Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 1

Untitled
An anonymous user User:67.1.66.59 vandalized/added commentary to this article -- see this revision. That commentary included:
 * Hmmm... Nowadays many blacks seem to segregate themselves from mainstream society, including educationally. And more than 70 percent of black children within exclusively black areas are born illegitimate, compounding poverty and the status of victimhood. What is Thomas saying? Shut up, Thomas is a complete idiot, Thomas is racist, don't think about it, keep reading.

User:VeryVerily noted that this person made some good points that need to be addresses, but I actually think the article is pretty fair and balanced, and not in need of serious NPOV work -- although it could be improved, of course.

User:67.1.66.59 here -- thank you for admitting bias in your online encyclopedia. And yes, if people publish tainted bullshit, I will "vandalize/add commentary" to that bullshit if possible to balance it. I am no expert regarding Thomas, but have read enough on the man to know that whoever wrote this piece is skewed. By the way, why is the Thomas entry so long while most other entries for members the Supreme Court so short? Why is there so much focus on the details of his life and not, say, on Scalia or Ginsberg? To show that there is "NPOV", shouldn't the entries for the Supreme Court Justices be relatively consistent in scope?

I suggest starting out the piece with something like: Clarence Thomas is an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. An African-American, he is considered by many to be conservative.

I think that would be fair.

Saying things like Thomas "IS highly conservative and controversial" is very curious. When stating perceived public opinions, you must be careful to keep subjective absolutisms from appearing. I'm no journalist, but this concept is central to that field and applicable here. OBJECTIVITY.

I also find it funny that someone quotes Thurgood Marshall and that quote had nothing to do with Thomas. This is for contrasting purposes, but is poorly done and leads the reader to make unfounded assumptions about Thomas. VAGUE.

And going down the list, why are opposing viewpoints from the NAACP and NOW interjected, but supporting viewpoints from other organizations not? BIAS.

The whole bit about Anita Hill seems to be taken from a feminist who watched about ten minutes of the confirmation hearings. One paragraph talks about "national scandal" and "copious amounts of TV coverage". The next says "However, many feel the national coverage of the allegation was beneficial because it increased awareness about workplace sexual harassment and got more women involved in politics, after some felt that the Senate didn't take Anita Hill's claims seriously because they were 98% male." Sounds like someone is proud of starting a feminist mobilization to the voting booths. Why wasn't the outcome of the confirmation hearings stated (i.e. Thomas' innocence)? BIAS.

Next on the list is the "Thomas was a controvertial Justice" paragraph. How many times can someone repeat "controvertial"? And to blanket-state that "Blacks" (as in all blacks) see him as a traitor is to repeat rhetoric from leftist political groups. And then there's "Liberals disliked him for his strongly conservative opinions" -- need I say more?! BIAS.

Please run spellchecker; "tortious" should be spelled "tortuous".


 * No, the correct word is tortious. Look it up in a dictionary.  RickK 02:49, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Thomas has used similar reasoning on the equal protection clause, which provides a basis for understanding why he supported Brown v. Board of Education, which defied strong tradition in favor of segregation." Please fix this paragraph, as it is convoluted in meaning and blatantly wrong. Brown found state-enforced segregation unconstitutional. GROSS ERROR.

Another side note, Thomas was for the outcome of the Brown decision, but was highly critical of the supporting reasoning offered by the majority of the original opining court. Simply put, he would have ruled similarly, but with different constitutional basis. That fact does not come across in this degenerative piece (BTW, there is highly significant reason for using a different basis in Brown regarding rulings on subsequent cases).

I suggest Wikipedia revisit their posting and editing QA/QC. Otherwise, political pundits will ruin it.


 * First of all, to prevent confusion it's a good idea to sign your text so we can know who wrote what. Anyway, yes I think the article needs some work, as I said.  Perhaps instead of adding comments to it (which will just get reverted), you could try to make some of the rewrites yourself.  Yes, it's likely whoever wrote it had opinions of their own, which someone with another perspective can then balance.  That seems to be a fairly common path for a Wikipedia article.  I'll try to make a few edits myself. -- VV 04:53, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * User:67.1.66.59 - you seem to be under the impression that those who wrote this were somehow officially sanctioned editorial staff. This isn't the way that Wikipedia works.  This text was written by someone no more privileged in the system than yourself.  Until you came along, nobody that would have objected to the article happened to have noticed it.


