Talk:Thurgood Marshall/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

College club membership

As you may have noticed, fraternities like to use Wikipedia to market themselves by spamming pages of notable members. I don't see how membership in a college club is notable and worth mentioning (unless it was the integral to the person's notability). Was he in the marching band too? Also, regardless, whoever is posting it needs a Reliable Source for the citation. guanxi (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There was a reliable source, a fact which you have disregarded. Your general assertion is unsupported and irrelevant. Ipse dixit. If you looked at the links, there is some connection. Different strokes for different folks. So I disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There are now six eleven sources. One of which quotes a Marshall biographer on his almost being expelled from the University for hazing. They think it is notable. I note only that your edit history shows a general antipathy toward inclusion of Greek memberships, and you apparently think that is your Wikipedia policy, even though persons reporting on the subjects often include it. We are not debating band memberships here. But others consider this to be important for Thurgood Marshall, and your input is but an unsupported and single á priori opinion. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 09:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

There are 2 issue: RS's and whether it belongs in WP. 1) Those aren't Reliable Sources because many are first-party (published by the organization itself) not third-party, and none have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". Six unreliable sources don't compensate for one reliable one; if it's true, it should be in a biography or other long-form reliable source. Otherwise, for all I know the fraternity is trying to claim someone famous who wasn't really a member. 2) Does it belong in Wikipedia? How is it relevant to his life or what made him notable? For example, if Karl Rove was in the Young Republicans, I could see that being relevant; if Rove were in a fraternity with George Bush, I could see that being relevant; but otherwise, why does it matter that he was in a fraternity? This is an encyclopedia, not a comprehensive biography. guanxi (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

My two cents:

• It's easily verifiable that Marshall was a member of Alpha Phi Alpha, although the sourcing of that paragraph should be improved. (Try Google Books for a start.) Quality over quantity: one or two excellent sources should do the trick. This source (currently footnote #10) is certainly not reliable and should be removed posthaste.
• Participation in a fraternity seems noteworthy to me. It is a significant life event for many, and is frequently a formative one. We routinely and deliberately include lots of biographical details (e.g., birthplace, parents' ethnicity, high school attended) that have absolutely nothing to do with a subject's notability because together they help form a more complete picture of the person. Other encyclopedias have routinely done the same, fwiw. Rivertorch (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I expected that you would say that this was "over sourced". And you may well be right. However, the point that this is repeatedly mentioned in independent sources is indicative of interest, and inferentially does have weight as to whether it should be included. Apparently a number of persons consider this to be of consequence.

That Marshall and Langston Hughes were accused of hazing and confessed and avoided an expulsion is an important event.

I also was dealing with the implicit accusation that I was "spamming" for Alpha Phi Alpha. It isn't true. The closest I ever got to that fraternity was their existence across the street from where I lived in Ann Arbor; I don't have a dog in this fight. I would say that I have personally known a number of former members from around the country, and that there does seem to be an intensity about their affinity for their fraternity that is quite extraordinary.

Finally, if footnote 10 is the statue, I don't know why that is not encyclopedic. Ground breaking is supposed to take place this October, and I expect that we should be able to come up with a newspaper that covers it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:22, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed footnote 10 per your suggestion. It had gotten it right about his being in the fraternity and having a hazing charge, but was obviously wrong about his being expelled. He graduated cum laude. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Rivertorch:

• I agree that being in a fraternity could be important, but many things could be important and we can't include them all. How do we draw the line? I think by their significance. High school, ethnicity, college etc. are generally assumed to be significant. Any college club could be significant, from marching band to history club; why should we assume that this one is? Because the club has lots of websites and talks about its famous members? Does Justice Marshall say anywhere that it was significant? Does anyone else?
• The first requirement of Verifiiability is having a Reliable Source. Which of the current sources qualify as "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?: 1) The fraternity's own website, 2) "The State of HBCU's", 3) another fraternity website, or 4) "Her Campus: a collegiette's guide to life"?

