support an argument that that incident isn't relevant for mentioning in the present article. A number of news reports and commentators have made that connection. Two sources were provided in the paragraph which you have removed. In a report from Iran's Press TV they have a wording of Thomas' circumstances that is very neutral, so if we adopt and modify that nobody should have to revert anyone over the POV issue: "Her firing comes exactly a month after veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas retired after coming under fire for remarks about Israel."[1]. I will make this modification and add this source and reinsert the paragraph. I hope this is sufficient to allay your concern. __meco (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The spin is unfortunately still there. The sentence now makes it sound like Thomas lost her job for criticizing Israel. And the phrase "in private" makes it sound as if a dignitary being interviewed in front of a video camera has the right to presume that the film won't be shown to the public. Value judgments like "harsh" should be avoided as well. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The word private could perhaps be replaced with something else. The important thing to convey is that this outburst was not published or intended for publication. As for the term harsh I'm less equivocal. It seems a fairly accurate characterization of "Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine." But I'm open to discussing this also if you have some suggestion. __meco (talk) 15:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

This all smells of WP:RECENT. Do you think in 10 years people will still link two incidents together somehow? These are different firings by different media companies for somewhat different misdeeds, esp in their form. If this one is added, maybe 100 others would have to be added. A standard way to get around this is by adding "See also" section which can include many other related incidents (I intend to add a couple). Mhym (talk) 17:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, unless we make such connections apparent, which is clearly acknowledged by contemporary news media, how would people in 10 years otherwise be able to perceive that context? Obviously those who have made a point by writing about the similarities of the two cases have felt that this (and other cases as well) characterizes a certain zeitgeist. Rightly or wrongly, a sufficient number of people feel that this is a trend showing the sign of the times, and unless it is Wikipedia's purpose to strip all current events of their historical and political context I am one editor who finds the inclusion of Thomas' case and the connection made to Nasr's firing pertinent and notable. __meco (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

A problem with using "harsh" is that many senses of the word are pejorative. Equivocal descriptors can be construed as pushing a particular point of view. It's best to let remarks speak for themselves. A comment such as "There were terrorists on the flotilla" might seem harsh to most Turks, but not to most Israelis. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it "the important thing to convey" that Thomas's "outburst was not published or intended for publication", on a page devoted to Octavia Nasr? 72.130.181.15 (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the important thing in relation to that clause which contains the word private, not to the Thomas case itself. However, not mentioning that it was not stated by Thomas in any of her reports (or in a professional capacity) would be an omission that would put her professionalism in a worse light than the case merits. __meco (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained earlier, I agree with anon's changes. This "month earlier" is a clear vio of WP:RECENT. In 10-20 years these will be seperate footnotes in careers notable otherwise. Mhym (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Removal and irrational arguments

It appears that two editors, Mhym and 72.130.181.15, are quite adamant that the paragraph mentioning the case of Helen Thomas' firing in reltion to Nasr's must be removed from the article. However, it doesn't appear the two can muster any convincing arguments for this action as the text is being removed repeatedly using arguments that are, quite frankly, non-sequiturial. Obviously, if this is going to be solved by simple reverts by the two parties where the arguments matter not, I'm outnumbered, so, as the 3-revert rule was never intended to settle content disputes, I suggest we focus on the arguments presented. I'd be happy to call a request for comment on this issue, but I'd be more happy if other editors who have grievances with the Thomas case being briefly mentioned on its merits addressed this squarely, as opposed to surreptitiously presenting irrelevant and incoherent rationales for the removal of this. __meco (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Your sentence should be removed until consensus is reached. To imply that Helen Thomas lost her job for criticizing Israel is simply wrong. She had been criticizing Israel for years without consequence. I agree with Mhym's solution. It is in line with the reference to Octavia Nasr on the Helen Thomas page. Mhym is also correct that there are many other parallels that could be mentioned -- should we also put in a sentence about how Trent Lott lost his job after his controversial comments? 72.130.181.15 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

To correct your misinformation above, Helen Thomas was not fired - she retired in the wake of the controversy caused by her remarks. 72.130.181.15 (talk) 23:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is mentioning of media making comparisons with the Helen Thomas case relevant?

Should Helen Thomas' retiring from her job and the circumstances thereof be mentioned in the section discussing Nasr's dismissal from CNN, and should it be mentioned that several news media and commentators have pointed to the similarities between the two incidents? meco (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The Christian Science Monitor, among others, has pointed out the similarities with Trent Lott and George Allen: http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2010/0607/White-House-columnist-Helen-Thomas-resigns-over-Israel-remarks If we devote a paragraph to Thomas here, should we also devote paragraphs here to Lott and Allen? 72.130.181.15 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. We have three major news outlets making the connection with Thomas. How many besides the CSM is making those other connections? I think if we should decide on having more comparable incidents than the Helen Thomas case mentioned we may be able to combine those in the same paragraph, don't you? __meco (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