 * Please don't think of this as being 'you' versus 'us'. You are as much a potential contributor to Wikipedia as the user that wrote this.  You seem to want to complain about this article till 'we' fix it.  That's not the way that things work out here.  Instead, we welcome your contributions to help make this and other articles on Wikipedia better, more accurate and less biased.


 * The improved article WILL contain some of the opinions you don't like. But it, ideally, will also contain YOUR opinions, and should seperate all of those from verifiable facts about Thomas, his life, his stated opinions, etc.


 * I hope you will help us create an article that tells the truth about Thomas while not erasing the opinions of his detractors - for those do exist, and their opinions are fairly widely held, and documenting those is also essential for the complete picture.


 * --Morven 07:22, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

NPOV issues
There are two competing versions of this article, with mostly the same information but different changes in tone. The original, reads somewhat like someone who is mildly opposed to Thomas, or at least finds him to be too right-wing for the author's tastes. The "fixed" version, reads like someone who generally agrees like Thomas and finds the criticism of him to be mostly coming from people too left-wing for the author's tastes. Some middle-ground between these two versions would be desirable, imo. I'll work on it myself once the edit-war cools down if nobody else does, but I'm not the most knowledgeable person on this particular topic, so if someone else wants to tackle it that might be better. --Delirium 02:58, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think you should jump in if you have some ideas. The version you called "mildly opposed" actually resulted from my attempt to even the article out (from the more-left version), and I'm someone who is vaguely in Thomas's ideological camp. The second version makes reasonable changes but perhaps in some cases goes too far. I think the only edit war was between the version with the snide added-in comments and that without, which seems to have ended (I hope) as a result of the discussion here. I'm not so knowledgeable on Thomas either, so in particular I didn't touch the court cases, instead focusing on style issues. So I say go for it if you have an idea or two. -- VV 03:26, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Morven: In an ideal encyclopedia, no opinion would be espoused. Since we cannot reach that level of objectivity, the writer must be careful to limit bias as much as possible. Let the facts and direct quotes from Thomas speak for themselves. Let the reader reach his own conclusions without being coerced towards one direction or another.

Otherwise it'll be an ideological clash, with people rewriting the opinions with each entry. Hey, that's what we're doing now! I see little value in publishing opinions, unless the intent is to propagandize.

Delirium: In the original text, Thomas was labeled a conservative 6 times! Plus they called him a traitor and liar. No effort was made to label his liberal opposition, which, by the way, were almost exclusively liberals. That is not someone who is "mildly opposed" to Thomas.

Words like "very" and "extremely" are subjectively drawn. Avoid using them in an informative source. I personally think Justice Ginsberg is extremely liberal, and so would most conservatives, but for this informative source, the "liberal" label is most accurate. Likewise, the plain "conservative" label would be most accurate for Thomas. -- Freedom Fighter


 * I disagree. Documenting opinions and views is important also.  Besides, facts and quotes are also subjective; in that we do not have room to include every fact and every quote, and thus must select.  The act of selection itself can include bias.  One could write an article about something and someone and say nothing but let the facts and quotes speak for themselves, but if they are selectively chosen facts and quotes, a bias can still exist.


 * When it comes to a person like Clarence Thomas, the views people hold about him are also important. The should, of course, following Wikipedia policy, be not stated as facts but ascribed to individuals or schools of thought.


 * Pretending that no views are held about a person is in itself putting a bias into the encyclopedia.


 * --Morven 05:29, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Pretending? I din't say no opinions should be expressed; I said that bias should be limited. That's why I edited the piece the way I did. The message still comes across that Thomas is conservative, against affirmative action, anti-abortion, and pro-arms. So what's the problem? How do you disagree with my edits? -- Freedom Fighter


 * Ah, you meant just as far as you did there. I misinterpreted you as advocating for the banishment of even documenting opinion.  As I seem to be mistaken, I apologise. --Morven 10:13, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I just changed this:

As a last minute testimony, a former colleague and Democrat, Oklahoma University Law School Professor Anita Hill, accused Thomas of sexually harassing her when the two worked together ten years prior at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

It reads like someone is saying Hill was dragged out in a last-ditch -- and organized -- effort by Democrats to keep Thomas off the Court. If that's what we mean, we should say so, and document it; otherwise, we should state the bald facts without loaded terms such as "last minute." Is it necessary to identify Hill as a Democrat (was she one? I don't recall it being mentioned either way, but I was about 13 at the time)?

