Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Continuing discussion of Goldstein quote here

I think it's easier if we separate this out from the rest of the discussion. I've just reverted Rafael and left a note on his talk page asking that we try to settle the matter on the talk page before the quote is removed again.

Here's the quote and how it appears now in the article:

Recent years on the Court

Widely respected court watcher and litigator Tom Goldstein wrote at the end of October Term 2008 that:

The problem with it is that it's one person's opinion, given at length, with barely anything else, in a section titled "Recent years on the court". That is obviously not the way we want an entire subsection to appear in a Wikipedia article on an important topic. It doesn't help that it's an opinion on only one side of an issue. It may be all right as a representative example of an opinion on Thomas, but only if other views are presented at similar length. The quote screams "too much WP:WEIGHT" for several reasons: (1) "rooted in ignorance" bashes people with opposing points of view, and if we're going to be conservative in our language about Thomas, it doesn't help the article to be including provocative phrasing in characterizing his critics (and this encourages other editors to add provocative phrasing against Thomas); and it's unproven that the critics are ignorant; (2) if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power -- actually, not everyone has to believe that. One reasonable opinion about that could be that a justice needs to be more careful in what he says in order to try to convince other justices and get something done (you can make a reasonable case both ways and maybe the strategy should change depending on the issue); the quote is unhelpful because it raises these kinds of questions in the background when they can better be addressed in different ways (for instance, we should be noting that he often doesn't convince other justices; we should present opinions about the quality of his legal reasoning which may affect future court cases even when he's dissenting, but this quote isn't very helpful for that); (3) "then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice" -- that seems over the top. That kind of praise needs to be presented in the context of other opinions about Thomas, hardly any of which praise him that highly. To present this alone, basically naked, essentially endorses the idea that Goldstein's opinion is extremely important, and that's just not the case.

In the immediate short term, I suggest (A) removing the subsection headings for "Early years on the court" and "Recent years on the court" and combining them into a single section that I'd title "On the Supreme Court" (not a great title, but it's all I can think of); (B) I didn't think I'd propose this this early, but I suggest we paraphrase and selectively quote Goldstein, shortening the coverage of his opinion. Here's a proposal:

Widely respected[citation needed] court watcher and litigator Tom Goldstein wrote at the end of October Term 2008 that "No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking", even though other court watchers have characterized Thomas as following the lead of other conservative justices, notably Scalia. Goldstein said that far from following others, Thomas performed a valuable service in contributing "new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate" more than any other justice.

I think that tones it down, and if we really want to add back other parts of that quote, it shouldn't be done until equally long quotes are added that disagree with it. Goldstein's point is better made in conjunction with other observers who agree with him, anyway, and that should also appear at the same spot or close to it.

In the longer term, let's put a spectrum of other opinions, for and against Thomas in this spot, but include more factual reporting on what he's been doing in his years on the court -- general descriptions and information on specific actions. Then it will be clear to the reader that we don't overvalue specific opinions about Thomas but are including them because they are one part of the essential coverage. It would be wrong not to include any opinions on a controversial figure, but it's also wrong to give them too much prominence, as we're doing now. -- Noroton (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think those are good suggestions. In general, I'm not a fan of phrasing like "Widely respected court watcher..." It sounds a bit desperate and WP:PEACOCKy. Let's just say, "Attorney Tom Goldstein..." or "Attorney and blogger Tom Goldstein..." and let the wikilink fill in the details as to his respectability. I agree with Noroton that the ultimate goal should be for this section to evolve, rather than to fight about which specific quotes get featured at length. A good starting point would be to identify good sources and summarize them; Noroton already suggested a number of them above, and to the extent that I remain active on this article, I'll probably focus on that. MastCell Talk 16:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Note that I'd repeatedly changed Dodd's trumpeting description of Goldstein to "attorney and blogger" or "university lecturer and blogger," only to have him revert the change. Noroton, I'm not the one you should be warning here -- janag, MastCell, myself, you, and even Ferrylodge had all given reasons not to use the Goldstein quote, but Dodd would just scream louder and louder to jam it back in. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Goldstein is now in "public perception" as amended. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

"Far right": punting to medcab

It's become apparent that Mastcell isn't going to accept any attempts to compromise, or any outside input. We can accordingly skip the next step of waiting a month for no one to respond to an RFC, since past experience generally has shown that it's unlikely that anyone will respond to it, and past expererience specifically shows that Mastcell will simply ignore them and continue to edit war to include his defamatory claim that Thomas is of the "far right." After RFC, which we're skipping for the reasons just given, the next stop on this railroad is Medcab, and we just pulled into the station: [1] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My experience is that MedCom is typically not that interested in requests that are framed as a series of personal attacks and imputations of malice, but your mileage may vary. MastCell Talk 03:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Uneventful confirmation hearing?

One section on the main page states Thomas' confirmation hearing was "uneventful." I think this sentence should be removed or edited, because the hearing was anything but "uneventful."

Please re-read paying closer attention. The comment about an "uneventful" confirmation hearing was for his nomination to the D.C. Appeals Court Circuit.--Paul (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Appearence at University of Alabama in 2009

Thomas revealed a bit more about his philosophy concerning oral arguments. He said several times that he prefers that lawyers be allowed to have their say before the court since usually the justices have already made up their minds and questions take time away from the lawyers. He said that he hoped that one day lawyers involved would be able to stand on the steps of the supreme court, and win or lose, feel like they had a least been heard by the court. Does anyone have a link that supports this? I'd like to get the exact quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.133.88.221 (talk) 22:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Doggett v. United States

This case is listed under the eighth amendment section regarding cruel or unusual punishment and capital punishment. This case involves, as the passage in the article and the case itself suggests sixth amendment guarantee of a speedy trial and perhaps the 14th amendment's due process requirement, rather than any 8th amendment issue. Perhaps a 6th amendment subsection should be created to resolve this given http://law.onecle.com/ussc/505/505us647.html. I am hesitant to simply revise given the article since that would require the creation of a separate heading for one case that is a rather exceptional case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Inarchus (talk • contribs) 07:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of the other sections only mention one case, I say, go for it. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversy re wife's activities

I'm surprised to find nothing here about the criticisms leveled at Thomas based on his wife's political activities. She has her own article, but the relationship between what she does and Thomas's role is relevant to his bio.

She was working on the Bush transition team at a time when Thomas was a key vote in deciding whether the Bush transition team would the one handling the transition (as opposed to the Gore transition team). She's now in a job where she stands to profit from Thomas's vote in Citizens United. See this link for some recent followup. JamesMLane t c 22:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lede

The lede currently says that there were "accusations that he had sexually harassed a subordinate." If you click on the link to sexual harassment, you'll see that sexual harassment may include sexual abuse or sexual assault, and it may be illegal. In contrast, no one accused Thomas of any physical touching, nor did Anita Hill make any legal claim against Thomas. So, I think the lede is now potentially misleading, insofar as it suggests a possible criminal accusation, and also suggests possible physical contact. If someone can think of a good way to fix this in the lede (concisely, without devoting more space in the lede to this), then I think that would be worth our while.166.137.139.249 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I've given it a try, see what you think.166.137.136.74 (talk) 14:56, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Acceptable. Not technically complete (e.g. Coke can), but sufficient. Although I suppose if the Supreme Court can call flag burning and nude dancing "free speech", we could look at the Coke can incident as a "comment". Fat&Happy (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
OK. Even as regards that particular accusation, I kind of doubt she ever claimed to have seen such a tiny thing on the can. Anyways....166.137.139.213 (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
She didn't. She alleged that Thomas had mentioned a pubic hair on his Coke can as part of a pattern of inappropriate commentary. MastCell Talk 16:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleting reliable sources without explanation

This edit is disturbing (but not surprising). The edit summary does not mention that two reliable sources are deleted, but that is what that edit did. Even regarding the remaining preferred source, that source says that the WaPo reporters allegedly discovered evidence that Thomas used pornography; the reporters “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” So why delete that the matter involved pornography? It's not like the reporters discovered Thomas had done anything more severe than use pornography, after all, which is something that quite a large percentage of the populace do (for shame).96.32.11.201 (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that there was a previous discussion, with no consensus to include what is now in the article, long ago.96.32.11.201 (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The sources I removed (from the New York Times) both support the fact that Thomas' swearing-in was "unusual" and "hastily arranged", reported that Court observers felt the White House was "grandstanding in its rush to make Mr. Thomas, who struggled to make it to the Supreme Court, a Justice sooner than the law allows." ([2], [3]). Since they support the content I added, you can feel free to add back the sources if you like. I would prefer that you represent their content accurately; I have the same concerns about your usage of them as I voiced in the earlier thread to which you linked. MastCell Talk 03:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I'll restore and characterize the two deleted sources. And since you raised no objection, I will also mention the porn.96.32.11.201 (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, see what you think. I do not understand what significance there is in the privacy of the SCOTUS swearing-in; the White House swearing-in, after all, was public, so if the White House was trying to be stealthy they failed miserably.96.32.11.201 (talk) 03:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think that privacy was the major concern. According to Mayer/Abramson and (I believe) Toobin, the major concern was to perform some sort of unofficial swearing-in as quickly as possible, because the Bush Administration handlers were petrified that additional information damaging to Thomas (and supportive of Hill) would come to light before he could be confirmed. According to Mayer/Abramson, that fear was well-founded. I'm OK with your revised text. MastCell Talk 04:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Except that WaPo didn't think the crap was newsworthy. See you later MastCell.96.32.11.201 (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

To go back to the content, I'm not totally sure that this edit reflects the totality of available sources. What happened was this: the White House conducted a quick swearing-in on October 18th. This was viewed as "unseemly haste" by some Court officials, because Chief Justice Rehnquist was in mourning for his wife and Court business had been suspended (New York Times, [4]). The White House then "tried to insist" that Thomas became a Justice as soon as the White House ceremony was complete, reflecting a push to make Thomas a Justice "sooner than the law allows" (again per the New York Times, [5]). This argument was rejected by the Court, which emphasized that Thomas would not become a Justice until he took the judicial oath at the Court.

At that point, there was a push to move up Thomas' judicial swearing-in as quickly as possible, from its scheduled date of November 1 to its ultimate date of October 23. Thomas ascribed the haste to a desire to start work and get his staff on payroll. Independent reliable sources (for example, Mayer/Abramson and Toobin) ascribe the haste to a concern that there were additional skeletons in Thomas' closet, and the sooner he received his lifetime appointment the better for the Bush White House.

Toobin writes:

... the tally of votes on October 15th didn't conclude the drama surrounding Thomas' nomination. Hill's testimony had set off a furious scramble among many journalists and Democratic activists to corroborate or refute her charges... Even though he had been confirmed, Thomas would not actually become a Justice - and thus removable only by impeachment by the House and conviction by the Senate - until he took the oath of office.... tentatively planned... for November 1.

But that was seventeen full days after the Senate vote - a period of time where anything could happen. Thomas' supporters wanted him sworn in immediately. But with Nan Rehnquist's death on October 17, the White House faced the delicate problem of intruding on the chief justice's grief for a final act of damage control on Thomas' nomination.

At first the White House tried to finesse the problem, by holding an unofficial swearing in - a party, in effect - on the White House lawn on Friday, October 18.

Toobin goes on to write that the rushed oath was a "wise move", because it pre-empted additional revelations that corroborated Hill's testimony and threw Thomas' into question. Regarding the "official" explanation - that Thomas wanted to get his staff on payroll ASAP - Toobin writes that this was "a transparent rationalization since his employees were already on the federal payroll at the D.C. Circuit." (see [6], p. 39).