How may times does one need repeating: the number of people fired for political speech, even just pro- or anti-Israel, is large. Please read part 4. of WP:NOTNEWS. Just becasue some RS make some comparison, does not mean WP needs to include and reference this material; otherwise vio of WP:RECENT is unavoidable as well. Mhym (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources have EXPLICITLY drawn the parallels and that is a fact! -- the whim of whether it is warrants or "readers in 10 years will not give a damn" is not reason for removal. There is plenty on wikipedia that is WP:Trivial that most dont give a damn for, but wikipedia uses citations to show what is being said. If you one editor is not interested thats good for him, he can read somethign else or live in a bubble. With the given cites it is certainly fair game and wikipedia is not for political sabre-rattiling.Lihaas (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Tone down your emotions, will you? You are only editor here using exclamation marks and the word "damn" which you put in quotes as if you quoting somebody else. (e.g. I am quoting you) Who exactly are you quoting? Now, what exactly is a "fact"? That there was are media sources which make certain comparisons? Sure. Who is arguing against that point? Why all the screaming? GoogleNews searches over 3,000 sources. Some of them also make other comparisons. I have seen several sources which make comparison to David Weigel's firing which also happened just a few weeks ago. So? Few other people comparisons were mentioned earlier as well. Let me repeat myself: "please read part 4. of WP:NOTNEWS." The burden of proof is on you. Please explain why this particular comparison merits inclusion into WP, and Weigel not. Mhym (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevance not demonstrated - When a reader reachs the end of any sentence in this article they should know more about Octavia Nasr than when they started reading the sentence. If this material is included and someone reads it, what does the reader understand about Octavia Nasr that they wouldn't have had the opportunity to understand if the material hadn't been present ? In other words, in what sense does it add information about Octavia Nasr to an article about Octavia Nasr ? There have to be policy based arguments for inclusion of material or else there's no reason to include it. There's no requirement to provide policy based arguments for exclusion of material, the default is exclusion. Some media sources drawing (or not drawing) a parallel between two things, 2 people, 2 events, 2 places etc doesn't automatically mean that their opinion (or lack of opinion) is pertinent to the encyclopedia articles about either of those 2 things. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:14, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand Lihaas' argument at all. The New Republic is yet a third example of a source that makes a comparison of Octavia Nasr with Dave Weigel. Is the contention that because of all these sources are relevant to Octavia Nasr, we should now give space to Dave Weigel on her page? That flies in the face of WP: INDISCRIMINATE which states that "...merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." The dismissal section is already the longest section on the Octavia Nasr page. I don't think we should be giving it undue weight by adding all these comparisons. But if I'm outvoted on this point, then the list of comparisons should be mentioned in the briefest possible way, e.g., in a single sentence. P.S. To lighten the mood, here is an amusing list of career-changing gaffes 72.130.181.15 (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To anon: no, I think it's Lihaas whose point of view is in the minority. I say the matter is clear and settled and can't imagine any other pro- and contra- arguments. One more point: actually, having "controversy" section longer than "career" is unfortunate but happens all the time, including btw David Weigel. That's what people care about, and that's what RS often discuss. With time, this disparity goes away (see Marv Albert for a model treatment). Mhym (talk) 07:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

To come to compromise the see also can add a brief discrimination of the relevance instead of populating the para. (per WP:Seealso).

that said if the relevance of everything fadlallah said about israel is warrant enough to add to the article, then Helen Thomas' cited parallels about israel certainly is. So to continue on the above, the brief note in see also and fadlallah's "controversial stance/statement" is enough with the requisite source/link talking the details. (while the cotnroversy is on there is a tag to put on so to avoid warring, ive added it) Lihaas (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits/links to consider pending discussion

[2] [3] [4] [5] Arab Americans protest CNN's firing of senior editor NasrLihaas (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2010 (UTC)).

Those edits in my view clearly shows that a politically biased lobby has taken a foothold on this article. And that needs to be counteracted. Obviously it is naïve to think that Wikipedia can steer clear of the media propaganda war with regards to the Middle East conflict. From the looks of it the Request for Comments which I issued one week ago has not served its function as a clarion call to editors to assist in resolving the impasse, and I suggest that a more rigorous mode of conflict resolution may be required. I have just now added a short new section about the many commentaries in the media using Nasr's dismissal and Helen Thomas' resignation as talking points for a desired discussion about an apparent new trend of restrictions imposed on journalists expressing their personal opinions on politically sensitive issues, the Middle East conflict being the preeminent sensitive issue. I also noticed in one of the edit summaries a reference to making a separate article about her dismissal. Maybe that's a good idea? __meco (talk) 10:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically i may agree, but there not real point in having 2 minor pages when someone will perhaps ask for merge again in the future. In reference to Sean's statement above, the article is about Nasr (which her other bio and stuff can be updated) but the section and subsection is about a different aspect of her and the context then becomes relevant.Lihaas (talk) 10:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Meco, take your project to Wiki News, or look for a wiki page already dealing with a "trend of restrictions imposed on journalists", or start a new wiki page. Yes, Lihaas, someone could subsequently request a merge with the Nasr page, just as someone could request a merge with the Thomas page, the Weigel page, und so weiter. What reason could there be to single out Nasr for such a merge? 72.130.181.15 (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Label Hezbollah

Its pov and not neutral to label Hezbollah as a "terrorist group". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is anything that needs to be said, it's better if it's either short or not in the lede. For now, I put the language from Hezbollah article which presumably reflects the NPOV consensus. Mhym (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

If relevance is not demonstrated on the direct relations above it certainly isnt here either! The requisite info from Hezbollah is on its page, and its also says it does social work and is a political party, if you want to cite one side the other side will be cited too.Lihaas (talk) 09:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

JohnAlabamaNestro's edits

I don't want to violate WP:3RR - please somebody rv him again and let's discuss the issues here before making these changes. Mhym (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)