Also, was their insufficient evidence, as the article says, or was the incident not deemed a good enough reason not to confirm him? --Charles A. L. 21:13, Nov 19, 2003 (UTC)

"Liberal" Organization
I changed one spot which called the NAACP, the Urban League, and the National Organization for Women "Liberal organizations" By simply removing the "Liberal." I find it slightly unfair to label such organizations as liberal, as they are simply special interest groups. Even if they may lean to a party, candidate, or ideology that is considered "liberal," they only do so to protect their constituencies best interests. If it is liberal to support fair and equal rights for minorities and women, then I can't imagine what sort of person would rather not be liberal.

Clarence Thomas Dissent in HUDSON v. McMILLIAN, 503 U.S. 1 (1992)
The exact quote is: "In my view, a use of force that causes only insignificant harm to a prisoner may be immoral, it may be tortious, it may be criminal, and it may even be remediable under other provisions of the Federal Constitution, but it is not "cruel and unusual punishment." In concluding to the contrary, the Court today goes far beyond our precedents."

The word he is using is "tortious" it was spelled correctly. There was no need to change it. He is talking about a "tort." It is a legal term. It means: "Damage, injury, or a wrongful act done willfully, negligently, or in circumstances involving strict liability, but not involving breach of contract, for which a civil suit can be brought." The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

"Tortious" is the adverbial version of "tort." So there is no need to change it. I reverted it back to its exact wording. It has nothing to do with the word torture.-Keetoowah 19:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Figuring if one person misunderstood others might, I linked 'tortious' to point to 'tort'. &mdash;Morven 21:55, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
I'm too young to know much about the Anita Hill/Confermation Hearings mess, but it seems that the section dealing with this is essentially an argument against Hill and thus for Thomas. It is also a bit long, as are the many paragraphs on Thomas's judicial philosophy and associated cases - much longer than with the other 8 Justices (and more disorganised).