We should certainly note Thomas' "official" explanation of the haste, but we should not present it as undisputed fact - particularly as multiple independent, reliable third-party sources question it and even reject it as a "transparent rationalization". MastCell Talk 19:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This article presently does not present the "official" explanation of the haste as undisputed fact. If it would be helpful, I could dig up further reliable sources discussing that no sane nominee would want reporters digging through garbage and asking intrusive private questions of friends and neighbors, for any longer than necessary.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Note that I had already recognized the potential interpretation of Thomas' explanation as "fact" eight minutes before the first of the above two posts, and made a minor correction to show it was a claim, not an established fact. More could be done to clarify this, but the whole topic is fast becoming an example of undue weight. The previous version presented the Toobin et al. explanation as undisputed fact, which it clearly is not, unless they can produce a statement from Bush of Thomas saying yes, that was the motivation. Likewise, the previous assertion that he was "sworn in twice" is pure hogwash and a misreading of the NYT articles, which I accurately clarified (in brief summary). The only thing mildly notable about the two ceremonies would be the "celebration" attending the first one. The phrasing "a push to make Thomas a Justice sooner than the law allows" is sloppy reporting. They could not make him a Justice sooner than the law allowed; rather they may have been pushing to have him seen as a Justice before he actually and legally was one, which might have some political advantages but certainly no legal ones. My latest edit is surely not perfect, but it is far closer to meeting WP standards than either of the previous two conflicting versions. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I support the article as it is now. As for "hogwash," there are ample sources that say there was an official swearing-in, and an unofficial swearing-in, for a total of two.96.32.11.201 (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
After numerous edit conflicts: I think your tweak was reasonable; I assume it was made after I saw your first edit, but before I finished writing my lengthy post above. In any case, it largely satisfied my concern. I'm happy with presenting the competing rationales as competing rationales, rather than enshrining one as "correct". I'll leave it open whether our article should note the fact (adduced by Toobin) that Thomas' staff was already on the federal payroll at the time his justification was offered, although I tend to agree that perhaps we're overthinking this one aspect of the biography. MastCell Talk 20:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
"As his fourth clerk, Justice Thomas has hired Christopher Landau, who in July completed a year's clerkship with Justice Antonin Scalia."[7]96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
After my post above, I was considering a further minor change from
  • "It was then moved to October 23, because Thomas "wanted..." to
  • "It was then moved to October 23, with the explanation that Thomas "wanted..."
but I'm hesitant to disturb what appears to be a somewhat fragile consensus. I think the second phrasing, though a few words longer, is superior in terms of NPOV. Comments?
MastCell, I'm sure it was an edit overlap; I'm often surprised on forums to see how many people have posted while I was typing a short response, let alone the detailed one you had.
I also considered the idea that all but one of the staff should have already been on the federal payroll; I do wonder, though, whether Supreme Court clerks and secretaries might earn more than their Appellate Court equivalents – but I don't wonder enough to research the question... Fat&Happy (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
OK by me. Also, you might want to wlink Rehnquist (it's the first use of his name).96.32.11.201 (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Either version is OK. I prefer the second one as I think it's a bit clearer, but I can live with either. I tend to agree that it's not worth the trouble of parsing the payroll issue any further. MastCell Talk 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Done. The Rehnquist link also; I totally missed that – assumed that so far into the article, he must have been mentioned somewhere, and didn't even run a search... Fat&Happy (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks fatso, nice doing bidness with you.  :-)96.32.11.201 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The top pic

The picture at the top of this article is from 2004. While that doesn't make it extremely out of date, we have an official portrait from 2009 at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Clarence_Thomas_official2009.jpg. It's true that the photo now at the top has 486KB, compared to only 82KB for the 2009 portrait. But that 82KB is a lot more than the 47KB for the pic at the top of the Antonin Scalia featured article. (Also note that a source was identified for a low res version of the pic now at the top of this article, but no source was identified for the high res version now at the top of this article.) Anyway, is there any objection if I install the 2009 pic at the top of this article, instead of the 2004 pic?166.137.138.131 (talk) 01:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The 2009 one is fine with me. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Done, thx.166.137.137.213 (talk) 04:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I changed it to an enlarged, cropped version, which seems to fit better. I'll try to get a higher res version, but for now this seems okay.166.137.137.179 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Overall criticisms

Generally speaking, the article seems improved over what it was a couple weeks ago. But still, there is room for improvement. For example, the section on the Anita Hill allegations is much too long and detailed, especially given that there's a sub- article people can go to. I do not see the need to quote people who did not show up to testify in person. As for the fuss about when he was sworn in, it seems trivial and could be covered adequately in the sub-article. The bit about Scalia allegedly saying he's a nut is disputed, so it seems that we give it too much attention. I'd also dump the last paragraph of the article; Thomas said he picked up the habit of listening when he was a kid, and everyone knows that habits can continue even when their original causes have long since disappeared, and so that whole discussion in the last paragraph seems trivial and absurd. I won't change these parts of the article without consensus, of course.166.137.138.79 (talk) 05:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

If no one objects, I'll try editing the article in a day or two to address these points. Of course, everyone would then have another chance to object.166.137.137.107 (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no objections.--Paul (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Thomas' confirmation hearings are central to any biography of him. They form the most substantial and detailed part of essentially every reputable biography and written work about Thomas, including Thomas' own autobiography. Our coverage should strive to reflect the weight assigned to various aspects of the subject by reputable, independent sources. Therefore, our biographical article should include a reasonable level of detail on Thomas' confirmation hearings, and should reflect their importance as conveyed by reliable third-party sources.

It's great that a sub-article exists, but that alone doesn't absolve us of providing a suitably detailed overview. I agree that the section could be slimmed down by decreasing or eliminating the number of quotes in favor of summary style. The lengthiest quote in the section is from Thomas, which seems like a reasonable place to start if the goal is to streamline the section. I think that it's reasonable to include mention of individuals who submitted written testimony to the Senate committee along with those who testified, particularly as such material is prominently covered in reputable sources on the hearings. MastCell Talk 22:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no plans to remove the "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks" quote; it garners 200 hits in the Google news archive, 303 hits in Google books, and 82 hits in Google scholar. Compare the "attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas" quote, which garners zero hits in the Google News Archive, six hits in Google Books, and one hit in Google Scholar.166.137.137.3 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I'm fine with retaining the "high-tech lynching" line - for better or worse, as you note, it's likely the most memorable quotation from the hearing. I'm just suggesting that we need not quote an entire surrounding paragraph verbatim, if the goal is to streamline the section. MastCell Talk 04:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe a sentence of that Thomas quote can be removed, but such a thing should be done carefully, because most historians agree that this was the paragraph that saved his nomination. In contrast, a quote from a fired employee who never testified, or from someone who basically said that Thomas was gender-conscious, has negligible historical value. While you're correct that Thomas's autobiography gave great weight to the confirmation hearings, perhaps you also noticed that the autobiography ended with the swearing-in.166.137.137.150 (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you provide specific citations for the idea that Thomas' "high-tech lynching" comment saved his nomination? I'm not sure "most historians" agree, but I could be wrong. I would agree that the decision by Thomas and the White House to cast the allegations explicitly in terms of racism/victimization was a momentous one, although whether it "saved" his nomination, contributed to its bitterness and rancor, or a little of both is arguable. The "historical value" of these various aspects is best determined by the reporting of reliable sources, not by our assertions on a Wikipedia talk page - and I would note that several major books focus substantially on the words of those who "never testified" (presumably you're referring to oral testimony). MastCell Talk 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It is common knowledge that the high-tech lynching paragraph was a turning point in the nomination, and any such description that I put into this article will be fully cited. In the mean time, let's not pretend that I have tried to determine historical value by my own talk page comments. I'm the one who provided detailed Google results above, in response to your own unsubstantiated contentions about historical value.166.137.137.223 (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I'm the same person as 166.137.... and I've gone ahead and made the changes discussed at the outset of this talk page section.75.69.144.249 (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "not"

I noted that in this edit, in addition to creating the section The top pic, User:166.137.138.131 removed the word "not" from a comment made by User:MastCell, completely changing the meaning of his words. Was there a reason for this? Unless I am misunderstanding something, this is a clear violation of WP:TPOC, so I have undone that change. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, and I apologize for the error. It was completely inadvertent (the cause of the error is related to the length of the section and the difficulty of scrolling through it using an iPhone).166.137.137.66 (talk) 06:06, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I am glad it was not intentional — I can imagine that could be tough on one of those little buggers. I have enough trouble scrolling and editing with dual 21-inch monitors. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Toobin

There are now nineteen footnotes to Jeffery Toobin in this Wikipedia article, plus various other mentions of Toobin. Given that fact, it would seem appropriate to point out that Toobin's reliability and neutrality have been questioned. For example, one biographer of Thomas wrote this in 1999: "Toobin portrayed Justice Thomas as a vindictive and possibly psychologically disturbed individual whose performance on the Court is driven by deep anger, rather than by reason." See Gerber, Scott Douglas. First principles: the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas, page 30 (1999). Gerber goes on to refute Toobin's viewpoint. My point is not that this article needs to become a set of duelling quotes from Toobin and Gerber, but rather that Toobin's alleged slant needs to be mentioned somewhere. I'll give that a try.75.69.144.249 (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added a paragraph about this. See what you think.75.69.144.249 (talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Toobin is a reputable author, and his books are published by reputable publishing houses and widely read. They are significant contributions to the literature on Thomas and the Court in general. Of course, we shouldn't rely on them to the exclusion of other sources, and we should strive to represent all viewpoints proportionately. That said, I don't see the need to reduce the number of citations solely because someone somewhere disagreed with something that Toobin wrote. MastCell Talk 22:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't taken a position one way or the other about whether we should reduce this article's huge number of Toobin footnotes. I've only said that Toobin's alleged bias needs to be mentioned somewhere.75.69.144.249 (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarify

Sorry - my edit summary here got cut off. What I meant to say was this. We need to honestly and accurately represent the sources. Both of the cited sources make clear that the issue was about much more than just Thomas' video-rental habits. During the hearings, he had denied ever using or referring to pornography, and people who dared suggest otherwise were vilified. So when alleged corroboration became available, suggesting that Thomas had in fact been an avid consumer of pornography, the issue was not about his personal tastes - it was about evidence which potentially contradicted his testimony during his confirmation hearing. Since the entire Hill-Thomas thing was essentially he-said-she-said, and was decided on the question of relative credibility, such evidence would of course be sort of a game-changer. The sources in question both make this amply clear, so I would prefer that we not editorially minimize it to imply that it was just a matter of prurient interest in Thomas' video-rental habits when it was no such thing. MastCell Talk 22:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You're quite correct that we need to honestly and accurately represent the sources. So let's consider what the two pertinent sources say, okay? The Strange Justice source says that reporters “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” The Yorke source says: "murmurs about Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas's alleged interest in pornography continued to be heard recently on radio talk shows."
So, MastCell, where do these two sources say that the new information was about more than just Thomas' video-rental habits? And where in those two sources is there discussion about his ever having denied ever using pornography? On the contrary, the quote from Strange Justice implies that the public was led to believe he did use pornography to some extent.
Unfortunately, your edit gives the impression that the new information was about more than Thomas's entertainment preferences, which it actually was not.75.69.144.249 (talk) 22:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of any response by MastCell to the preceding IP comment, I suggest the following compromise language: "Reporters largely stopped scrutinizing his private life after Thomas joined the Court, despite new information potentially corroborating some of Hill's testimony including her testimony about Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences."
It is 100% clear that the new information pertained to Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences. MastCell contends that it also pertained to something more, by implication or inference, though support for that implication or inference in reliable sources is questionable at best. For example, the Washington Post did not feel that any such implication or inference was notable or real enough to describe in print. Moreover, I think MastCell is simply making up the idea (out of thin air) that Thomas flatly denied in his sworn testimony that he ever in his life used pornography. Anyway, I'll insert the compromise language if there is no objection, even though I would prefer the language that existed before MastCell removed it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I was taking a break because I find the atmosphere here rather depressing at times. That wording would be fine with me. MastCell Talk 04:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, so depressing that one might even go so far as to leave Wikipedia for eight months. I'll make the change.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Inspecting