guanxi (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

All of the above. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:36, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so, but the Reliable Sources Noticeboard is available if either of you wants additional outside opinions. I think it's a moot point, since better sources are readily available. (I already suggested using Google Books search. I have other commitments right now or I'd source it myself.) Guanxi, while participating in just any student organization can be equivalent to pledging to a fraternity or sorority, I think there's a difference of degree: the latter is frequently a major life event, while the former usually isn't. However, I really wouldn't see a passing mention of any organizational membership as inappropriate for a biographical article on someone as notable as Marshall, as long as it's reliably sourced. In the abstract, the question of whether or not such an affiliation is noteworthy in a given person's article is something over which editors may legitimately disagree. In this case, there's an implicit assertion of noteworthiness because of the alleged hazing incident. If that can be well sourced, I don't see any good reason to omit it from the article. Rivertorch (talk) 18:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I am going to be off the list for the next two weeks. So I can't update this. I would say that we have a statement from a biographer that is from a 'legitimate third party source.' Presumably its in the biography he wrote too. Frankly, the idea that there is some vast conspiracy to "steal the honor" of having Thurgood Marshall in a fraternity's ranks, and that they are now erecting a statue to him, strains credulity beyond the breaking point. That he and Langston Hughes were 'Particeps crimini' in the hazing and getting off from the charge is itself noteworthy. And not something that the fraternities would want to highlight. I see this as part of a larger pattern of antipathy toward having Greek organizations mentioned in wikipedia articles. And I would suggest that if you could line up the New York Times and the Archbishop of Canterbury to vouchsafe for the facts, Guanxi will find them to be unreliable. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Let's stay focused on the edits, not the editors. If you have a few minutes before you go off-wiki for two weeks, I'd strongly suggest finding an independent source. It shouldn't be hard. If it is hard, then there's a problem with the content, after all. Rivertorch (talk) 20:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Here are two sources. I've not got to Google books, and just can't commit the time. "Skip's Historical Moments". April 27, 1999. Retrieved September 27, 2012. which includes a bibliography on Alpha Phi Alpha and states that three pages of the Marshall Biography are on the fraternity and Thurgood Marshall's involvement. "Alpha Phi Alpha Politician members". Political Graveyard. Retrieved September 27, 2012. I'm not in the business of chasing my tail to satisfy those with their own agenda. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Put in 6 more references from Google books. I did not put in the url for the last one. Lots of books, and the Congressional Record, too. There are a couple of magazines out there, but I did not bother with those -- but somebody can. I trust that will suffice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 23:41, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

We have eleven sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

We could begin by our esteemed editor retracting as unsustainable the following: Otherwise, for all I know the fraternity is trying to claim someone famous who wasn't really a member. Or reaffirm it as true and provide any source, not just a WP:RS. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

When it comes to sourcing, the objective is quality, not quantity. Citing eleven sources for one sentence isn't a good idea. (This essay explains why eloquently enough, so I won't spend any time going into it.) Fortunately, several of the citations you added handily meet WP:RS. I've left those in place and removed the ones that were blatantly unreliable (blogs and personal web sites) or non-independent (the frat) or in which the context was difficult to determine (the CR). That leaves three, which is still probably overkill but at least doesn't clutter things up too much. I've also tagged the one at the end of the sentence—another Wordpress blog. I'll poke around a bit when I get a chance and see if I can replace it with something better; if neither of us can find anything, then it really needs to go.

As for "our esteemed editor" (who does have a username, last I checked), he or she has a valid point that can easily be broadened to apply to sources in general, not just fraternities. There was no suggestion that Alpha Kappa Alpha had actually made a false claim, so I don't see that there's anything to retract. Please, could we try to avoid sarcasm here and focus on improving the article? User talk pages are good places to discuss one another's perceived shortcomings, article talk pages not so much so. Rivertorch (talk) 06:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

It's nice that Rivertorch and I agree that the statement by Guanxi— Otherwise, for all I know the fraternity is trying to claim someone famous who wasn't really a member— is discredited. But I've not heard from Guanxi, and I don't know that Rivertorch has authority to speak for Guanxi. Here are some of the sources (there are magazines out there that also touch on this subject, and they have not been included):

For reasons that only you can know, Rivertorch, you have chosen certain books and disregarded other perfectly good sources. That would include the Congressional Record and Political Graveyard. I think those are plainly reliable sources.