 * There are two serious problems with this NPOV label. First, you will not register and state who you are.  No one can make a major edit such as that and not state who the heck you are.  Second, the comments that you write above about the article have nothing to do with NPOV.  You did not make any comments on the substance of what is written in the Thomas article.  So to sum up the NPOV label with be remove immediately because you are attempting to make a major edit to an article anonymously, which is a hugely unacceptable situation and you don't have any substantive arguments against the article other than it is long and disorganized (which it isn't of course).  Your change will be quickly reverted.Keetoowah 17:42, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keetoowah, you seriously misunderstand Wiki policy. Anyone can make an edit minor or major to an article with or without a login name.  Wolfman 04:55, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * No I don't. If someone wants to make a major edit, then they need to set up and state who they are.  Also, this discussion is irrelevant because the anonymous editor did NOT raise a substantive change anyway.-Keetoowah 14:06, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Sir, that may be your opinion. Your opinion is not policy.  Policy is in fact directly contrary to your opinion in this case.  I might also note that you have not listed stood up and said who you are.  Please state your name, address, and telephone number before you edit further, lest you be accused of hypocracy. Wolfman 15:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Whatever, my policy is that I think that it needs to be edited then I will edit it. And I think that if someone wants to make a major edit then they need to come to this Talk page and explain themselves to me or I will edit it if it needs editing--just like you do all the time.  Also, I don't if you know if you know that you did NOT spell "hypocrisy."  Now, if this was the main article then I would edit your comments so that you could spell correctly.-Keetoowah 22:16, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * (a) I see from your recent block that you have a problem with anger management and interpersonal relationships. (b) I merely suggested that you apply the same standards to yourself that you demand of others; they are not my standards (c) I suppose that I should feel inferior to you and your demonstrated mastery of spelling. But strangely, I don't. Wolfman 23:05, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Wolfman, you don't know me and you know nothing about me, but yet you are making broad and incorrect statements about me. Since you took one stupid little block on the Wikipedia Web site and extrapolated to the broad and incorrect conclusions that you did indicates that your logical reasoning is faulty.  It indicates that you have a tendency to make irrational conclusions and then state those irrational statements for the whole world to see.  Now in the Brave New Wikipedia World your attack on my personality--even though you don't know me and even though I have never met you, even though I do NOT ever want to meet you, but yet you still are attacking me personally--in the Brave New Wikipedia Politically Correct World, you do NOT get blocked for your personal attack on me.  I will re-iterate why I have stated before, if I see that something needs to be edited I will edit it and that includes your work. If you can't spell then I will provide assistance to you and help you with the spelling of simple words such as "hypocrisy." I can't be held responsible for your lack of an ability to spell, but I am here to offer you assistance when you can't.  Most Sincerely,Keetoowah 14:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I know you got blocked for personal attacks. And I know you either don't understand Wikipedia policy about anonymous edits or willfully ignore it.  And I know that you demand others state who they are before editing, while you hide behind a pseudonym.  And I know your edit summaries display a rather strong point of view -- "damn liberal lies" for example.  However, thank you for your kind speling offor.  In turn, if you ever need any more help with your anger management problem please let me know. Your friend, Professor Wolfman, Ph.D. 20:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Wolfman, please don't comment about me any longer. You obviously have personal issues.  I don't know what they are, because unlike you I don't presume to know you.  You don't know me and you will never know me, therefore, you haven't earned the right to comment about me.  You need to go work on your personal issues, whatever they are, and leave me alone.  It is truly a comment on our society, though, that you make vast, broad inaccurate judgments based upon so little information.  I think that it indicates that most anyone can become a Professor these days.  Also, it is a sad commentary on our society that someone can earn a PhD and not obtain an ability to spell.  It is so clear that Professors are a dime a dozen these days.  I guess that is why the pay is low and Professor generally no longer earn any respect from the public.  Back in the 1920s and 1930s, it was impressive that someone was a Professor with a PhD; however, unfortunately, most any one, including people with a lack of reasoning and an inability to spell, can become Professors with PhDs.  What a shame!-Keetoowah 21:02, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, dear Keetoowah. Looks like you've gone and gotten angry again.  I always find a nice nap calms me down when I'm cranky.  You should try it.  Anyways, the initial point was to educate you on Wikipedia policy.  For some reason, you found being educated offensive.  For some reason, ignorance is fashionable these days.  To each his own.  Love, Wolfman. P.S. Obviously, I knew you'd have a conniption about the professor thing, just wanted to see how creative you'd get with it.  To my disapointmant, your sarcasm is soarly lacking in creatifity. Wolfman 00:10, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you feel more powerful with your personal attacks upon me? Does it give you a feeling of power and authority?  God knows that as a Professor, in a low pay position, you must feel the need to find power and authority where you can.  It must feel great being the bully of the Wikipedia playground.  Man, I want to be you.  HAH!-Keetoowah 02:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Poor Keetowah. You assume so much, but know so little.  Ever hear of anti-trust litigation, my dear law-student?  I hear there's quite a market for expert witnesses, and that would be me.  As for personal attacks, I don't believe I've made any.  That would seem to be your domain of expertise, good sir. Wolfman 03:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * One more personal attack from the Professor. You work for an Attorney, don't you?  The Attorney doesn't work for you.  Come back to me when the Attorney works for you and then you will have something to brag about, but until then the PhD works for the JD.  HAH!  I wonder what your next personal attack will be?-Keetoowah 03:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't recall making any personal attacks. But if you look through the conversation above, you might have slipped in a few.  At any rate, it's been quite enchanting getting to know you.  But I'm done now.  See you around the wiki, and good luck with your homework.  Wolfman 03:42, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * You don't stop with the personal attacks, do you? I hope you got it out of your system.  I'm sure you have to go get ready for a day in court, working for one of my colleagues.  I'll see you again when they work for you.  I'm sure that will be never.-Keetoowah 03:49, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

--- I removed the "further reading" link to sowell's book. the book has nothing to do with thomas. the article already includes a wikilink when the book is mentioned.

--- I took out the line claiming that Hill's supporters argued that when she followed Thomas from one job to the next, "her behavior is characteristic in women encountering sexual harassment." No one ever claimed that Hill's behavior was "characteristic" of sexual harassment victims, and by all rational considerations Hill's behavior was totally unexpected for a purported victim of harassment.

Pro-Thomas POV
The position that Anita Hill's case against Thomas was ridiculous isn't a neutral presentation of the controversy, it's advocacy for a particular POV. The long recitation of evidence tending to undercut Hill's credibility is not in and of itself POV. What is POV is the failure to balance that evidence with a similarly sympathetic presentation of the other side of the issue. There are two sentences describing Hill's charges. Then there are eight paragraphs, some of them quite lengthy, rebutting them (or, more precisely, questioning Hill's motivations and credibility).