Consider this sentence in the article: "Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, she did feel that he had inspected her as a female." This sentence is fine with me, and I have no objection that MastCell has just restored it. On two occasions, an IP has changed "inspected" to "respected" so I thought it might be wise to rephrase in such a way that no one could think that "inspected" is a typo (I neglected to sign in when I did the rephrasing). Anyway, if MastCell wants to keep changing it from "respected" back to "inspected" then I have no objection.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I still think that the lead has unnecessary detail, and would support removing the word "sexually." Look at the Bill Clinton lead (no mention of sex or even Lewinsky). Additionally, using the word "sexually" in this lead completes a term of art, suggesting an accusation of criminality. However, this article later on makes very clear that Hill was not making any criminal accusation, or even any civil accusation. So, I would change sexually harassing to harassing in this lead. Moreover, as famous as Hill's testimony was, she was the only person who accused Thomas of sexual harassment, and then only in a non-legal sense. No one else who offered oral or written testimony backed up Hill's non-legal charge of sexual harassment. So, if we do keep the word "sexually" in the lead, I think NPOV kind of suggests that the lead should indicate the solitary nature of Hill's accusation (the lead now talks about plural "accusations").Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, sexual harassment is not necessarily a criminal charge. It may be a tort, or simply a subject for mediation, depending on the severity of the harassment. The conduct alleged by Hill met the EEOC definition of sexual harassment, specifically the creation of a "hostile work environment". More to the point, reliable sources repeatedly characterize Hill's testimony as alleging "sexual harassment" (e.g. [8], [9], etc etc). I think the solitary nature of Hill's accusation is amply made by naming her; presumably if there were additional on-the-record accusers, we would not name only one. If you prefer to change the word "accusations" to "the accusation", to emphasize its singularity, then I'm fine with that. MastCell Talk 21:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Reliable sources also characterize Clinton's behavior with Lewinsky, but that doesn't mean it has to be detailed in the lead of that article. Additionally, regardless of whether your opinion about EEOC definitions is correct, Hill was not invoking those definitions, and was not invoking any civil or criminal laws against sexual harassment whatsoever; she said so explicitly, and it's quoted in this article. For now, I will get rid of the "s", but I hope others will chime in here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't edit the Bill Clinton article, and to be honest I think a case could be made either way, to mention Lewinsky and the associated details or to simply present it as an accusation of perjury, which after all was the ostensible basis for Clinton's impeachment (adultery between consenting adults being considered a personal rather than impeachable offense). if you'd like to change the Clinton article, please feel free to take it up with the editors there, of whom I am not one. For this article, which I do edit, I would prefer we stick with the way the overwhelming majority of independent, reputable sources have characterized the allegation rather than (IMO) editorially bowderlizing them. I'd be happy to wait for additional input. MastCell Talk 22:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
What I want is to clarify in this lede that Hill was not making any legal claim. We agree she wasn't, right? And won't many people get that misimpression from the current wording of the lead? This article quotes her: "I did not bring the information forward to try to establish a legal claim for sexual harassment."Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think we are implying that she made a legal claim. Sexual harassment is an action (or a pattern of actions), which may or may not result in a legal claim. I think our article on the topic, which is wikilinked, makes that clear. MastCell Talk 22:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Correct. We are not implying one way or the other, but we should --- otherwise many people will draw the wrong inference that there was an accusation Thomas broke the law. Alternatively, we could modify the material so it will be less likely to cause misunderstanding.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I fixed it. See what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
As I said, I think this is unnecessary, decreases the clarity of the writing in the lead, and addresses inferences which are unlikely and easily dispelled by simply reading the article. Moreover, I think we should avoid language saying that Hill "failed to convince most Senators." That is both a bit slanted (we could equally say that her accusations "convinced approximately half of the Senate") and suggests an inner knowledge of the Senators' belief systems. Let's stick to the verifiable and uncontrovertible fact that Thomas was confirmed by a vote of 52-48. The reader can draw their own conclusions about Senators' belief systems on that factual basis. MastCell Talk 23:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I've tried again. I think it is imperative to clarify that there was no accusation of illegality.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree. Do independent, reliable secondary sources give this distinction as much weight as you are intent on giving it? The sources I've read don't seem to, but I'd be willing to reconsider as part of a source-based discussion. MastCell Talk 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
MastCell, if we have a lede that says so-and-so killed so-and-so, but only later in the article mention that it was in self-defense, that would not just be bad editing. It would be a BLP violation. We had a lede that could be reasonably read as an accusation of illegality. I fixed it. That should be obvious.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Your analogy is faulty (and needlessly inflammatory). I do not believe that the lead can "reasonably" be read as an accusation of illegality, and I think that a reasonable person is aware of the spectrum of sexual harassment and also capable of reading the actual article if they have questions. Those are key elements of reasonability. This is a simple description of the allegations raised by Anita Hill, which are expanded upon in the body of the article. I categorically reject that this is a BLP violation in any way, shape, or form. It is a matter of editorial emphasis, appropriate level of detail for the lead vs. body, and a garden-variety content dispute. MastCell Talk 23:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The lede needs to be fixed. I've inserted several more footnotes.
Rita Braver of CBS News: “Hill herself did not accuse Thomas of outright harassment, but did say that he had made unwelcome advances toward her and used language that embarrassed her.”
Feminist Katha Pollitt: “The question Hill's testimony placed before us was not whether Thomas was guilty of a legally actionable offense (she herself was unsure if his behavior added up to sexual harassment) but whether he belonged on the Supreme Court.”
Anita Hill from the NY Times: "I did not bring the information forward to try to establish a legal claim for sexual harassment."
Do you have any sources that say Hill's accusation did involve an outright legal claim of sexual harassment?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
No, of course not. You're constructing a straw man rather than addressing my actual concerns. My point is that it is unnecessary for the purposes of the lead to draw a detailed distinction between legally actionable sexual harassment and other garden-variety sexual harassment. Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment - that is not in doubt and is easily sourced. And that is an appropriate level of detail for the lead. Her claim was raised in the setting of a Senate confirmation hearing rather than a criminal or civil court - that is obvious to even the casual reader from our lead, but is made explicit in the article. I don't see a problem with the previous wording, and I'm not seeing a reason to complicate and confuse it. I would like to see whether anyone else shares your concern before going forward, but as you've already pushed 3RR despite the obviously disputed nature of your edits, I'm not sure how best to proceed. MastCell Talk 02:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Your revert did not erase a detailed distinction. It erased an essential elaboration, necessary for NPOV, that was both brief and amply supported by reliable sources. I posted at your talk page about 3rr. I'm glad to wait and see what others think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the phrase "sexually harassing comments" tends to suggest illegality, and I think a better choice would be "sexual comments". This still appropriately describes what Hill claimed Thomas did, leaves nothing out, and is less likely to mislead readers to think that illegality was involved. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
That would be one acceptable way to do it (or maybe "unwelcome sexual comments"), as long as the words "sexual harassment" are not removed later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the lead should be clarified to indicate that there wasn't an allegation of anything illegal by Thomas.--Drrll (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill Ayers

Over at the Barack Obama article (which I rarely edit), there have been many discussions about whether to discuss Bill Ayers in that article, and the consensus was always against it, because of issues like guilt-by-association.[10] This may be something to keep in mind for this article too.

Recently, the following was added to this article:

Myers Anderson was the son of farmworker Laticia Allen and Baptist minister Isaac Anderson, who performed a wedding ceremony between Laticia Allen and day laborer Peter Williams five months before Myers Anderson was born....

After someone gave Thomas a copy of the newsletter Lincoln Review, which featured black conservative opinions, Thomas befriended the Lincoln Review editor J. A. Parker, a libertarian "arguably more conservative than Thomas himself" who "opposed virtually all government regulation and was deeply hostile toward the Great Society programs of the Johnson administration....

Mark Martin, Jr. was a biracial child who lived with his white mother in Savannah public housing; Martin's father and Clarence Thomas's nephew Mark Martin was in prison from 1991 to 1995 for selling crack cocaine and has served a 30-year prison terms since 1999 in federal prison for selling crack to an undercover agent

Undoubtedly, this stuff comes from a reputable book about Thomas, but maybe the wrong things have been picked from that book. What does Peter Williams have to do with this article, really? Was he the real father of one of Thomas's grandparents, and how is this really significant? And why detail J.A. Parker's feelings toward LBJ? And how is it useful for this bio to discuss an undercover agent who sold crack cocaine to Clarence Thomas's nephew? Also see WP:Coatrack. And WP:BLP says: "Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association...."Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing this. It has nothing to do with Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul.h (talk • contribs) 02:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexual harassment allegations

I've made this edit. The wording I restored is poor, but at least a slight improvement. Thomas was not accused of making "sexually-oriented comments [sic]". People make "sexually oriented comments" at work all the time, without incident. He was accused of sexual harassment. It remains incomprehensible to me that we are not allowed to use this term in the lead, when it is a) the factually correct term for Hill's allegations and b) the term used in virtually every reliable source. In fact, the Thomas hearings are sort of the textbook example of sexual-harassment allegations. I'm putting together a group of sources with the intent of a content RfC on the topic, because I think we're doing the reader a disservice and making the article materially poorer by insisting on using bowderlized and factually incorrect terminology. MastCell Talk 21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

A content RFC would be fine, as would be discussion of further sources that have not been identified. But in the mean time, why edit-war about this against consensus? Why ignore and refuse to discuss footnotes 63-65 that are already in the article, and that were put in the article specifically to address your concern, Mastcell? As I've explained, I have no objection if the lede says that Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment provided the lede also mentions that this was not an accusation of illegality. Alternatively, it could be phrased in the lede without using the term ("sexually harassing") that connotes illegality. Keep in mind that we're talking about what the law was in 1991, not now. It also might be good to keep in mind that accusing someone of an illegality is a very serious thing (doing it falsely is defamation per se), so if we have multiple reliable sources (as we do) that say she was not accusing him of illegality, then we should not allow people to infer otherwise from our lede. By the way, no one has suggested removing "sexual harassment" from the body of this article..Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this is a likely inference. Realistically, we can't write the article (and especially the lead) to editorially dispel any ignorant inference that a hypothetical reader might draw. More to the point, reliable sources don't take pains to make this distinction at an overview level, so it seems to me we're diverging from their content toward the editorial agenda of a few Wikipedians. There is no implication of illegality, and so no need to "rebut" an implication that does not exist. it is absolutely, categorically not defamation to note that Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment, so please let the legal aspect of your argument go. MastCell Talk 23:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
You must know very well that I never said it was defamation for us to note that Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment. What I said was that accusations of illegality are an extremely serious matter, so we should try not to give any impression that such an accusation was made if it was not made. I deeply resent your accusation of editorializing, and I reject your contention that you can ignore consensus. The idea that the term "sexual harassment" cannot be re-worded to avoid connotations of illegality is wrong. The idea that the term "sexual harassment" cannot be supplemented by a few words to eliminate connotations of illegality is wrong. If anyone has an editorial agenda here, it is the admin who does not practice what he preaches.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that a 19 hour disagreement between two editors, with two others making one brief comment each at the very end of that period, constitutes a consensus. The article itself already uses synthesis to place undue weight on what Hill didn't do. The primary synthesis here is the insistence that an unwillingness to press charges for an illegal act constitutes failure to say the act is illegal. On a more serious issue than this, I'm sure thousands of rape victims would instantly see the fallacy of that argument. In response to a question from Arlen Spector, Hill made it perfectly clear that in her opinion the conduct constituted sexual harassment under the law, even though she declined to file formal charges for such.(current footnote 62) Not only should the lede be restored to the "sexually harassing" version, serious consideration should also be given to removing the undue apologetic in the main body. Fat&Happy (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
My internet connection is pretty bad today, just FYI.
Anyway, FAH you say that there is an "insistence that an unwillingness to press charges for an illegal act constitutes failure to say the act is illegal." That's incorrect, and there is no such insistence. Obviously, a person can decline to file charges and still accuse someone of breaking the law. Hill did not testify that Thomas broke the law. Rather her testimony was that he behaved a certain way, and she said that the Senate was free to evaluate whether it broke the law. This has nothing to do with whether she filed charges or not. Look carefully at footnotes 63-65. Moreover, at Hill's press conference prior to her testimony, she specifically emphasized that she was not saying Thomas broke the law.[11]
As for whether clear and brief statements from 3 editors, versus long statements by one editor, means there is no consensus of 3, I'd have to differ.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe this will make it more clear: there are two kinds of sexual harassment, the kind that breaks the law, and the kind that does not break the law. If we're going to mention sexual harassment in the lead, then we ought to say which one we're talking about. But I don't see a need to put it in the lede, because the lede right now seems clear enough, and the whole thing is explained later in the article.
Now, if there are objections to what's later in the article, then how about if we iron out those before debating the lead? I was not aware that MastCell had any problem with the treatment of this issue later in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Hill in 1991:

"THE THOMAS NOMINATION; Excerpts of News Conference on Harassment Accusations Against Thomas”, New York Times (1991-10-08). This is basically what all three secondary sources at footnotes 63-65 say.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I said above: "Hill did not testify that Thomas broke the law." I should have said, "Hill did not testify outright that Thomas certainly broke the law by illegally harassing her." I apologize for the error.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
And here's the relevant portion of the NYT excerpt from the testimony (emphasis added):

Q. So that you are not now drawing a conclusion that Judge Thomas sexually harassed you?

A. Yes, I am drawing that conclusion. That is my --

Q. Then I don't understand.

A. Well, let me try to explain again. I brought this information forward for the committee to make their own decision. I did not bring the information forward to try to establish a legal claim for sexual harassment. I brought it forward so that the committee could determine the veracity of it, the truth of it. And from there on, you could evaluate the information as to whether or not it constituted sexual harassment or whether or not it went to his ability to conduct a job as an associate justice of the Supreme Court.