I hope you find more sources to your liking. The number and types of sources, and their content, suggest that this is demonstrably and repeatedly "notable" and should be in the article. Happy editing. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't have time to reply as thoroughly as perhaps I should, but a few points. First, I didn't claim to "speak for Guanxi" and I didn't suggest that Guanxi's statement about the frat is "discredited"; I said I thought it was a valid point, and I thought your request for retraction was unwarranted. As for the sources I chose, I did so not "for reasons only [I] can know" but for reasons I already stated above. To provide a bit more detail, I'll explain that the Political Graveyard is a personal web site, as is this one, this is a blog, and on the Congressional Record link, as I noted above, it is difficult to determine the context of the remarks. So, no, those are not "perfectly good sources"; they're flawed sources, some completely unacceptable for Wikipedia because they fail WP:RS outright, and others simply not optimal in this case. In any event, I'm unclear what you're objecting to at this point. I've defended the inclusion of the content, helpfully (I hope!) fixed your POINTy citation bombing, and patiently tagged a blatantly unreliable source instead of removing it and the claim it supports. If you disagree with what I've done, please feel free to query the RSN or another noticeboard or begin an RfC. Otherwise, let's just work together to improve the article! Rivertorch (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

As a newcomer to this discussion I'm not really sure how unpleasantness and sarcasm helps improve the page. Well done to Rivertorch for keeping a cool head. On another note, a swift Google search seems to show that the Wordpress blog about Marshall hazing in the fraternity, has used information from two books, the collected works of Langston Hughes, which can be found here, and a biography of Marshall by Williams here. The former does not seem to mention Marshall directly (at least according to a search inside the book). The latter seems to mention expulsion and the fraternity, but as I can only see a snippet view I can't be certain of the context or detail, or for that matter whether the blog is accurate. Personally I would favour removing reference to the threatened expulsion until a more reliable source can be found.

Either way, I think the blog is a very thin source for the story of the hazing and the threat of expulsion. Perhaps someone is able to get hold of the book via a library? Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

1) I agree his membership in the fraternity is well-sourced now; nice work. 2) I think we should pull the hazing incident; it's slanderous (if that word applies to dead people) and shouldn't be printed without a good source. 3) Regarding inclusion of the fraternity membership at all: Rivertorch says, "It is a significant life event for many, and is frequently a formative one"; certainly that's true for some, but we're talking about one specific person -- what evidence do we have that it meant anything at all to Thurgood Marshall? Ben, what are your thoughts? (As an aside, if you ask marching band members (I'm not one), many will tell you it was a very formative experience -- same for glee club, robotics team, etc etc.) guanxi (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI, one of the books that is linked mentions Marshall's less than fully committed approach to undergraduate school, and does mention his committed involvement in hazing at Alpha Phi Alpha. That we have a source that ties this in with the attributed statements of a Marshall biographer, with details of the university's response, makes them mutually corroborative. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