I've got no problem with the author(s) of that section holding the view that Hill's charges weren't credible. I've got no problem with that point of view being represented in the article. I do have a problem with the article being used as a vehicle to present that point of view as the "correct" one, to the exclusion of the competing point of view.

I happen to believe that Anita Hill largely told the truth in those hearings. I don't only believe that based on my dislike of Clarence Thomas's politics and my low opinion of his qualifications to be a Supreme Court justice. I believe it based on the assessment I made at the time of Thomas's confirmation hearings, based on watching the testimony and reading news accounts. I'm sure I'm not alone in holding that view. And that view isn't represented in the article.

The article needs to present a balanced treatment of that issue if it's going to live up to the NPOV policy. At the moment, it doesn't. It reads like a pro-Thomas puff piece. -- John Callender 1 July 2005 16:38 (UTC)


 * Feel free to updte this entry with any evidence that supports Anita Hill's claims. I also feel that the article goes to great lengths to show the flaws in her testimony; if there are similar flaws in Clarence Thomas' claims, they should be posted.  However, you will probably have to do a bit better than your own personal assessment of the hearings and news accounts at the time.

Yes, obviously. You'll note that I didn't put the negative characterization I gave above on the article page itself, because I understand that that wouldn't be appropriate there. But as an indication of where I'm coming from in questioning the article's current NPOV status, I thought (and think) it was an appopriate thing for me to mention here on the talk page.

Also, after reading the previous discussion on this page regarding tagging the article with a NPOV-dispute warning, and carefully reading NPOV dispute, I think the article does currently merit an NPOV-dispute warning, and I'm going to add one to it momentarily. Please note, though, that I intend to work to correct the problems I see in it (which I've described above). I'm not simply slapping that warning on it and "walking away". I look forward to working with the other people who care about this article to help improve it to the point where it no longer needs the NPOV-dispute warning. -- John Callender 05:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Doesn't it seem like this could be easily rectified by decreasing the Anita Hill information in the Clarence Thomas article and adding additional information about the specific case to an Anita Hill entry or a new entry. Even just using the information present might be sufficient:


 * " Toward the expected end of the confirmation hearings, Democratic staffers for the committee leaked to the media the contents of an FBI report which reported that a former colleague of Thomas, University of Oklahoma law school professor Anita Hill, had accused him of sexually harassing her when the two had worked together at the US Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). However, seemingly contradictory statements by Anita Hill and additional testimony for Thomas by former female associates weakened the case against him. In the end, the Committee did not find sufficient evidence to corroborate Anita Hill's claim. Hill's supporters later insisted that relevant testimony from Angela Wright, a PR director for the EEOC and a witness to the alleged offensive conduct, was suppressed, even though the Democrats controlled the Senate. (Democrats were reluctant to call Angela Wright as a witness after Thomas testified that he had fired her for calling another employee a 'faggot.')"


 * It's a lot less data, and the rest of the case information can be placed into another article or incorporated into an existing article. It also eliminates a fair share of the neutrality issue. -- Cognizant

Yeah, I think that's a huge improvement. I've followed this suggestion, removing a lot of the current detailed treatment of Hill's credibility. If someone thinks it's worth preserving, I'd suggest the creation of a Clarence Thomas Confirmation Controversy page (or somesuch) and giving this material a home there. I've put the removed text below, for easy access. -- John Callender 05:33, 22 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Toward the expected end of the confirmation hearings, Democratic staffers for the committee leaked to the media the contents of an FBI report which reported that a former colleague of Thomas, University of Oklahoma law school professor Anita Hill, had accused him of sexually harassing her when the two had worked together at the US Department of Education and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In particular, Hill alleged that Thomas had openly discussed his interest in pornographic films featuring the actor Long Dong Silver and that he had once shown her a can of Coca-Cola and asked her why someone had placed a pubic hair on it.


 * Hill was summoned to testify before the committee, and the hearings were broadcast on national television. When questioned about the allegations, Thomas emotionally called the hearings "a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks". Thomas avoided answering the charges directly until forced to do so; ultimately he rested on a blanket denial of all the accusations.