Q. Professor Hill, there's a big difference between your articulating your version of events, contrasted with your statement that Judge Thomas sexually harassed you. And in the transcript of your October 7 interview, you responded to a question saying that it was sexual harassment.

A. In my opinion, based on my reading of the law, yes, it was. But later on, immediately following that response, I noted to the press that I did not raise a claim of sexual harassment in this complaint. It seems to me that the behavior has to be evaluated on its own with regard to the fitness of this individual to act as an Associate Justice. It seems to me that even if it does not rise to the level of sexual harassment, it is behavior that is unbefitting an individual who will be a member of the Court.

Q. Well, Professor Hill, I quite agree with you that the committee ought to examine the conduct of the behavior and make a factual determination of what you say happened and what Judge Thomas said happened. But when you say that you had not made the statement that he had sexually harassed you, that is at variance with your statement at the Oct. 7 news conference.

A. Senator, I would submit that what I said was I have not raised a claim of sexual harassment in either of my statements and I will say again that in the news conference I was simply stating that yes, in my opinion this does constitute sexual harassment.

Clearly she said she was sexually harassed, but - IMHO – was more interested in derailing Thomas' confirmation than in seeking personal "justice", saying, in essence: "I'm an EEOC lawyer, and as I read the law he sexually harassed me, but even if your reading of the law is different his behavior was inappropriate for a Supreme Court justice, so don't bother debating whether it was legally sexual harassment, just vote against him...", but no matter how you interpret the fancy two-step, she did say she was sexually harassed. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
FAH, I've agreed again and again that Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment. The question is whether she meant this as an accusation of violating the law. Just as a person can accuse someone of breaking the law without filing a formal claim, so too a person can accuse someone of sexual harassment without accusing anyone of breaking the law.
Under questioning, Hill said that, in her opinion, the sexual harassment did break the law. Was that an accusation, or just an opinion? The three secondary sources at footnotes 63-65 say that it was not the former. If we're going to even remotely suggest the former, in the lede, then I'd like to see some secondary sources interpreting Hill's comments as an accusation of illegality. If enough sources are produced to negate footnotes 63-65, then I'd be happy to go along with what MastCell has been very fervently trying to do. But one thing is extremely clear: Hill was trying to emphasize the behavior, rather than whether or not it was legal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I've overhauled this section of the article (not the lede) to better track what the sources say, and address FAH's comment that we should not dwell on what Hill did not do, but rather should focus on what she did do. See what you think.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

More acceptable language for the lede

"...centering around an accusation by attorney Anita Hill, a subordinate at the Department of Education who followed him to the EEOC, that he had made comments she thought amounted to sexual harassment."

Alternatively, I think the lede as it is right now adequately describes what Hill's main point was.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awkward and unnecessarily wordy. Since we agree that she accused Thomas of conduct that "amounted to sexual harassment", why not just say that she accused him of sexual harassment? It feels like we're contorting ourselves to avoid using the wording that virtually every other reliable source on Earth uses. Also, I'm not sure it's proper to say that Hill "followed [Thomas] to the EEOC" - do sources say that Hill accepted the position to "follow" Thomas, or that a desire to work with him played a role in her decision? Perhaps we could focus on one issue at a time. Otherwise you might unintentionally create the impression that you're trying to sneak other leading language through the back door while we're focused elsewhere. MastCell Talk 05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Sneak? Hardly.
The sources at footnotes 63-65 say she was unsure whether it amounted to illegal sexual harassment. The wording you suggest precludes such a thing, so I oppose it.
And after all this studying of Justice Thomas that you have undoubtedly now done, MastCell, you think that Hill was -what- forced to leave the Department of Education?
Leaving out the word "comments" would make it seem like he might have touched her. You wouldn't want to suggest that, would you pal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sex" in the lede

I've made a noticeboard inquiry here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is archived here. The consensus was for changing "unwelcome sexual comments" to "unwelcome comments" in the lede of this article. So, I'll plan on making that small change on Saturday. Of course, that would leave plenty of discussion of sex later in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that single comments from 2 uninvolved editors is a robust consensus, and there was no actual back-and-forth discussion among uninvolved editors of the issue. That said, I don't feel like fighting about it. I may readdress the issue with more substantial outside input at some point in the future, since I feel pretty strongly that we're failing to inform the reader and failing to reflect available sources accurately. MastCell Talk 20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the comment. I guess I may as well go ahead and make the change now. If we revisit it later, then we can notify those who disagreed with you (aside from myself, that's Jclemens, JPMcGrath, and Johnuniq). My sense is that you're merely objecting to how the lede summarizes the article's body, rather than what's in the body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's correct. MastCell Talk 20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm getting into this late, but removing the word "sexual" from the statement in the lead makes the statement virtually meaningless. Hill didn't complain about "comments" like "why don't you stop filing things in the wrong place." She complained about sexual comments. If you're going to have a reference to the Hill allegations in the lead, then the word "sexual" should be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment, and you raise a good point. I've just tweaked that sentence, so it now says "inappropriate comments" instead of "unwelcome comments". I think that rules out the example you gave of garden-variety criticism. Please make sure you've looked at the Noticeboard discussion to see what the concerns were. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I read the archived Noticeboard discussion before posting here. Some of it seemed to be about consistency between Clinton's and Thomas's articles. The rest appeared to be about the appropriate weight in the lead's summary description. I appreciate your change to inappropriate, which is in an improvement over unwelcome, but it still seems euphemistic. In my view, if the "comments" are going to be mentioned, it's simply clearer and more accurate to say sexual. Here's another alternative (although still not my preference): "Thomas's confirmation hearings were bitter and intensely fought, centering on attorney Anita Hill's allegations that Thomas behaved inappropriately when she worked for him at the Department of Education and subsequently at the EEOC."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The problem with "behaved" is that it increases rather than decreases the ambiguity, because it could refer to comments or physical contact or lots of other things, whereas Hill only alleged comments. It was the impropriety of the alleged comments that was problematic, not their sexual nature (i.e. lovebirds at work make sexual comments all the time without scandal). You're right that the lede is somewhat euphemistic, but (like Clinton's lede) it should make readers curious to read more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Memorable Line

There is a block quote in the Anita Hill section that says: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."

Thomas's biographer, Ken Foskett, said that part of the quote ("And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas") is "one of the most memorable lines in American judicial history."

Editors keep putting in the Foskett quote, either as a quote or a paraphrase, and other editors keep removing it.

Personally, I don't much care one way or the other, although the description of Thomas's lines by his biographer is arguably worth noting. On the other hand, Thomas's statement in and of itself is fairly explosive, and it could probably just stand by itself without characterization by Foskett.

However, we should either put the Foskett line in, as a quote or a paraphrase (quote is probably better - won't allow people to quibble with the paraphrase), or we should remove the cite to the Foskett quote. We already have a cite for the Thomas statement itself. We only need the cite to the Foskett quote if we're going to use it.

If no one comments or there is no consensus on this, I will remove the citation to the Foskett quote (because for the moment the quote isn't in the article).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good comment. An editor removed the Foskett quote on the basis that Foskett is not sufficiently notable. Another editor then reinserted a paraphrase of the Hudson source that quoted Foskett, instead of quoting either Foskett or Hudson, and that editor said so in an edit summary. That edit summary was subsequently criticized for being inaccurate, though it seemed accurate to me (I am biased because I wrote it).
I don't feel strongly one way or another about what to do with the Hudson reference. But, if people are going to object to the length of the blockquote (as the aforementioned editor who criticized the edit summary has done), then it would be useful to keep the Hudson reference to establish the very high notability of the Thomas quote. So, all in all, it would probably be best to keep the Hudson reference, and perhaps try rephrasing it again in a way that will not meet with objections (saying that a Thomas quote was "memorable" doesn't seem very peacockish to me, but perhaps "notable" would meet with less objection).166.137.137.187 (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Too many issues tangled up here. One editor says Foskett is not notable. But why? (I did find a review critical of Foskett's book in the Washington Post. At the same time, Foskett's book is cited many times in the article. And here's a favorable review of the book by oft-quoted law professor John Eastman, who also was Thomas's law clerk.) Another editor says your paraphrase was inaccurate. Personally, I didn't think it was, but I don't really see the need to paraphrase - it's a short enough quote in the first place. WP:Peacock says you can't use puffy words (like "most memorable") without attribution. Is a citation good enough to meet the policy, or does the attribution need to be in the article? The idea behind the policy is for editors not to use puffy adjectives to "promote" the article subject, but it's okay to cite someone else who does. So, now we have three choices (in my view:) (1) put the quote back in; (2) put the quote back in and in the body of the article attribute it to Foskett; or (3) leave the quote out and take out the citation to Foskett, which, without the quote, serves no purpose. By the way, who objected to the length of the block quote? No one that I've seen wants to take out Thomas's quote itself, do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
Here's the objection to the length of the blockquote. Of those three choices, I'd support (1) or (2) but not (3), because (3) removes justification for the length of the blockquote. I'd also support (4) restoring a paraphrase but using the word "notable" instead of "memorable" in order to (attempt to) calm the waters.69.183.187.206 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Polls

The article used to say: "As of 2004, Thomas was second only to Sandra Day O'Connor as the Supreme Court justice whom most people admire or with whom they agree most, according to a Fox News poll. Six years later, in 2010, Thomas had a 48% favorable, 36% unfavorable rating, according to Rasmussen Reports."

It says now: "As of 2010, Thomas had a 48% favorable and 36% unfavorable rating, according to Rasmussen Reports."

An editor removed the Fox poll with this explanation: "Removed misleading poll citation; the cited poll explains of those asked, 58%, "were either unable to name their favorite or do not know the name of any justice". Further, I question of neutral nature of a Fox News poll."

First, the date of the Rasmussen poll was and still is wrong. The poll was taken in 2006, not 2010. Second, the Fox poll explains what questions were asked, what the responses were, the error rate, etc. The Rasmussen poll does not, or at least if it does, I couldn't find it (much of the Rasmussen website is accessible only if you're a paid member).

I recommend we take out all of it. The Fox poll is unhelpful because the statistics are too low to be meaningful. Without some evidence that the poll was biased, the editor's opinion about Fox's neutrality is not an acceptable reason to remove it. The Rasmussen poll simply doesn't shed enough light on what they asked to have much merit. However, if enough people want to leave the poll information in, we should put Fox back and correct the Rasmussen date.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we should leave in both polls, correcting the Rasmussen date, given that polls are very applicable to the section title "Public Perception." Drrll (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Except in quotations, he's "Thomas", not "Justice Thomas"

Wikipedia style is to refer to people by surname only. The first time someone is mentioned, his or her position can be given; thus, someone like David Souter should be referred to as "Justice David Souter" at first mention but merely "Souter" thereafter. I've changed several instances of "Justice Thomas" to "Thomas". Verbatim quotations should be given accurately, however, even if the source being quoted doesn't conform to the Wikipedia rules on this point. Thus, "Justice Thomas" is correct if it's within a verbatim quotation and is so in the original. JamesMLane t c 22:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Description of Hill's allegations in lead

I'd like to reopen discussion of our description of Anita Hill's allegations in the lead. The competing versions are here and here. I think that in order to honestly and accurately represent published reliable sources, we should state that Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment. That is a fact supported by virtually every reliable source published on the subject (whether the allegations had merit is separate, but the content of the allegations is hardly in dispute).

