Talk:Bob Simon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Atheism[edit]

Who took out the atheist link and Why? If you want to view it, look on the history page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.105.209.231 (talkcontribs) 09:54, 11 January 2007‎ (UTC)

67.105.209.231 What atheist link? Can't find it in the history. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Christians in the Holy Land[edit]

I do not understand why this information keeps being removed. This story was widely covered in both the US and Israeli press. It is clearly a notable story that he produced just like his reporting on Sudan which is mentioned in the wiki article. There are no other articles of his that I can find that have more coverage than this one. We have the Washington Post, Hareetz, Jewish Daily Forward, The Atlantic, the Jerusalem Post, and the Weekly Standard all giving extensive coverage (I could find more) to the story. If that is not a notable story of his, then he has none?Patapsco913 (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

In April 2012, 60 Minutes aired a piece on the plight of Christians in Israel, for which Simon was the correspondent.[1 1] Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, attempted to influence the segment by contacting CBS news and calling the piece a hatchet job.[1 2][1 3][1 4][1 5][1 6][1 7] As a result, Simon castigated Oren during an interview that was included with the piece.

  1. ^ "Christians of the Holy Land". cbsnews.com. Retrieved 12 February 2015.
  2. ^ Haaretz: "When Michael Oren irked Bob Simon - Was it justified for Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. to contact top CBS officials in a quest to influence a '60 Minutes' report on Israel's Christian community?" By Natasha Mozgovaya April 23, 2012
  3. ^ Jewish Daily Forward: "Breaking News Bob Simon, Stoked Israel Controversy on '60 Minutes,' Dies in Car Crash" February 11, 2015
  4. ^ The Atlantic: "60 Minutes on the Plight of Palestinian Christians" by Robert Wright April 23, 2012
  5. ^ Washington Post: "Backlash builds over ‘60 Minutes’ hatchet job on Israel" By Jennifer Rubin April 24, 2012
  6. ^ Jerusalem Post: "Bob Simon & CBS throw the Jews to the lions" By YISRAEL MEDAD April 24, 2012
  7. ^ Weekly Standard: "60 Minutes Steers Christians Against Israel" By MARK TOOLEY April 28, 2012
Unless there is some clear reason why this show, of the hundreds he hosted, is relevant to his bio, it is irrelevant. The majority of 60 Minutes shows cover notable, controversial topics. If anywhere, it might be relevant to some article about the subject covered, not his bio. --Light show (talk) 06:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
What other story that he has written has caused so much discussion and controversey?? The Jewish Daily Forward ("Breaking News Bob Simon, Stoked Israel Controversy on '60 Minutes,' Dies in Car Crash"] even has it as the lead in his obituary.Patapsco913 (talk) 06:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The four in the lead for starters. It's common for other news reports to write about topics brought up on 60 Minutes. And if you read the 60 Minutes article, you'll note that it's loaded with discussions about controversial shows, and whoever hosts a show is secondary. --Light show (talk) 06:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Which story of Bob Simon's created more controversy than "Christians in the Holy Land" - given its coverage in all the major papers, it clearly is something that is every bit as notable. It is even the lead heading on one of his obituaries?Patapsco913 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Many, such as countless stories about his Iraq imprisonment, which he wrote a book about. --Light show (talk) 07:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
So you name one, what other stories have as much coverage in the papers I named above. As we do not seem to agree, WP:3O is an optionPatapsco913 (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Searchtool-80%.png Response to Third Opinion Request:
Request: Talk:Bob Simon#Christians in the Holy Land. Dispute is about whether an interview by Simon is significant enough to warrant inclusion in his biography. 10:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Bob Simon and cannot recall any prior interaction with the editors involved in this discussion which might bias my response. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached.

Opinion: While I generally like to start third opinions by linking policies or guidelines, I can't seem to find any that apply to this specific question. Therefore, my Opinion will not really be strictly definitive as I would prefer it to be.
As far as a ===Christians in the Holy Land=== subsection goes, that wouldn't be the proper format to list the story. If it was particularly controversial/notable and consensus can be reached to that point- a ==Controversy== section may be appropriate. Seeing as this concerns an United States ambassador trying to influence the media, this may be the case. As far as for the time being with no consensus, I think it would be appropriate to include a small mention within the "notable stories" text removed in this edit. So basically the first hurdle is consensus is needed to see if ANY 60 minutes stories deserve mention, then the issue can be raised about how/if and how much of the "Christians in the Holy Land" info to include in the article. I'd suggest a Request for Comment.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next. Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 13:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
@Light show and Patapsco913:—notification of 3OLightgodsy(TALKCONT) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree. As most of the stories covered by 60 Minutes are notable, if not controversial, deciding which if any to include is an issue. For example, if the story in question is included, wouldn't a similar story by Simon about Christians in Egypt be equally important? --Light show (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe so but you have failed to show that Christians in Egypt was widely covered as Christians in Israel. Did Christians in Egypt create any controversey?? Do I have to find 20 more references? You have not shown that any other article he wrote was as covered as extensively.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One problem is that all of the articles above are about Oren, and his well publicized dissatisfaction with a 60 Minutes story. If you can cite a RS which shows that this was one of the few times that a government or official has complained about one of Simon's 100s of stories, it would then have context. As to your question about why no one has complained about his story reporting attacks on Christians in Egypt, maybe that's because the subject was not in dispute. --Light show (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not why sure I have to prove a negative. There is sufficient coverage of this controversy which Simon initiated and even he states that it was unprecedented for someone to complain to his superiors (the Ambassador of Israel to the US nontheless) before a story was released. It was Simon's story and interview that set off the firestorm. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should the controversey over the Christians in the Holy Land story be included in the article?[edit]

Survey[edit]

There is a consensus not to include this story in the article. (and you really needed someone external to read this discussion to tell you that?) Spartaz Humbug! 17:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion 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.