 * Hill's detractors alleged that her claims were implausible. Hill had not lodged a complaint in the ten years after the alleged harassment. Also she sought to continue working for Thomas when he moved to the EEOC from the Department of Education, despite the alleged history of harassment.  Hill's advocates argued that Hill was merely trying to further her career and that, despite the fact that she was a Yale Law graduate, she had no other options for employment.


 * Almost all of Thomas's former female associates and employees supported him over Hill. As Senator Joseph Lieberman stated at the time, "I have contacted associates, women who worked with Judge Thomas during his time at the Department of Education and EEOC, and in the calls that I and my staff have made there has been universal support for Judge Thomas and a clear indication by all of the women we spoke to that there was never, certainly not, a case of sexual harassment, and not even a hint of impropriety." Many of those former female associates testified on Thomas's behalf. For example, Nancy Altman from the Department of Education testified: "I consider myself a feminist. I am pro-choice. I care deeply about women's issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for two years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters, I could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once. . . . It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with -- dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues -- without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something."


 * Hill's detractors also pointed to many contradictions in her testimony. For example, she initially denied any knowledge of a news report that Senate staffers had told her that "her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that would quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name."  Senator Arlen Specter said that after consulting with her lawyers, Hill "flatly changed" her testimony "by identifying a Senate staffer, who she finally said told her that she was told that if she came forward, [Thomas] would withdraw . . . ."  Senator Specter went on to say that "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury and that she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."


 * Another issue arose with respect to Hill's treatment of the phone logs that Thomas's secretary had kept for him at the EEOC. Those logs showed that Hill had called Thomas about a dozen times since leaving the EEOC for a career as a law professor, including one time when Hill called Thomas's office to notify him that she was visiting D.C.; in that message, she had left her hotel room number and phone number with Thomas's secretary.  Hill initially told the Washington Post that the phone logs were "garbage," and then implied in her opening statement to the Senate that the phone logs had mostly represented the times when Hill had called to speak to Diane Holt, Thomas's secretary.


 * Under questioning, however, Hill admitted that "I do not deny the accuracy of these messages." Moreover, Diane Holt testified that if Hill had ever called to speak with Holt, that call would not have been recorded in Thomas's phone logs.  Holt further testified that the phone log represented only the occasions when Thomas had been unavailable to take the call.  In fact, Hill had additionally called Thomas on several other occasions that were not recorded in the logs because Thomas took the call.


 * Hill also contradicted herself in attempting to explain the reasons for having called Thomas. At one point, she claimed that "the things that occurred after I left the EEOC occurred during a time -- any matter, calling him from the university, occurred during a time when he was no longer a threat to me of any kind. He could not threaten my job. I already had tenure there."  But later in the same session, Senator Simpson asked her, "if what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name, when he left his position of power or status or authority over you, and you left it in 1983, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?"  Hill responded, "That's a very good question. And I'm sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction. That is one of the things that I have tried to do today. I have suggested that I was afraid of retaliation. I was afraid of damage to my professional life."


 * ...Hill's supporters later insisted that relevant testimony from Angela Wright, a PR director for the EEOC and a witness to the alleged offensive conduct, was suppressed, even though the Democrats controlled the Senate. (Democrats were reluctant to call Angela Wright as a witness after Thomas testified that he had fired her for calling another employee a "faggot.")