I think that the push to bowdlerize and water down this language is in error. It is uninformative to the reader to say that Hill accused Thomas of making "inappropriate" comments. That leaves the reader to wonder what, exactly, was inappropriate about them. I continue to fail to understand the objection to accurately describing Hill's allegations in the words used by virtually every reliable source on the topic. I would welcome discussion on the matter. MastCell Talk 19:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the last discussion on this topic, I agreed with the minority view that some form of the terms "sexual" and "harass" were needed in the lead to accurately summarize the events and the article content. I still feel that would be the best phrasing.
However, I'm never particularly happy when the local school board keeps re-presenting the same budget to the voters multiple times, knowing that eventually the opposition will tire or have other things to do so eventually the proposal will pass. The last discussion on this ended only a month ago, so while I support the underlying point, I oppose taking another bite of the apple by reopening the discussion at this time. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I re-presented it because another editor (who had previously not been involved in this article, to my knowledge) raised the issue with this edit. Since things seemed to threaten to devolve into an edit war, it seemed appropriate to re-open the discussion here, which is in keeping with my understanding of our consensus process (see Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change). How long should I wait before raising the concern again (in all seriousness)? MastCell Talk 19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that there's any set answer to that question. As I was framing my response, I had a figure of about six months in the back of my mind. But in a way, I see it as situational; re-opening a well hashed-out clear consensus because one editor insists on a contrary approach seems like wheel-spinning. Check out the talk pages for the various Barack Obama articles; things get deleted (frequently my personal preference) or collapsed at the drop of a hat (no pun intended). Things get a bit brutal over there (and they do have a FAQ). But in the present case, I think the consensus was a bit weaker; any time two or three new (to the topic) editors were to disagree with the present content, and one of them brought it to talk, it could probably be reviewed, but I think the previous opinions, at least of verifies editors, should be considered also. Just my $2 ramble with 2¢ of content... Fat&Happy (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Fat&Happy on both points. On the first point, I think the omission of the word "sexual" from the lead is inaccurate and silly. On the second point, why is this being rehashed yet again? Even on the merits, although it may be silly not to have the word "sexual" in the lead, it's laid out in the body of the article (gee, did I just use the words "laid" and "body"?), so why is this such a big deal?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Again, I brought it here because at least two editors currently seem to feel strongly enough to edit-war over it. That indicates to me that whatever consensus existed is either no longer in effect, or needs to be reaffirmed. The talk page seemed like the place to go. That's all. MastCell Talk 02:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You brought it here immediately after editing the article, and now your edit has been edit-warred back into this article by a person who has not even visited this talk page. Incidentally, here's a fun diff for your viewing pleasure from the Bill Clinton article. The lead at the Bill Clinton article is purged of anything sex-related by Wikipedia administration. Meanwhile, Wikipedia administration engages in and permits edit-warring at this article to include sex in the lede despite a consensus the other way. Nothing new I guess. Yawn.166.137.8.217 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginny

Why does "Ginny Thomas" redirect here when she has her own page? 72.101.169.162 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Old (misspelled) leftover. Fixed. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange Justice

On September 20, Mothmothmoth added material to the Anita Hill allegations section of the article. I removed much of it, but I left in the part about the book Strange Justice and the New Yorker article, although I edited it somewhat and added a tag. Along came MastCell who (rightly in my view) removed the tagged phrase. Along came Drrll who removed the piece completely saying, "Rmv description of a one-sided book as an objective examination of Thomas/Hill, by Hill apologists, and a commentary piece in a publication w/a conflict of interest" in the edit summary. I'm not saying Drrll, an editor whom I respect, was wrong to remove the material, but I think the material merits some more discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have the book itself, nor do I have the New Yorker article (only an abstract of the article is available online). However, the added material was reasonably well-sourced. We don't necessarily have to have online access to a source for it to be legitimate. Also, the material didn't really characterize the book except to say that the WSJ reporters conducted an extensive study, which should be verifiable from the book itself. It was the New Yorker that characterized the book, but the quote is included and sourced.

I'd like to hear more from Drrll about the edit summary comment, particularly the conflict of interest part. Now, I read that Jane Mayer joined the New Yorker in 1995, but that would have been after she cowrote the book and the after the article appeared in the New Yorker. But I also read in the main article on the Hill allegations that Mayer and Abramson wrote an earlier article in the New Yorker (May of 1993), although that is also unsourced. I'm still not clear how anyone necessarily has a "conflict of interest."

I also recognize that anything that touches on the Anita Hill hearings is sensitive and has often been debated in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't add sourceable material to the section. Also, if someone wants to add material that comes out the other way (Hill lied, Thomas told the truth), that would be fine. Right now, all we have is the following unsourced sentence: "All sides still vigorously dispute the conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings." I'm not crazy about that sentence, partly because it's unsourced, and what does "still" mean as time moves on?

Another possibility is not to have anything about the publications post-hearing because it's too much about the subject, and we have the main article on the Hill allegations that goes into this stuff in much more detail. If we're going to do that, I'd be in favor of removing that last sentence.

Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My main objection lies in the characterization of the book with the phrasing "However, two Wall Street Journal reporters conducted an extensive study of the controversy." This comes immediately after "The debate over who was telling the truth continues, and several books have been written about the hearings and what effect further testimony might have had. Clarence Thomas wrote an autobiography addressing Anita Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings.[83] All sides still vigorously dispute the conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings." On the one hand, you have the uncertainty of a continuing debate on Thomas/Hill, however on the other hand, you have this "extensive [objective] study" that speaks to the debate in certain terms. It would be just as wrong to characterize pro-Thomas books like The Real Anita Hill in similar terms. Since the characterization is not quoted, it can't be determined if it's from the New Yorker article (which is a commentary piece, by the way), the book, or the editor who added it. I agree that we don't have to have online access to a source, per WP:SOURCEACCESS.
As far as the conflict of interest part, the New Yorker pleaded with Mayer and Abramson to write a review of Brock's book, knowing that a book by them on the same subject was in the works (another conflict of interest), then when Mayer's/Abramson's book came out, lavished it with praise in a commentary piece.
I don't have a problem per se with using sourced material from Strange Justice (which incidentally, by its title says volumes about their view of the Thomas/Hill hearings and/or Thomas himself) or the commentary piece from the New Yorker. I just want to see it handled in a NPOV manner and its advocacy counterbalanced by advocacy on the other side.
I agree that the "All sides still vigorously dispute..." sentence doesn't really belong there. I guess I would lean toward having a brief mention of the post-hearing books, giving examples of both pro-Thomas and pro-Hill books. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the vigorously dispute sentence. I think we should avoid the conflict of interest angle because it seems to delve into original research and our own interpretation of events. It comes close to being a legal conclusion on our part. I agree with you about the "extensive study" phrase, which I noted in my original post. I think we have only two choices. One is to present stuff from both sides (assuming both sides are well-represented and sourceable), and the other is not to present any of it and leave it for the main article. I don't have a problem leaving all of it out. In sum, I think the burden is on the editor who wants to add material to the Thomas article section to add both sides or nothing. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
That would depend. Strange Justice is not an "anti-Thomas" book. In some ways, it's quite sympathetic to Thomas. The evidence compiled and presented in the book might lead a reader to the conclusion that Thomas had lied - it seems that the New Yorker reviewer reached this conclusion - but that's a different matter. It seems ludicrous to equate or "balance" this reputable, respectable, well-researched book with The Real Anita Hill, which is generally recognized as a scurrilous hit piece and has been disowned even by its author as such. We should look at the actual quality of sources, rather than assigning them to "pro" and "anti" Thomas camps and assuming they need to balance each other out. MastCell Talk 00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to go with a consensus on this issue, particularly on the book, which, unfortunately, I don't have, so can't comment on. Even assuming the book is well-written, etc., does it belong in the Thomas article given that it's already covered in the main article on the Hill allegations? To me, that's a separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Although TV news shows distanced themselves from The Real Anita Hill at the time, the book was praised from the expected sources and from unexpected sources. From an article about the book by the Washington Post's media reporter:
First, in early April, came the excerpts on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, serving notice that David Brock's book on Anita Hill was to be taken seriously. Days later there was a laudatory Newsweek piece by George Will ("assembles an avalanche of evidence that Hill lied"). And a syndicated column by fellow conservative Mona Charen ("knocks the wind out of a cherished liberal myth"). Soon respectful reviews were appearing in such establishment organs as The Washington Post ("a serious work of investigative journalism") and the New York Times ("carefully reasoned and powerful in its logic").
It's true that the author had an ideological change of heart and thus renounced something that would not fit in with his newfound orthodoxy, but in what quarters is it "generally recognized as a scurrilous hit piece"? BTW, Jane Mayer in particular is a crusading advocacy journalist who is known for her attack pieces on conservatives. Are there any books you consider "reputable, respectable, well-researched" that draw a different conclusion than Strange Justice' conclusion? Drrll (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Come on now. When a book's author comes out and says that he lied, that rather impeaches the book's utility as a reliable source for a serious encyclopedia, right? The fact that the book received some positive reviews before the author admitted it was filled with lies isn't really relevant. That sort of puts the book in a different category than Strange Justice. MastCell Talk 04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
From that very NY Times article, note what Brock said he lied about and that it was the only thing he lied about in print:
The author of a best-selling book that attacked the credibility of Anita F. Hill has disavowed its premise, and now says that he lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas...
Mr. Brock wrote that in an effort to protect the conservative political agenda, he "consciously lied" in the review of Strange Justice in The American Spectator.
In the review, Mr. Brock wrote that there was no evidence that Justice Thomas had "ever rented one pornographic video, let alone was a habitual consumer of pornography."
In the excerpt, Mr. Brock writes: "When I wrote those words I knew they were false. It was the first and last time that I consciously put a lie in print.
Brock doesn't say that he lied in the book and that the book was "filled with lies." To my knowledge, he has never given examples of specific lies that he told in the book. Again, are there any books you consider "reputable, respectable, well-researched" that draw a different conclusion than Strange Justice does? Drrll (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
There are quite a few reputable, well-researched biographies and books about Thomas. Most are identifiable in part by the fact that they don't take an explicitly pro- or anti-Thomas stance. Many are already cited in the article. Are you continuing to argue that The Real Anita Hill is an example of such a biography, or that it's the equivalent of Strange Justice just because you think they somehow balance each other out?

David Brock, the author of The Real Anita Hill, is on record as saying that while he personally believed Anita Hill, he created the book with the intent of demonizing her, and "dump[ed] virtually every derogatory—and often contradictory—allegation I had collected on Hill from the Thomas camp into the mix." ([12]) Interestingly, Brock himself credited Strange Justice with prompting his change of heart because it "debunked much of The Real Anita Hill, and Brock discovered that he could not honestly and successfully debunk Strange Justice in return." ([13])

The Real Anita Hill is not a good encyclopedic source, full stop, and it's not somehow "equivalent" to more reputable biographies and published works. What other books do you consider reputable, well-researched biographies? MastCell Talk 16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange Justice is more pro-Hill than anti-Thomas. I'm not arguing that Brock had equivalent journalistic credentials to Abramson's and Mayer's credentials, but I do believe that they are similar in their use of advocacy against/for Hill. Even with what Brock has said about his more recent view of Hill and account of how he produced the book, we have yet to hear from Brock which "derogatory--and often contradictory--allegation" in the book was false. Given that the book was well-received in the two newspapers that matter most on such issues and that the author does not say that he lied in the book, I do believe it is a good source for Wikipedia. As far as other reputable, well-researched books on Thomas (not necessarily biographies), I like First principles: the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas by Scott Douglas Gerber. Gerber actually doesn't know who to believe in the Thomas/Hill saga. Are there any specific books you like that take an agnostic view or that favors Thomas in the Thomas/Hill conflict? Drrll (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting adding my views on The New Yorker's conflict of interest to the CT article, or even using them to disqualify the New Yorker piece on that basis. I wasn't clear about distinguishing between the books by Thomas and Hill and the books by third parties. I feel that those books by the principles should be mentioned, but for the other books, I believe that they should be mentioned only if they add valuable information, and like you said, only if both sides are given. My inclination is to leave the third-party books out entirely, and like you said, leave them for the other article. Drrll (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A brief comment. The removed quote said that two reporters found "Hill's testimony wholly credible and Thomas's defense nearly impossible to believe." This is a generalized comment, and does not add to this Wikipedia article. If the quote was something specific, like "Thomas rented videos contrary to his sworn testimony" then that would be more worthwhile (except that he didn't actually testify that way). So, I'd suggest leaving this article as-is for now.166.137.10.140 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence

The new sentence at the end of this Wikipedia article says that he's been spotted sleeping on the bench. First off, many judges have been spotted sleeping on the bench, including Justice Ginsburg who not only had her eyes closed but was slumped over. So, even if Thomas did doze off, that would not be very notable, and is hardly the way to end this Wikipedia article. Anyway, the source does not pretend to be neutral:

We can give Thomas a pass on this one, given that he’s already an expert on sexual harassment.