As to the alleged libel, this is not a WP:BLP. It is unlikely that libel can be claimed by a decedent. What happens if someone slanders or libels someone who is dead? In any event, it isn't libel if it's true. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The biography by Starks certainly (linked to above) certainly mentions the hazing and the fairly casual approach that Marshall had to his studies until he met his future wife. I think that would be a better source than the blog which is there currently. The page currently doesn't mention the influence of Vivian Burey - he seems to start taking his studies seriously only thanks to her. Surely this should be an important nugget of information to put on the page? Hazing itself is probably not notable (hazing in a fraternity? Who knew!) but in this context it certainly is. As to the other point; he joined the first black fraternity, and certainly the Congressional record also referenced above mentions him in the same breath as other notable people. However, the Starks book shows that he was not especially interested in civil rights issues until he joined Howard (it discusses the influence of the Dean, Charles Houston). Again, I think this is perhaps more important than the fraternity membership as an influence on his later life. Not knowing the literature I can't tell if this is a view shared by other biographers. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The Nazel biography, also listed above, seems to agree with the influence of Burey. However, it does not seem to mention hazing as such, beyond Marshall being "non-political" and "rough and ready, loud and wrong". Marshall is mentioned in being involved in a protest about segregation in a theatre in this period. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that hazing itself isn't notable. The hazing incident with Hughes, if true, seems more salacious than notable, but if it were well-cited I could live with it. The fact that he knew Hughes (to what extent?) is worth mentioning. But I think Ben's suggestion is excellent: There would be great value in adding information about his early attitude towards his studies and politics, and the influence of his future wife and Howard's Dean. Unfortunately I know very little about it so I'm not the right person to write it. Ben - Could you do it? guanxi (talk) 14:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll certainly take a run at this; I'm afraid it won't be immediate, but I will do it as soon as I can. I don't know anymore about Marshall's earlier life than anyone else in this discussion beyond what I have briefly skim-read. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Wow, thank you Ben! I didn't realize your starting point when I suggested it; I thought you already had some knowledge of the subject. I'm sorry if I imposed on you. guanxi (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

If nobody comes up with a reliable source, I'm going to remove the hazing incident. Lacking an RS, it doesn't really require discussion, but I know some people want to keep it so I'm hoping they know a source. guanxi (talk) 19:03, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not an imposition at all Guanxi! It's lovely to be asked. I just highlighted parts of the sources that others had found. I'm not sure that there is a massive connection between Hughes and Marshall, beyond them being at the same place at the same time for a brief period (I could not find a reference to Marshall in the biography of Hughes). One other thing; the Nazel biography points out something that hadn't struck me before. That is that while Burey may have had an effect, it's likely that the impact of the Wall St Crash in 1929 helped to push Marshall into making more of himself. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

This biography of Langston Hughes only mentions Marshall as a former classmate of Hughes. The only direct reference connecting the two is this:

"Hughes could not help but recall the difficulty he had experienced in convinging Marshall to join him in his crusade to integrate he all-white faculty of Lincoln University. They had both come a long way in the face of racial oppression."

.

This can be found on page 180 of Langston Hughes Poet, by Joe Nazel (here) I'll try and come up with something connecting the dots. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

As per the earlier conversation above, I have re-done the "Education" section using the sources discussed. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 November 2012

Noticed a minor typo- the phrase "Marshall instead attendedHoward University School of Law," is missing a space between 'attended' and 'Howard.' I don't think it needs much more explanation. 198.137.20.96 (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 22

13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

96th associate justice of SCOTUS, not 86th

The summary box on top right shows "86th" associate justice--should be 96th (as mentioned in the article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris D Moore (talk • contribs) 02:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done The infobox was right. The main article was wrong, and has been corrected accordingly. See Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Thanks for calling the discrepancy to our attention. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 10:56, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This was undone recently in a GF edit; I hope it's now correct! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

He is the 96th Justice, and 86th Associate Justice. The former would include Chief Justices, and the latter would not. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I have rather confusingly changed the Infobox to the incorrect info, and I'll change it back. Can I point out that the niceties of the distiction between Associate Justice and merely Justice of the supreme court is not made clear at the start of the article; I'm not saying that the definition should be in the lead, but maybe in the latter part of the article. In addition, can we for the sake of clarity use either the Associate Justice ranking or the "Justice" ranking in the lead and the info box-having both looks confusing. I didn't get it and I am (amongst other things) a teacher of US politics.Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2013

99.177.129.82 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 02:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of first wife's name