  • Support inclusion of the story, which helps the reader. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose it isn't relevant enough. Patapsco913 (talk) 03:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Comment/format fix— I took those to be instructions of sorts. Not the proper way/format to list (or proper instructions), made them look like/constitute consensus "votes". People could take different reasonings not inclusive to those.
Update: Title of the RFC is really enough "instruction" for people to know what the Survey is about. WP:RFC-"Statement[s] should be neutral and brief". @Patapsco913: notification. —Lightgodsy(TALKCONT) 15:00, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The show is often the subject of controversies. Until his death, the article included a major section devoted to this complaint, against guidelines, and using it as a soapbox against other people and places, with related spa edit warring. Bios should not be used as an attack forum.--Light show (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: There is ample coverage of the controversy in prominent publications to warrant inclusion in his biography. Israel National News, Tablet Magazine, New York Daily News, Jewish Daily Forward, Hareetz, and Al Jazeera all believe that it was significant enough to mention the story as part of his obituary. The edit warring mentioned was not about the inclusion of this information; rather it was about Simon be accused of having an anti-Israel bias which was unsupported by the author. Patapsco913 (talk) 10:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose: All of the sources Patapsco913 mentioned are specific Jewish/Israeli-centered publications with the exception of Al Jazeera (which certainly has an interest in covering Israel) and NY Daily News, which frequently covers Jewish/Israel issues because of the large Jewish population in NY. Of course that is going to be their angle because it is of interest to their readers! The same as if Bob Simon did a story about Las Vegas and the mayor of Las Vegas called it a "hatchet job" and Simon ripped the mayor on the air, and it was extensively covered and discussed in Las Vegas and Nevada media. Let's say that happened. What do you think the lede/title in the Las Vegas Sun is going to be about when they publish Bob Simon's obituary? All about his past drama with Las Vegas. There is no difference with whatever happened with his story about Israel. Please tell me why this particular story he did, among hundreds or thousands in his career, deserves to be discussed so prominently in his Wikipedia biography, especially with the angle being that he was criticized for it. 60 Minutes and its journalists are often controversial, as was said before. If this had resulted in him being suspended by the network, then I would definitely agree with its inclusion. But that's not the case. Wikimandia (talk) 12:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔ From Zoomjet3...

The section that I repeatedly added to that Bob Simon article made the truthful point that Bob Simon's reporting on Israel was widely criticized, over a period of decades, as an exemplar of biased reporting about Israel.

I included my second paragraph, regarding Simon's 60 Minutes report about the persecution Christians, simply to show one example of Simon's bias. It was in no sense a unique instance. On the contrary, it was meant to indicate only one of many instances of anti Israel bias that permeated Simon's career.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoomjet3 (talkcontribs) 04:46, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment Summoned here by bot. Support inclusion based on the sourcing recorded in the previous section, but just a few well-balanced sentences, not an entire section. Coretheapple (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose The use of so much space in a rather short bio, and for a single broadcasted story, controversial mainly for the attempt by an ambassador to kill a story is WP:UNDUE. The material would certainly be useful in an article on U.S.-Israeli relations, or journalism, or 'Controversial 60 Minutesstories', or even an article on the piece of journalism. But not here. — Neonorange (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2015 (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.

Lead photo request[edit]

Copying a photo from a website and using it for the lead would be OK as non-free. An example of the upload paramenters would be this one, which is also used for the lead image. The width should be no more than 400 px. --Light show (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

American Diplomats category?[edit]

This article is currently in Category:American diplomats. What is the rationale for this? As far as I know, Simon, never worked as an actual diplomat, although he was of course a journalist who sometimes covered diplomats. If no rationale given, I am going to remove that category. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The article states that he was an American Foreign Service officer. The American Foreign Service is part of the Department of State. Employees perform consular and diplomatic services for the US government. That would make him a diplomat, although probably not a high-ranking one, considering his age at the time of his employment there. Siberian Husky (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out - KConWiki (talk) 16:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Circumstances of death[edit]

There may be more to Simon's death than a simple car accident. Details are emerging about the driver, who may have suffered a heart attack just prior to the crash. The New York Police Department reports he had nine prior traffic incidents. Since he had been driving livery less than a year, he held a probationary license, and his license was suspended immediately after the accident. Now I'm also hearing in radio reports that he was a homeless person who lived at a shelter and drove limousines at night, which he rented from an agency, and that he had a lame arm as a result of an earlier suicide attempt. Although Simon may not have been as big a celebrity as Princess Diana, the circumstances of his death have some similar weird elements. Stay tuned. — QuicksilverT @ 17:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Death Section[edit]

My feeling is that the reference to RT should be removed. It's highly speculative and not encyclopedic. Also, the citation contains no info. 69.157.69.125 (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree completely. — Neonorange (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2015 (UTC)