Other lawyers who have argued cases before the Supreme Court told me that they noticed Thomas closes his eyes but were not sure whether he was sleeping.

Veteran court watchers suffer the same doubt. “It is kind of tricky to tell if someone closes their eyes if they are asleep,” said Linda Greenhouse, who covers the court for the New York Times.

Given that he wasn't slumped over like Ginsburg, it's hard to tell if he dozed off.166.137.138.242 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lillian McEwen's Memoir

I just undid an editor's addition about the recent news of McEwen's memoir and her comments on Thomas and the Hill hearings. The sentence I removed was not really accurate, not necessarily placed in the ideal part of the section, and begs discussion as to the broader question of what belongs in the Thomas article and what doesn't. This section, as most know, always stirs controversy among editors, so my view is we should discuss this before putting it in.

The major press, including the Washington Post and the New York Times have articles on McEwen, her as yet unpublished memoir, and her comments about Thomas, their relationship, and the Hill hearing. As a preliminary matter, I believe it's noteworthy and something about it belongs in the article. As to where, I suggest putting it at the end after the sentences about Thomas's and Hill's writings. The McEwen stuff is complex because she certainly had a long-term relationship with Thomas and therefore has a lot to say, her comment about not being subpoeaned to the hearing is interesting, and she's a reputable figure. At the same time, she does have a book she wants to see published, so like a lot of writers, actors, directors, etc., who have a new book or a new film, she has an agenda. I don't think it can be handled in just one sentence.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For now, it may be sufficient to simply add this news story as a footnote at the end of the sentence that says, "her description of Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences." When the book comes out, maybe we can say more, either in this article or a sub-article or both.
It's unclear to me if the new info corroborates mere personal habits, or instead corroborates the particular behavior that Hill thought might be illegal. If the former, then it's less notable. Suppose some person writes a bio of Ted Kennedy detailing which sex positions he used, and which porn videos he rented; that would all be extremely tangential to his alleged relationship with Mary Jo Kopechne; but, if someone actually witnessed their interaction then that would be more notable. Similarly with Thomas, IMO.166.137.139.116 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's worth more than a footnote. As I already stated, it's complex. Therefore, in response to your distinction between someone's personal habits and his actual professional behavior, McEwen's statements discuss both. They also respond to specific things Thomas said at the hearings. I also don't see why it's any less noteworthy now as opposed to when, if ever, the book is published. The book may not be published for a long time or may never be published. Although I think it's important to note that McEwen is "shopping" her book, beyond that, her comments are significant. One side note. I don't believe Hill alleged that what Thomas did was "illegal". The question of whether Thomas's conduct could give rise to a sexual harassment case against him (criminal action seems really dubious) is less important than whether Thomas's alleged conduct was suitable for a member of the Court.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I lean toward not including anything about it, but I could be convinced otherwise (and it is adequately sourced). Her relationship with Thomas was purely personal and not professional, so she has no direct knowledge of Thomas' treatment of his subordinate employees. The information that she provides about Thomas' interest in describing pornography again is in reference to her being his girlfriend, not a subordinate. The only thing I see in her account that might be relevant is her claim that Thomas told her that he asked someone he met at work (not specified whether that person was a subordinate) about her bra size. But that does not corroborate Hill's particular charges and is a little hard to believe (why would he tell his girlfriend of his sexual interest in another woman?). In addition, she does admit that she is politically opposed to his legal philosophy / Court rulings. Drrll (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that McEwen's specific comments have to be precisely the same as Hill's comments to be relevant. The fact that McEwen said that Thomas behaved inappropriately at work and has an example is more than enough to make it notable. This is not just gossip. This comes from someone who was in a relationship with Thomas for five years. It doesn't matter whether it's true. It's unlikely we'll ever know what's true and what's not, which won't, of course, stop us from forming our own opinions (also irrelevant). It matters that it's been reported by the mainstream press and it's relevant to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a link to the WaPo article. There doesn't seem to be a lot there that's not already covered by this Wikipedia article. Maybe there will be more when the kiss-and-tell book comes out. The only factoid from the WaPo article that seems possibly notable is Thomas allegedly asking someone at work the bra size, but still that in and of itself is not notable. Bill Clinton asked someone at work for a blow job, which seems a bit more momentous than asking about a bra size, and yet the Bill Clinton Wikipedia article doesn't mention blow jobs. I realize that requests for evenhandedness don't work at Wikipedia, but come on. McEwen doesn't suggest that the person objected or disliked being asked about bra size. Let's not make allegations about Thomas's personal life completely swallow and overwhelm this article.
Thomas's vote was recently the fifth and deciding vote to apply the Second Amendment against the states. This article doesn't mention that, but should mention an alleged question about bra size? Undue weight.166.137.138.210 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
First, there is no mention in the article about McEwen - that, in and of itself, is notable. Second, we don't necessarily have to use the phrase "bra size" to get the point across, not that I'm saying at this point that I'm against using the phrase. Third, whether Clinton's article talks about oral sex or not is immaterial. Certaily, the Lewinski scandal article goes into fairly graphic detail. Finally, Thomas joined in parts of the majority opinion in McDonald and wrote a separate concurrence. How do you figure he cast the "deciding" vote? Why wasn't it one of the other four? As for your use of the word "swallow" coming on the heels of the phrase "blow job," well... :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, maybe we should edit the JFK article to make sure it mentions every woman he slept with. Seriously, you ought to take this to the sub-article on the Thomas-Hill hearings. This article is a summary article that's supposed to summarize the sub-articles. As for the 2d Amendment case, all 5 in the majority were deciding votes, and Thomas rejected the rationale of the other 4. (Incidentally, use of the word "swallow" above was not consciously related to the BJs!)166.137.138.87 (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make was that asking someone about bra size, while inappropriate, is not like graphically describing pornography, which Hill alleges. If we include something, it should be exactly what he was alleged to have said and that he allegedly said it to a "wom[a]n he encountered at work", rather than in a way that suggests strongly that it was a subordinate. Drrll (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm of two minds about including this - it seems properly sourced and relevant to a serious account of one of the main chapters in Thomas' life. On the other hand, it might be wise to wait a little so we can avoid overemphasizing it and avoid the temptation to fall into recentism. I am absolutely adamant that if we cover it, we need to reflect the coverage of independent, reliable sources rather than the personal interpretations of individual Wikipedians. This article has been degraded by an insistent and inappropriate tendency for a handful of editors - all of whom tend to take a fairly partisan stance - to bowderlize and recontextualize everything related to Thomas' confirmation hearings to suit their personal preferred spin.

    Reliable, independent sources are clear on the significance of McEwan's claims. We can either choose to honestly and accurately reflect those sources, or we can choose to table this subject until more perspective is available. We don't have the option of spouting our own personal views about whether Thomas' conduct was inappropriate and substituting those for the content of reliable sources. That's a recurring theme in the editing of this page, and it needs to end. MastCell Talk 00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlike what you say, my comments above do not advocate substituting my "own personal views" "for the content of reliable sources." I am advocating not going beyond what the reliable sources say (because some would like to imply in the article that McEwen confirms Anita Hill's allegations). At the same time, Wikipedia is not a slave to the transference of partisanship in reporting by left-leaning papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times. And that is precisely what these Talk pages are for--the deciding of what to use from reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
While there doubtless have been attempts at expurgation here at this Wikipedia article, there have also been countless attempts to insert every possible derogatory bit of information regarding the subject. People of all political stripes need to explain specifically what they would like to insert or delete, and why doing so complies with Wikipedia policies, especially when doing so disregards WP:Summary style.166.137.136.204 (talk) 02:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's hard to explain why McEwen's claims might belong in the article; they have been covered extensively by reputable news sources. Their significance is made clear by those sources, and does not require editorial spin from a Wikipedian. Editors who consider news items from the Washington Post and New York Times to be "left-leaning partisanship" rather than valuable encyclopedic sources are part of the problem, and need to familiarize themselves with WP:RS and WP:V. MastCell Talk 04:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
She has numerous claims that have been mentioned in the media, and there will be many more once her book is published. If we put every one into this article that would be undue weight. Which claims that have been reported in the media belong in this article, which in the sub-article, and why? Or should we hold off, due to WP:Recentism?
Per Richard Cohen at WaPo: "The revelations -- so banal as to comprise a virtual exoneration -- are that Thomas was obsessed with women, likes them big-breasted, and indulged in a critical viewing of pornography."166.137.138.6 (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you've managed to find and highlight an opinion piece by a partisan editorialist (one with his own not-entirely-tangential history), presumably because it agrees with your personal viewpoint. I don't think that's useful for our purposes. Can we stick to news (rather than opinion) pieces from reputable press outlets? MastCell Talk 16:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll ask for the third time: which claims do you want in this article, which in the sub-article, or should we hold off due to WP:Recentism? If you think the liberal Washington Post columnist (Cohen) has inaccurately summarized the revelations, then please supply a better summary. Thanks.166.137.136.11 (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I think you missed my point, or else I didn't express it clearly. I don't want to argue with you about Richard Cohen; I want you (and all of us) to avoid the temptation to cherry-pick editorials that agree with our personal viewpoints, and instead focus on high-quality sources, ideally news pieces from reputable media and reputable biographies.

Like I said initially, I do share the concern about recentism. I'm OK with waiting a little while to see how things play out before we decide how to cover McEwen's claims. We don't have a deadline, this isn't a news site, and I don't feel like we need to rush ahead. I am concerned about the general trend I've observed among editors here to relentlessly spin the content of reliable news pieces, often supplementing them with opinion pieces chosen to support their editorial viewpoints. In that regard, your responses thus far haven't allayed my concern. MastCell Talk 16:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Then we will wait. I never suggested citing the Cohen piece in this article, and instead mentioned it merely for his summary of the allegations (I've tried to elicit a summary from you as well). That is the kind of summary that is needed if we are to have a discussion about specifics. I guess we'll do that later.166.137.136.11 (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I guess if I were to discuss potential sources, I would include the following: CNN, New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, Washington Post, etc... I think these sources demonstrate that we can amply summarize the allegations without recourse to partisan opinion pieces, if we try. MastCell Talk 06:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I already linked that WaPo article above in this talk page section. If you can amply summarize those sources, I will be curious to see whether your summary resembles the summary quoted above from Cohen, or includes the allegations that he mentioned. Yesterday, I offered my own summary of the sources at the talk page of the sub-article. Please keep in mind WP:Tabloid ("most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion").166.137.136.185 (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This woman corroborates all of the allegations made by Anita Hill, who herself was made to look like a crazy person, and you guys are trying to rationalize keeping these charges out of the article. Amazing. Regardless of whether her memoirs are ever published what she is saying is of profound significance. It suggests that Clarence Thomas lied about his behavior and he lies each time he suggests Anita Hill was some nut case out to get him. So a person who knew Thomas intimately is saying Clarence was obsessed with porn and sex, the same claim made by Anita Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.208.30 (talk) 14:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

For better or worse, some judges are obsessed with sex. William O. Douglas, for example, used to jump on visiting airline stewardesses, in chambers. The issue with Hill was not whether Thomas ever spoke to her about sex, but whether he did so AT WORK and CONTRARY to her requests. If you would like to visit the sub-article on the Thomas nomination, you'll see that I'm glad to add something immediately about the McEwen allegations. MastCell counsels that we wait, and he correctly cites WP:Recentism. 166.137.138.80 (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Exactly which specific "allegations made by Anita Hill" are corroborated, and in what reliable sources? Drrll (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I dunno... maybe the part where McEwen says that Thomas "allowed his interest in pornography to bleed into his professional relationships"? The part where she says that Thomas "probably would not have been on the court if the real Clarence had actually been revealed"? Those are from the New York Times.