Vivian's name is spelled wrong in the education section

"His marriage to Vivien Burey in September 1929 encouraged him to take his studies seriously, and he graduated from Lincoln with honors (cum laude) Bachelor of Arts in Humanities, with a major in American literature and philosophy.[8]"

Chrissy.123 (talk)chrissy kwon —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

But which is the correct spelling? These sources—[1], [2], [3], [4]—suggest that it is with an 'e'. Other sources contradict them, but I'm inclined to think these are especially reliable. Obviously, the article needs to be consistent, but it should be consistently correct. Does anyone have access to a major biography of Marshall (i.e., a book)? Rivertorch (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Here are some book sources

'Vivian'

• Helen Frost (2003). Thurgood Marshall, Capstone ISBN 9780736816434
• Karen Bush Gibson (2002). Thurgood Marshall: A Photo-Illustrated Biography, Capstone ISBN 9780736811132
• Lisa Aldred (2009). Thurgood Marshall, Infobase ISBN 9781438101002
• Montrew Dunham (2012). Thurgood Marshall, Simon and Schuster ISBN 9780736816434
• Chris Crowe (2008). Thurgood Marshall, Penguin ISBN 9781440638794
• Barbara Linde (2011). Thurgood Marshall, Gareth Stevens ISBN 9781433956980
• Howard Ball (2011). A Defiant Life: Thurgood Marshall and the Persistence of Racism in America, Random House Digital ISBN 9780307777980
• Brenda Haugen (2006). Thurgood Marshall: Civil Rights Lawyer and Supreme Court Justice, Capstone ISBN 9780756518776
• Glenn L. Starks, F. Erik Brooks (2012). Thurgood Marshall: A biography, ABC-CLIO ISBN 9780313349164
• Joseph Nazel (1993). Thurgood Marshall: Supreme Court Justice, Holloway House Publishing ISBN 9780870675843
• Deborah Hitzeroth, Sharon Leon (1997). Thurgood Marshall, Lucent Books ISBN 9781560060611
• Joe Arthur (1996). The story of Thurgood Marshall: Justice for all, Gareth Stevens Publishing ISBN 9780836814729

'Vivien'

• Judy Monroe (2005). Thurgood Marshall: Civil Rights Champion, Capstone ISBN 9780736843492

Both

• Juan Williams (2011). Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary, Random House Digital ISBN 0307786129. (One instance of each spelling.)

Because most of these books use "Vivian", I think we can settle on that spelling. Binksternet (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Binksternet. Problem is, twelve of the fourteen titles you listed appear to have a scholastic audience. (Not to knock such books—I read many myself back in the day, and I'm sure many authors writing for children are quite scrupulous, but still.) Of the two written for adults, the Ball and the Williams, one says "Vivian" and one says "Vivien". If we could consult a scholarly biography published by a university press, that would be better. But I'm a little uncomfortable letting most of the books listed above take precedence over The New York Times, National Park Service, U.S. Department of Justice, and U.S. Courts web site. I also found (hosted on Flickr—I know, I know, but it doesn't seem likely it's forged) Burey's own obituary from Jet magazine—an unquestionably reliable source for our purposes, I think, in part because it's about V. Burey Marshall, not her husband. The obit spells her name "-en". Rivertorch (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Those are all good points. The Flickr source can be replaced with Jet itself: "The Week's Census", Jet, February 24, 1955, page 22. Binksternet (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Excellent! I had a cursory look but didn't find that. If you want to do the honors . . . otherwise it will have to wait till I'm "really here". Rivertorch (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 2 July 2013

This request for an edit is due to missing words.

