Talk:Anita Hill

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Date precision in infobox image caption
Re:

Since when did it become inappropriate on Wikipedia to be precise - According to the file page, the photo was taken 24 September 2014 at 18:27:16. Would you support being that precise in this caption? No? Why not? Oh - because that would be overly precise? So showing less than the available precision in dates and times is in fact something you're familiar with, then?

In that case, let's move past the rhetoric and consider whether the month earns its keep in terms of reader value. We don't (or shouldn't, rather) include information that doesn't increase reader understanding, no matter how small. Can you say why a reader might care whether the photo is from September 2014 vs any other month in 2014? Even if one in a thousand did care, one click gets them the precise time to the second, and saving them that click is not adequate justification for showing the month to the vast majority of readers for whom it is superfluous noise.

and, in this case, by only one word? - I freely admit it was a minor improvement. That doesn't change the fact that it was an improvement. I could just as easily argue "Why are you making a fuss about only one word?", but I don't consider that a useful argument. The magnitude of an edit is irrelevant. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC) One could make a fair WP:SURNAME argument that "Anita" should be removed, but I don't have to do so to support my removal of the month. One could also challenge the relevance of the location where the photo was taken, but nobody is required to make all possible improvements to justify one. You can hardly accuse me of "nitpicking" and "quibbling" without recognizing that you're doing exactly the same. Your suspicion about IP discrimination is a baseless over-generalization and has no place in this discussion. You know precisely nothing about how I view IP editors. I notified you of this discussion on your talk page because pings don't work for IPs. That was a purely optional courtesy move, a little extra effort in accommodation of your choice not to register, and many editors would have skipped it. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  15:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course magnitude is relevant. If it wasn't, you would have ignored my edit. You're using the old debating tactic of taking the opponent's position to a ridiculous extreme to bolster your argument. If the month is excessive, let's take that to an even greater extreme. Why do we need the year? Why do we need both names, just limit it to "Hill". After all, the reader is only one click away from getting more detail. This nitpicking is not worth climbing the Reichstag (although I would like to see another couple of opinions before you remove the month again). But I suspect if Jimbo or another one of the old-timers had made the edit instead of an anon IP, you wouldn't be quibbling over one word. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of justification for the year. That the photo was taken in 2014 and not 2004 is meaningful. It says: "This is what she looked like three years ago, not during the Thomas controversy or some other time." That it was taken in September 2014 and not April 2014 is not significant; people's appearances don't change that much in a few months.
 * I'm glad you recognize that, if there is nitpicking and quibbling, we're both guilty. This comes down to a matter of opinion about writing style. Such matters, of course, are decided by consensus. Let's see what happens. 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just to pass the time while we're waiting for this additional input, here's another editor nitpicking about the value of a single word. He has been doing a lot of that in recent days at that article, and not one word of objection to date from any of its 1,487 watchers. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:16, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't say I'm terribly invested in this particular issue, but I do believe in 2 guidelines: (1) Captions should be as tightly written as possible, with no non-essential information, and (2) As time goes by, months matter less and less. It has now been 3 years since that photo was taken and, for my money, the month is non-essential and, if it were removed, I wouldn't miss it even a little bit. -- WikiPedant (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

16 days is more than enough time for additional input, and I have reinstated the edit on the strength of the above comment. Thank you. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  23:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Remove "Page needed" tag?
Hey folks,

In the "Later Life" section, I don't see a reason to have a 'page needed' tag on the following sentence:

Speaking Truth to Power,[42][page needed] in which she chronicled her role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy[4][6]

The sentence describes the fact of her writing a book, and the fact that she chronicled her role in the controversy is documented in reference [6]. (I couldn't fetch reference [4] making me think it should be deleted.

Lcuff (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Better photo?
Does anyone have a better photo that can be uploaded to the article of her testimony? Since this was just in 1991, a black-and-white photo does not seem appropriate as it seems to date the testimony for earlier than a color photo would. ManuelLopezztalk 06:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Credibility
There is no discussion of the credibility of Hill's allegation that Thomas said "Who put this pubic hair on my Coke can?" The issue is noteworthy because basically nobody would ever make a statement like that, especially with the purpose of ingratiating one's self with or romantically propositing another person. The question is so puerile, it sounds like it was dreamt up by a 10-year old trying to be shocking. And it illustrates what a weak Democrat hack job the Anita Hill testimony was. 98.244.137.86 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)kolef98.244.137.86 (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)