Or maybe "To McEwen, Hill's allegations that Thomas had pressed her for dates and made lurid sexual references rang familiar"? Or that "McEwen's recollections resemble accounts shared by other women that swirled around the Thomas confirmation"? Those are from the Washington Post. I think it's evident to anyone reading the coverage that McEwen's claims, if true, corroborate Hill's testimony and undercut Thomas' defense. MastCell Talk 19:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

None of that directly speaks to his behavior towards his subordinates at work. If she can provide specific examples of lurid things he said to his subordinates, then that's a different matter. Drrll (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure it is, to you. But I don't think we should place your personal bar of proof above the content of reliable sources when deciding what to include here. The reliable sources clearly note and address the relevance of McEwen's claims. Do you have any objections that are based on Wikipedia policy rather than personal ideological viewpoints? MastCell Talk 04:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
You duck the issue that none of what you quoted above has to do directly with how he treated his subordinates. We can't put any trashy thing into a BLP simply because a reliable source relays that trash and just because you may personally dislike the BLP subject. A very important WP policy, WP:BLP, addresses this in its lead:
Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages. The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material.
So, since the burden of evidence for adding such tabloidy-type material rests with you, how about showing how what's in those news articles has to do with how he treated his subordinates. Drrll (talk) 07:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not "tabloidy-type" material, unless you consider the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, etc to be "tabloids". I recognize that you believe they are part of the "liberal media", but that is a personal ideological objection and not a policy-based one. News items from these sources are clearly acceptable as BLP sources; if you feel that there is a real BLP issue here, then I would be happy to take this to WP:BLP/N. I don't need to prove to you that the material is relevant. Independent, reliable sources have already concluded that it's relevant. It's important, as an editor here, to be willing to accept their judgment. MastCell Talk 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Fortunately for Wikipedia, editorial decisions are not subservient to the editorial decisions of news organizations. Yes, of course they are acceptable as BLP sources, but that doesn't mean we have to lie down and automatically relay whatever these sources carry. Do you think that just because Al Gore was accused of sexual assault, and these allegations were published by reliable sources, that we should include those allegations in his BLP? Drrll (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a judgment for editors of that article to make. I'm not one of them. Can we talk about this article? MastCell Talk 17:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
But according to what you argued, since reliable sources deemed the accusations against Gore relevant, it's relevant to his BLP. OK, enough on Gore. Drrll (talk) 17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Two brief concerns. First, I do not understand why this discussion is occurring here instead of at the sub-article, per WP:Summary style. It's almost as if those seeking inclusion of this material in Wikipedia want it all to go in this main article, without summarizing any sub-article. Any objection if I cut this talk page section, and paste it at the sub-article talk page?

A second concern is that, whichever article(s) this McEwen material goes in, we would need to mention that, as a Democratic Judiciary Committee staffer she offered info to Biden, but he rejected it for lack of relevance; he only accepted testimony about this from Thomas's subordinates.166.137.138.28 (talk) 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good point about discussing it in the subarticle. I don't have a problem if you copy this section to the subarticle discussion (I'd prefer to keep what's already discussed here as well). Hopefully everyone will move the discussion to that Talk page. I agree that if McEwen material stays in either article, it should include that she presented the information to Biden and he rejected it. Drrll (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, if no one objects, I'll copy this talk page section to the sub-article talk page, and leave what's here here but with strikethrough and links at the beginning and end to the sub-article talk page.166.137.137.194 (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. It's fine to discuss this in more depth at the spin-off article, but it's not clear to me at this point whether this material also deserves brief mention here. I think that it may become clearer once the issue is out of the "breaking news" category. I would also like somewhat broader input, and may solicit it at an RfC if we continue to go on about how reputable, reliable sources are unacceptable unless they exceed an individual editor's definition of "trashiness". MastCell Talk 16:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, since you insist that the conversation be continued here, I'll just point out that Wikipedia is not a New York Times mirror site. There's plenty of newsworthy stuff that gets printed each day in the NYT that does not and should not go into Wikipedia. Justice Kagan is spotted skeet shooting with Justice Scalia. Big deal. If you would bother to visit the sub-article, you would see language that I've proposed for that article. Given that you're against including anything right now due to WP:Recentism, and given that everyone is willing to go along with you on that point, I fail to see what purpose an RFC would serve at this point. An RFC would also be grossly inappropriate at this article rather than the sub-article.166.137.139.251 (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're focused on the Times. This material has been reported by virtually every major news organization in the US. MastCell Talk 17:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It's just shorthand. I'll rephrase. Wikipedia is not a mirror site for the MSM. We can use the MSM, but we have a duty (solemn or not) to sort out the encyclopedic stuff from the gossip, the trivia, and --- yes --- the trash that's printed to sell papers. Just because the MSM reports that Thomas allegedly was obsessed with women, likes them big-breasted, and indulged in a critical viewing of pornography, doesn't mean we have to focus on those particular things.166.137.137.148 (talk) 17:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
That's not actually what the mainstream media is reporting - that's just your attempt to cherry-pick sensational and superficial details. The actual coverage by the reputable media focuses, in large part, on the way in which McEwen's claims shed light on Hill's allegations and Thomas' defense. Which is arguably relevant to this article. MastCell Talk 00:51, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It's arguably a heck of a lot more relevant to the sub-article than this one.166.137.136.96 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while since initiating this dialog. Rather than repeat the back-and-forth, I'll just go on record as agreeing with MastCell. The article should be updated to reflect the news about McEwen.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

My understanding was that MastCell favored waiting on inclusion, due to WP:Recentism. In any event, why should the McEwen material all be included in the main Thomas article, instead of included in the applicable sub-article and then merely summarized in the main article; in other words, why disregard WP:Summary style?166.137.136.187 (talk) 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that one of MastCell's comments could be construed as favoring waiting. I don't favor waiting as I don't see that anything will be gained by it, nor do I believe that inserting the information now (or soon) is a Recentism problem (Recentism is not a policy but an essay). As for your comment about summarizing it in the Thomas article, what kind of summary did you have in mind? I don't believe that anyone is disregarding the Summary policy (inherently subjective anyway as it is mostly about line drawing) by wanting to include a few sentences about what McEwen said.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I made a specific proposal at the sub-article several days ago. Basically, the discussion at the sub-article talk page has been me talking to myself. Company would be appreciated.  :-)166.137.136.187 (talk) 00:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
(You really need to work on your indents.) Point me to your proposal - I'm too tired to go looking. I thought you were going to watch the returns.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Alright, sorry, I'll work on the indents. The sub-article talk page is here. Don't go there until tomorrow, so I can focus on my TV tonight.166.137.136.187 (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:BLPN

Currently being discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tabloid-like_accusations_against_Clarence_Thomas Drrll (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Slaughter-House

This Wikipedia article now says that Thomas's opinion in McDonald would have overturned Slaughter-House. That's not quite correct. The Slaughter-House Cases involved an alleged right that's not enumerated in the Constitution, i.e. a right to engage in one's trade or profession, and/or a right to be free from monopolies. In contrast, the right to keep and bear arms is an explicit enumerated right. Many people have therefore argued that the P or I Clause can incorporate the Bill of Rights without overturning the holding in Slaughter-House (and perhaps without even contradicting the dicta in Slaughter-House). I am not aware that any justice in McDonald asserted that using the P or I Clause in that case would have overturned Slaughter-House.166.137.137.59 (talk) 20:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you cut too fine a point. However, I changed the sentence so the reference to the Slaughter-House cases is quoted from the plurality opinion in McDonald.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I've tweaked the sentence so it says: "The four justices in the plurality opinion specifically rejected incorporation under the privileges or immunities clause, "declin[ing] to disturb" the holding in the Slaughter-House Cases, which the McDonald plurality opinion construed as excluding protection of rights which the state governments were esablished to secure."
The actual scope of the Slaughter-House holding has been a matter of considerable dispute, so I don't thnk we ought to take a position about it. Anyway, tonight should be an interesting night of election returns. So now I'll go look at a TV screen instead of an iPhone screen. Cheers.166.137.136.187 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
No offense, but, in my view, your replacement language was almost impossible to understand, so I put it back the way it was (other than the italics you added). Here's a quote from McDonald about the Slaughter-House Cases: "Justice Samuel Miller's opinion for the Court concluded that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protects only those rights which owe their existence to the Federal government, its National character, its Constitution, or its laws." The phrase in the article now ("federal matter") seems a fairly simple way of expressing what the quote says. Have fun watching the returns.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Your latest change is fine. Thanks for cooperating.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem.166.137.136.187 (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

In light of the recent reversions, I do agree with 166 that the "according to the plurality" phrase is comprehensible. Because it was hard enough to reach an agreement on the substantive language, I didn't note earlier that it's a bit wordy/awkward, but I'm not sure how to make it better without losing accuracy. To be precise, it does need to say that the interpretation of the Slaughter-House Cases is from the McDonald plurality, not from the earlier case itself.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I've wikilinked plurality opinion, which makes the sentence more comprehensible.166.137.136.134 (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Question re: wife's activism

Recently, there has been some coverage in independent, reliable sources of the role of Thomas' wife as an activist and fundraiser for highly partisan political operations which oppose the "leftist tyranny" of our current President, in association with the Tea Party Movement (e.g. New York Times). While I recognize that this article is about Clarence Thomas, rather than his wife, the reliable sources draw a direct connection to concerns over Thomas' judicial impartiality. I'm putting up for discussion whether this biography should make brief mention of this aspect of Thomas' Supreme Court tenure, as it appears to have generated significant, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. MastCell Talk 22:43, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-biographical, non-encyclopedic, partisan political infighting, and much too current to know if it will ever rise to the level of something that people will even remember 10 years from now. Anyway, this issue appears to be moot as Ginni Thomas is apparently stepping down from the "tea party" group. Maybe it should go into an article about Virginia Thomas, but I don't think it belongs in the Clarence Thomas article.--Paul (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
When "partisan infighting" is reported in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, it becomes potentially notable and encyclopedic. I don't see how this material is "non-biographical", nor am I sure what you mean by that term in general. Obviously, we are unable to predict what will be notable 10 years from now, but that doesn't constrain us to wait at least 10 years before deciding whether to include material.

I'm not convinced that the material is "moot", since the L.A. Times article states only that Ginni Thomas "appears poised" to "take a back seat" at the organization, which is quite tight-lipped about its internal workings. In any case, since we're not driven by recentism, the issue doesn't become "moot" simply because it ceases to be news of the day.

Again, the material is clearly relevant to Thomas himself, in the view of reliable sources. Both the L.A. Times and the New York Times explicitly cast Ginni Thomas' partisan advocacy in the context of Clarence Thomas' judicial role. Hence, some mention seems reasonable here, if we are in fact looking to reflect the content of reliable sources. MastCell Talk 23:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's begin by looking at what this Wikipedia article already says about his wife: "In 1987, Thomas married Virginia Lamp, a lobbyist, aide to Congressman Dick Armey, and subsequently an executive director at the conservative Heritage Foundation."
So, we've provided a prominent wikilink, and given the reader a good idea about what she does with her time. That seems adequate to me, because the reader can easily access the material in question by going to her Wikipedia article.
Many judges have had spouses who are lawyers potentially Involved in cases that may end up in court, and Virginia Lamp is not even in that category (c.f. the example of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg which is a good example of mootness seeing as how her lawyer-husband recently died). I think Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell's wife is a judge on the 3d US Circuit Court of Appeals. Other examples abound.
So, basically, the coverage at the Virginia Lamp article seems adequate for now. This is an article about Clarence Thomas rather than about his wife, or kids, or others. We might want to replace "executive director at the conservative Heritage Foundation" with something more general like "an official at various conservative organizations."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
If there has been reputable major-media coverage of serious concern over the activities of either Mrs. Rendell or Mr. Ginsburg, then I would be fine with adding such material to the biographies of their spouses. (I have no idea if such coverage exists, but I believe in following reliable sources where they lead). To avoid distraction, let's focus on this specific subject while we're on this talk page. The New York Times and L.A. Times articles are both as much about Clarence Thomas as about Ginni Thomas, so I think that if we're committed to following the sources, then it makes as much sense to mention it here as at Mrs. Thomas' biography. MastCell Talk 05:18, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that the LA Times article is as much about him as her. The article title is: ""Ginni Thomas apparently stepping down from tea party group". Clearly, the article is primarily about her. Even if it were 50% about her and 50% about him, the LA Times article would be much more appropriately cited on her Wikipedia article than this one, because this particular matter is a much bigger part of her notability than his notability.
The NY Times title does allude to him: "Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues". This title is indicative of speculation, and of course we now know that her activism at Liberty Central will be less likely to raise any judicial issues given that she's stepped down. This is a classic case where we've properly waited to see the outcome of recent events, and that outcome (i.e. her stepping down) indicates no long-term notability.
The NYT article precedes her stepping down. Why not discuss later news reports instead, so as to provide a fuller picture?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Despite there being no legal bounds on the activities or speech of a spouse of a federal judge (witness prominent politician Ed Rendell), Virginia Thomas has actually called The President tyrannical (after having her husband slammed by Obama--Obama slams Thomas; McCain slip may haunt). The news pieces are speculative pieces, not based on anything that either Thomas has done wrong. If Thomas didn't recuse himself from a case involving a related party, that would be a different matter. As others have pointed out, this issue is discussed in Virginia Thomas' WP article. Drrll (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Since Liberty Central keeps its donor list secret, the public has no way of knowing whether Thomas has ruled on a case involving related parties. That was one of the points raised in the Times articles. I'm not saying that Thomas has done anything "wrong" - I'm saying that independent, reliable sources have discussed this issue, so perhaps we should as well. That seems to be a really hard concept on this talk page - discussion seems to constantly fall back on the values overlaid by individual editors, rather than the actual content of reliable sources.