Under the rubric "EDUCATION" it currently reads:

"Subsequently he went to Lincoln University. It is commonly reported that he intended to study medicine and become a dentist. But according to a copy of his application to Lincoln University reproduced on page 84 of,[6] Marshall stated that his goal was to become a lawyer. "

The name of the book at [6] has been left out. It should be printed as:

"Subsequently he went to Lincoln University. It is commonly reported that he intended to study medicine and become a dentist. But according to a copy of his application to Lincoln University reproduced on page 84 of Young Thurgood: The Making of a Supreme Court Justice,[6] Marshall stated that his goal was to become a lawyer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.176.102.217 (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Done Fat&Happy (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to the book in the text - it is cited properly and shouldn't be mentioned. The anon IP correctly noticed that there was an incomplete sentence in the original. I hope this is now fixed. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree your approach is better; I reacted too quickly without pausing for analysis. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Education - Edit

Marshall did attend Lincoln University and was a contemporary of Langston Hughes, Cab Calloway and others but not Kwame Nkrumah, first Prime Minister of Ghana. Nkrumah is a 1939 Lincoln alum. He may have been mistaken for Nnamdi Azikiwe, the future president of Nigeria, class of 1930.Jamesandreparker (talk) 22:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I've removed Nkrumah's name. Rivertorch (talk) 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2014

Under Law Career/ U.S. Supreme Court, in the section about his law clerks at the Supreme Court, Martha Minow is listed as a notable law professor instead of as a law school dean (she is the Dean of Harvard Law School, see her Wikipedia page).

Wiki934 (talk) 00:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100606225443/http://www.tsulaw.edu/about/index.asp to http://www.tsulaw.edu/about/index.asp

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

death location

did he die in Bethesda, Maryland or Washington DC? both are in the article. which is correct? Katie 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC) He died in Bethesda, Maryland.

When did he die Sadoniaedwards (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"Sense of humor" -- possible trolling

The whole section is unverifiable, not to mention so unlikely that I simply removed it. It was written by 67.159.92.125, an anonymous user with two edits.

Magustrench (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

================== Incorrect reference to Michael Jackson in text ==================

In the text, there is a reference to Michael Jackson that should be a reference to J. Edgar Hoover. DOY! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.246.84.145 Ugh, bye bye. § Eweb® 2017™ ©2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.36.192.87 (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Thurgood Marshall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100207171148/http://www.usps.com/news/2002/philatelic/sr02_053.htm to http://www.usps.com/news/2002/philatelic/sr02_053.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.supremecourthistory.org/04_library/subs_volumes/04_c20_e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121108135402/http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/02/24/white-house-screening-thurgood?category=93 to http://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2011/02/24/white-house-screening-thurgood?category=93
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6PLj9XvLc?url=http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners to http://www.naacp.org/pages/spingarn-medal-winners

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:25, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2017

As far as I can tell Marshall did not argue Black vs Board of Education but Robert L. Carter did. Marshall argued Briggs vs Elliott, the second case heard that day. But since they were combined under Brown vs Board of Education I do not know how to phrase it correctly. But I think it is not correct to say that Marshall argued Brown vs Board of Education itself. https://www.lib.umich.edu/brown-versus-board-education/oralarguments.htm https://www.lib.umich.edu/brown-versus-board-education/oral/Carter&Wilson.pdf https://www.lib.umich.edu/brown-versus-board-education/oral/Marshall&Davis.pdf Alex.posti (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

He did indeed argue Brown himself. See [5]. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 01:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Alex.posti and Rivertorch:  Not done per the link in the first response here. CityOfSilver 05:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

T. R. M. Howard paragraph

Is this much space necessary to devote to the relationship between T. R. M. Howard and Thurgood Marshall. In contrast, the paragraph for Marriage and Family is less than half as long. Doesn’t seem necessary at all. Curiocabinets (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Preserved §Timeline