Zigzagoon
Is it ok If i put the info from Zigzagoon the pokemon onto Clarence Thomas's page? thanks--169.233.14.15 03:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. Thanks for asking first. -Will Beback 07:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy vs. Ideology
A recent edit has changed - 	Thomas stated on one occasion that for a period of time he was influenced by Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. to -  	Thomas stated on one occasion that for a period of time he was influenced by Objectivism, the ideology of Ayn Rand.  I reverted the edit as POV. Ideology is related to Ideolouge which is defined as: 1 : an impractical idealist : THEORIST 2 : an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology Philosophy has no such baggage and is a much more neutral and non-POV word. This article on Thomas is not the correct place to argue whether or not Ayn Rand was a philosopher. Changing philosopy to ideology is almost implying that Thomas is an ideolouge and inserts POV words into an article that to this point has been quite successful in providing neutral and balanced information. --Paul 00:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ideology: A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
 * The word "philosophy" is not neutral, as only Rand's followers assert that she is a philosopher. The vast majority of academia rejects her as a philosopher to the point that they rarely ever even mention her. "Ideology" does not assert anything other than the fact that he believes in a set of beliefs. You are making an assesment of the word's worth based on a related word, not on the word itself. -- LGagnon 00:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Paul that "philosophy" is more appropriate than "ideology." I know very little about objectivism, but the following points seem pretty clear.
 * Objectivism is a philosophy because it constitutes "a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means" and "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs" (quoting Merriam-Webster-online's definition #2 of philosophy). For what it's worth, Encyclopedia Britannica agrees with me, describing Ayn Rand thus: "Russian-born American writer who, in commercially successful novels, presented her philosophy of objectivism, essentially reversing the traditional Judeo-Christian ethic" (my emphasis).  Even Wikipedia agrees: "Objectivism is a philosophy developed by Ayn Rand that encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics."
 * The above definition should not be considered normative, many philosophers would disagree with it. 58.105.111.91 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course professional philosophers don't agree with that definition. Pro philosophers have a far narrower definition of "philosophy" than the use of the term in everyday use, e.g. "What is your philosophy of life?"  "Philosophy" in ordinary usage is basically interchangeable with "outlook," which is why it is NPOV.  It is in this ordinary sense, not in the pro philosopher's sense, that we are using the term in this article.  (In the interest of full disclosure, I am the same as 152.3.180.23.) Pan Dan 01:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that "the vast majority of academia rejects [Rand] as a philosopher," as LGagnon says, just means that she has had little influence on philosophers in academia. This means at most that she is a bad philosopher.  It doesn't mean she isn't a philosopher.
 * Calling a system of beliefs an "ideology" connotes that there is not a lot of profound or abstract thought behind that system of beliefs. It is clear that objectivism is deeper than mere "visionary theorizing" and it encompasses more than just "human life or culture" (quoting Merriam-Webster's definitions of ideology).152.3.180.23 00:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I hold that "ideology" is better than "philosophy" for wikipedia because:

1- The use of the word "ideology is indisputably correct in meaning, even if the word does carry certain cultural connotations because the objective meaning of the word is NPOV.

2- In contrast it is disputable whether objectivism is a philosophy. Personally I very strongly believe that it is a philosophy, even if an exceptionally poorly argued one. However some feel that objectivism is instead pseudophilosophy.

Hence we have a choice between ( possible) subtle POV connotations and POV infested meaning, the choice is clear.

The debate is rather silly however. Who really thinks that it will make a difference which word we use? Here's a solution, let's pick a different word of phrase altogether, I nominate "belief system" as in "The belief system of objectivism."

58.105.111.91 10:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * "Philosophy" has two distinct relevant senses here. What is disputed is whether objectivism is a philosophy in the same sense that, say, Kant's output constitutes a philosophy, i.e. the academic sense.  What should not be disputed is that objectivism is a philosophy in the ordinary sense of "philosophy" as basically synonomous with "outlook."  That's the sense we mean in using "philosophy" in the Objectivism article, and in this article.  There is no POV-infested meaning in this second sense of "philosophy," and so this term should be non-controversial.  However, there is no question that "ideology" has a connotation that would not be accepted by proponents of objectivism.  So "philosophy" is appropriate, and as I point out in my prior post, Britannica agrees with this conclusion. Pan Dan 01:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This doesn't really seem like the place for this discussion, but the Encyclopedia Britannica and the American Heritage Dictionary both refer to Rand as a philosopher, not as an ideologue. LaszloWalrus 23:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

POV
This article is a mess. The Anita Hill section has all of the accusations against Thomas and a list of accusers but nothing about Thomas's many defenders and no mention of the contradictions and other problems with Hill's testimony. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallamoose (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the NPOV tag on the indicated section is a good idea. In fact, I think that the whole article should have a POV label as it is currently constructed. I made a few tweaks myself, (for instance, I put in the reason that Thomas' voting with Scalia matters -- i.e., some people say he has no mind of his own. As it was, there was the refutation but no accusation.)  But more needs to be done than I have time or patience for. Things that really need to be changed include:

-- some discussion of the perception that Thomas is not qualified for his position is needed. This would include the counter-accusations that such perceptions are racist.

-- Links to negative articles about Thomas (I didn't check every link, but they seemed overwhelmingly positive.)

--A discussion of the extent to which Thomas' position as an originalist is disputed (that is, he says he's an originalist, but others claim that he's a political hack, who abandons his principles when convenient. Here's a link.