Re: Anythingyouwant, I'd be fine with mentioning that Ginni Thomas appears to be possibly stepping back to a less prominent role in Liberty Central (the sources are not as definitive as you suggest, in part because the organization is extremely tight-lipped about its inner workings). It's not like this item can only be mentioned in either the Ginni or the Clarence Thomas articles. It's entirely reasonable that it might deserve mention in both articles, since the subject turns on the relationship between the two of them. Given that, it seems arbitrary (to be charitable) to insist on restricting it to only the Ginni Thomas article. MastCell Talk 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to use the LA Times article, except for three main concerns. As its title suggests ("Ginni Thomas apparently stepping down from tea party group"), the article is more about her than him. Second, the word "apparently" in the title suggests we might want to wait and see if appearances are borne out by reality. Third, this Wikipedia article already gives an idea about her activities and links to her Wikipedia article (of course that doesn't mean we couldn't cite the LA Times article in both his and her Wikipedia articles, and maybe In several other Wikipedia artcles as well). These three concerns are real, and not part of some plot to cleanse this Wikipedia article of everythng negative about Justice Thomas; arguably this article already includes way more titillating detail and unproven accusation than normal, but no one (including me) is trying to take stuff out of the body of the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell that a brief mention of the comments about Clarence in light of his wife's activities is sufficiently notable to include in Clarence's article. Two problems present themselves, though. The first and most important is how to craft the addition. My suggestion is that MastCell post here the proposed addition. I also think that's helpful for other editors to then decide whether they think it's a good or bad idea - much easier to do with something concrete. The second, arguably less important, problem is where in the article to put it. There's no current section where, in my view, it readily fits, and I wouldn't want to see a brand new section about this issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If MastCell wants to compose a draft then that would be fine, but he apparently has a steep hill to climb in view of other editors' comments so far. There is more to consider here than notability.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I think notability is what it boils down to. For example, the concern about whether an addition belongs in Clarence's or Virginia's article comes down to whether Virginia's stuff is sufficiently notable vis-a-vis Clarence. There are a few other concerns, but I disagree with them and certainly don't think any consensus has been reached. For example, Drrll says the stuff is speculative, mainly because his opinion is the pieces don't say that either Thomas has done anything wrong. As the NYT article notes, whether a S.Ct. justice recuses himself is left to that justice and the issue of whether Thomas should have recused himself is hard to assess because too much of what Virginia has done is hidden from public view, which, in and of itself, is a problem. In any event, the NYT article is what it is and the statements from law professors are what they are. I don't see it as being speculative. Your point that the LAT statement about Virginia's future is speculative - that I agree with, but even without that speculation, there is enough material to justify an inclusion (depending on the language) in Thomas's article. In any event, I'm glad you're open to reviewing any proposed addition. I also think that will help other editors to contribute to this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That NYT article Is probably not a good source, because it is outdated in view of the LAT article. Please keep in kind that many books and countless articles have written about Thomas, so we have to do some distilling. For the reasons explained, I doubt MastCell's draft will be acceptable in this article, but maybe it would be useful for the spouse's article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Disagree that the LAT article "outdates" the NYT article. Whether Virginia steps down or not doesn't change the points made in the NYT article. Virginia's tenure in the organization and the problems related to that tenure are/were still facts.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
The internal assessment at the NYT about notability was based at least partly on her position which she has now relinquished.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I envy your knowledge of the internal thought processes of the New York Times editorial staff. Lacking such knowledge myself, I agree with Bbb23 that the (rumored) change in Ginni Thomas' current job description does not invalidate the content in question. Bill Clinton is no longer President, but presumably we still cite material published while (and because) he was President. We're not in the news business; we're in the encyclopedia business. MastCell Talk 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You are a very experienced Wikipedian, MastCell, and it should be sufficient for other editors to allude to Wikipolicies without providing you a lawyerly citation and Wikilink every time. If you want me to do so, I will, starting with WP:Sarcasm is really helpful. The NYT article is an analysis of what "could" happen in the future. Just look at the title of the NYT article ("Activism of Thomas’s Wife Could Raise Judicial Issues"). It should go without saying that their prediction of what could happen in the future was based on factors that no longer exist, such as the wife's leadership position at Liberty Central. Thus, the NYT article is not as relevant for us as an article that post-dates the wife's relinquishment of her position. Surely you can find sufficient sources that post-date her relinquishment, can't you? If not, then perhaps that suggests a lack of notability, and suggests that using the NYT artcle in this article would be undue weight. By the way, when's the last time you suggested including anythng in this article non-negative about the subject? Seriously.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to focus on the content question. Reliable-source coverage of this subject did not begin and end with Ginni Thomas' role in the Tea Party movement, so the recent decision to make her a less visible part of that movement doesn't mean the issue is suddenly non-notable. There has been coverage in independent, reliable sources of conflict-of-interest questions relating to Clarence and Ginni Thomas going back at least 10 years. At that point, while Clarence Thomas was voting to stop the Florida recount, Ginni Thomas was working at the Heritage Foundation to "recruit staff for a possible Bush administration" ([14], [15], [16]). Given that this issue has attracted coverage in reliable sources over the course of a decade, a very brief mention in an encyclopedic biography seems reasonable to me. MastCell Talk 22:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm sort of on the fence about whether it's worth the time to draft something. I agree with Bbb23 that it would be much easier to discuss concrete, specific text. On the other hand, I'm still concerned that discussion here is dominated by personal editorial ideology, and without a commitment to keep things on a source- and policy-based level I feel like I'd be wasting my time. I've been intermittently convinced that the most productive way to improve this article would be to focus on addressing editorial behavior, rather than continually bringing up reliable sources only to have the goalposts moved for non-policy-based reasons. I think it would be useful to get somewhat more diverse editorial opinion on the topic, so I'll think about some proposed text based on the sources and hope for some additional voices to chime in. MastCell Talk 20:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Spousal conflict of interest coverage goes back ten years?

MastCell said above: "There has been coverage in independent, reliable sources of conflict-of-interest questions relating to Clarence and Ginni Thomas going back at least 10 years." MastCell cites three sources, and I'll briefly address each in turn.

  • "Supreme Court Justice's Wife Embraces Tea Party" (NPR; March 6, 2010). This is a fairly recent source. It says: "Although she has often worked for conservative politicians and organizations, Thomas' new role is raising questions about potential conflicts of interest for her husband." This strongly implies that her old roles did not raise serious COI concerns.

  • "CONTESTING THE VOTE: CHALLENGING A JUSTICE; Job of Thomas's Wife Raises Conflict-of-Interest Questions" (NYT; December 12, 2000). This is indeed a source going back a few years. But it has an interesting editor's note at the end: "An article in late editions yesterday reported an assertion that Justice Clarence Thomas of the Supreme Court faced a serious conflict of interest because of his wife's work for the Heritage Foundation, which would help staff government posts if George W. Bush won the presidency.....The partisan nature of the source should have been made clear more promptly and reflected in attribution in the headline. The headline's plural reference to questions exceeded the facts of the article. The article quoted Mrs. Thomas as saying that her transition efforts were nonpartisan, not on behalf of the Bush organization. But those comments were omitted in editing and appeared only in the latest New York regional editions.". So, this was the NYT reporting on a partisan allegation, rather than using it's own journalistic voice to say that there might be a serious COI problem.

     

  • "Justice Clarence Thomas' politically active wife calls Anita Hill" (CSM; October 20, 2010). Again ths is a recent article. The only expert cited here is Steven Lubet: "Ethics expert Steven Lubet, who teaches law at Northwestern University, said Virginia Thomas' role as health overhaul critic should not pose a problem for her husband if the high court eventually passes judgment on the law, as seems likely. 'Those two things are pretty separate,' Lubet said, adding that it is more and more the case that both spouses in power couples can have prominent roles. 'This is the natural result of changes in American society that began 50 years ago.'....He was a member of the five-justice majority that decided Bush v. Gore in favor of George W. Bush in 2000, even as his wife was at Heritage gathering resumes for job-seekers in a potential Bush administration.  The source of Liberty Central's financial support could make for a closer call, Lubet said. The group has not disclosed a list of donors, and it is not clear whether the justice knows who they are. In any event, he has not stepped aside from any case since Liberty Central became active in recent months.". To me, this sounds like he's saying that the only thng that might be a close call is the Liberty Central postion that she has now relinquished.

If you had in mind other parts of these articles that I've overlooked, please point them out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  • This is exactly what I'm concerned about. You're focused on debunking and dismissing the content of these sources. You seem to be trying to prove that Thomas' purported conflict is no big deal. I'm not taking a personal stand on its import one way or the other; I'm just saying that it has been covered, repeatedly over the course of a decade, by independent, reliable sources, and thus may deserve mention in this biography.

    To take only one of your comments, you say that the Times article reports on "partisan allegations". Do you understand that when "partisan allegations" are reported in the New York Times, they may become notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia? If not, WP:BLP is crystal-clear on the issue: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If we can't have a policy-based discussion, then I'm convinced that I'm wasting my time here. MastCell Talk 00:46, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

You are cherry-picking, by addressng my comments about the NYT artcle, while disregarding what I said about the NPR and CSM articles. You're the one who asked us all to look at these 3 sources, and 2 of them pretty clearly say that the only significant spousal COI issue over the years is this Liberty Central one.
Regarding the NYT article, it reports a sngle partisan allegation by a single person. Do you know whether that single accusation by that single partisan source has been reported anywhere else but that one NYT article? Can you explain why that single partisan person is notable aside from being in that one NYT article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Each of the subsequent two articles rehashes the issue raised in the Times article, about Ginni Thomas' work on the 2000 Presidential transition. So the issue seems to have substantially more traction, or at least persistence, than you suggest. Nor do I think most objective readers would agree that the NPR and CSM articles dismiss earlier COI concerns as "insignificant". I hope to hear from some other voices, so I'll leave it there. MastCell Talk 01:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
As one other voice, I don't have anything more to say other than what I've already said in the previous section. I'm not sure, though, that other voices will be forthcoming absent an effort to obtain them, e.g., an RfC, a post to the Wiki law/court project, or some other mechanism (I still get a little lost in the various Wiki procedures for soliciting comments - I'm hoping MastCell is more familiar with them than I).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
The political partisan who made the allegation in the NYT article was Gilbert Merritt. His assertion is not only undermined by the CSM and NPR articles that MastCell mentioned, but also by virtually everyone else on Earth. See "Ethics experts say Scalia, Thomas connections not conflicts of interest" (CNN; December 12, 2000). I'll leave it at that, and see if others want to comment.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:31, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Labeling Gilbert S. Merritt, Jr., a judge on the Sixth Circuit, a "political partisan" is a bit much. To the extent you are relying on the NYT's use of the word "partisan" in its editor's note, I believe a fairer interpretation is the "someone in the Gore campaign," not Merritt. As for your "undermined" conclusion, although I disagree (as usual), it's not worth my time to rebut it because you'll just come up with another disingenuous argument - we're going in circles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Merritt is not only described as a partisan source In the NYT article. The CNN article (which you have not acknowledged) identifies Merritt as a family friend of the Gores. Unfortunately, judges are sometimes partisan. Please watch out for WP:NPA. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:NPA? You must be kidding. Being a family friend of the Gores does not make someone a political partisan. If you want to post yet another response, I'll let you have the last word; otherwise, it won't stop. And please watch out for WP:INDENTATION. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Goldstein,Tom, Thoughts on this Term and the Next (June 29, 2009) at SCOTUSblog; reprinted at The John Roberts Method (June 30, 2009) at The New Republic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarence_Thomas/Archive_4&oldid=1142756447"