• 1908 – Born July 2 at Baltimore, Maryland, United States.
• 1930 – Graduates cum laude from Lincoln University (Pennsylvania).
• 1934 – Receives law degree from Howard University (magna cum laude) and begins private practice in Baltimore, Maryland.
• 1934 – Begins to work for Baltimore branch of NAACP.
• 1935 – Working with Charles Houston, wins first major civil rights case, Murray v. Pearson.
• 1936 – Becomes assistant special counsel for NAACP in New York.
• 1940 – Wins Chambers v. Florida, the first of twenty-nine Supreme Court victories.
• 1943 – Wins case for integration of schools in Hillburn, New York.
• 1944 – Successfully argues Smith v. Allwright, overthrowing the South's "white primary".
• 1946 – Awarded Spingarn Medal from the NAACP.
• 1948 – Wins Shelley v. Kraemer, in which Supreme Court strikes down legality of racially restrictive covenants.
• 1950 – Wins Supreme Court victories in two graduate-school integration cases, Sweatt v. Painter and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents.
• 1951 – Visits South Korea and Japan to investigate charges of racism in U.S. armed forces. He reported that the general practice was one of "rigid segregation."
• 1952 – Unsuccessfully defends Walter Irvin in the Groveland Case retrial.
• 1954 – Wins Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, landmark case that demolishes legal basis for segregation in America.
• 1956 – Wins Browder v. Gayle, ending the practice of segregation on buses and ending the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
• 1957 – Founds and becomes the first president-director counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., a nonprofit law firm separate and independent of the NAACP
• 1961 – Defends civil rights demonstrators, winning Supreme Court victory in Garner v. Louisiana; nominated to Second Circuit Court of Appeals by President John F. Kennedy.
• 1961 – Appointed circuit judge, makes 112 rulings, none of them reversed on certiorari by Supreme Court (1961–1965).
• 1965 – Appointed United States Solicitor General by President Lyndon B. Johnson; wins 14 of the 19 cases he argues for the government (1965–1967).
• 1967 – Becomes first African American named to U.S. Supreme Court (1967–1991).
• 1991 – Retires from the Supreme Court.
• 1991 – Receives the Freedom medal
• 1992 – Receives the U.S. Senator John Heinz Award for Greatest Public Service by an Elected or Appointed Official, an annual award by Jefferson Awards.
• 1992 – Receives the Liberty Medal in recognition of his long history of protecting individual rights under the Constitution.
• 1993 – Dies at age 84 in Bethesda, Maryland, near Washington, D.C.
• 1993 – Receives Presidential Medal of Freedom, posthumously, from President Bill Clinton.

References

I removed this from the article and copied here. May be a helpful outline for improving the page.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 22:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Courthouses named after Thurgood Marshall...

Not sure how many, but there are some number of court houses named in honor of Thurgood Marshall. For instance in Inglewood, California. These might be added to the legacy section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:B3C3:A400:8497:CF26:C41A:F66E (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thurgood.

Thurgood was a nice loving man he never went to jail and he is who he is if he was in jail he was never here but he never been bad he never did nothing but work on his homework like me Tai im working on my homework but I wanna talk about Thurgood because he never bullyed he never got to jail he never murdered someone - Roblox Tai0913. Now. Be. Good or the. Police will. Get. Ya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.206.209.36 (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Unconscionably Short "Supreme Court" Section

The subsection devoted to Marshall's quarter-century as a Supreme Court Justice is embarrassingly scant, at fewer than 750 words, and not well-organized. I'd like to propose fleshing it out, and making it its own full section with appropriate subsections Waidawut (talk) 12:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Solicitor General Section

There’s an apparent wording error in reference to Marshall being the highest ranking black official in government. The Solicitor General is the 4th ranking official at DOJ, Robert Weaver was a cabinet secretary and thus in the line of succession - much higher up the list, and Weaver was in office first. As a result, Marshall did not succeed him as the highest ranking official. Perhaps it should say, highest ranking black official “since” Weaver. --Revmqo (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.129.159 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Shortly after announcing his retirement, Marshall met Thomas in a courtesy meeting which was originally supposed to last 10 minutes but lasted over 2 hours, with Marshall finishing the meeting by telling Thomas "I had to do in my time what I had to do, and you have to do in your time what you have to do." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/clarence-thomas-discusses-his-life-and-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0 EVOShadow032 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)