In this context, the section about Hill's accusations is especially disturbing -- I don't know enough to balance them, but the bias of the rest of the article strongly suggests that someone needs to. NoahB 19:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)


 * NO, NO, NO!!!! This is absolutely wrong.  Dear NoahB:  if you have constructive changes to the article, by all means make those changes, but to just come along and mark the whole document non NPOV that's way outside of the spirit of Wikipedia.  YOU are to be the EDITOR, not the judge.  What do you think you are going to do???  Just mark it non-NPOV and then sit back and wait for others to make changes and then when YOU are happy then you will remove the non-NPOV???  That is is completely one-sided and not within the spirit of Wikipedia.  Make the changes that you have suggested above and then others will come along and decide if those changes make sense.  But a blanket comment that the article is non-NPOV and then you walk away is not Wikipedia.-Keetoowah 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a couple changes and suggested others. I thought that people could check the talk page and decide for themselves if they agreed with me and/or if the POV sticker should stay. NoahB 20:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But I think you're probably right that, as a practical matter at least, I shoudn't have put the POV sticker up if I wasn't ready to spend a ton of time working on the article. So my apologies; I will try to be more careful in future. NoahB 20:20, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've added a POV warning to the part on his appointment, because frankly, a large part of it seems to have the unequivocal goal of making Anita Hill look bad. I need your thoughts on this. Deltabeignet 02:04, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to admit, I am surprised. For a figure as contentious as Justice Thomas, this article presents his life and views in a very informative and non-POV manner. Wikipedia would be a much better place if only other political figures could be covered this way. Giles22 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is far from neutral. It reads like a political ad for Clarence Thomas. Anita Hill did not come forward of her own accord. I must review the record but she was no nut job. Also, people can disagree concerning events. Thomas deserves a more neutral article. I disagree with him. This article is glowing PR.75Janice 23:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 11:34 UTC 3 January 2007

Long article compared to other SC justices
Why is this so huge compared to the other members of the Supreme Court? It would seem to a naive outsider (like me) that the youngest member of the court would have the least history. There is an extensive section on Justice Thomas' judicial philosophy whereas other justices have a few paragraphs or sentences. --ElKevbo 04:22, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * No other Supreme Court judge had the controversy surrounding his appointment and subsequent tenure on the bench. Rhenquist's entry is almost as long, and that mostly due to the wealth of personal info in his history.  --John, aka Daemon


 * Re Daemon, I don't think this is particularly true. Whether you agree with him on politics or not, Mark Levein's Men in Black illustrates many Supreme Court Justices who had controversial behavior.  Many cases have been rejected on the grounds that 8 Justices felt that a 9th judge was out of his mind.  I think the only thing remarkable about Thomas' hearing and appointment would be the publicity of the controversy. --Mokru 21:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Re Daemon, Hey, the longer the better. This article isn't long, the other articles are short! However, this does bring up the good point that as the article grows in length, it could be usefull to summarize it in the opening paragraph for readers who just want a quick peek at the salient details. Dxco 17:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Judicial philosophy
I added a three point summary of Thomas' judicial philospohy; while the source is indeed a blog, I think it's a fairly accurate, concise summary of Thomas' views. Please discuss here before removing again. Simon Dodd 02:17, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keetoowah, in removing these points again, writes: "comments are the comments of one obscure person and most importantly then are NOT accurate". I agree that the writer is obscure; I do not agree that the bullet points are inaccurate. Please explain why you feel they are not accurate. Simon Dodd 01:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear Simon Dodd: Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox and Wikipedia is NOT a place for original research.  Until you find a source that sums up Thomas legal work in that manner then it is coming out of the article.  Also,  Thomas's legal work is not that easily summed up.  You don't have any information listed about yourself on Wikipedia, so I do not know if you have any legal training or experience, but it doesn't matter because, once again, Wikipedia is NOT a place for orginal research. Also I'm going to remove it and I will continue to remove it until you come up with a recognized name that stated the incorrect hogwash.-Keetoowah 22:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's hogwash, and it isn't original research, because I didn't write it. Nor is it s soap box, because the description is neutral - it neither endorses nor repudiates, only observes. What exactly do you feel is incorrect in the list? In what ways is it inconsistent with what the rest of the article says? Simon Dodd 19:00, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Richardcavell 04:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC) - I don't like the recent edit describing the political spectrum as inappropriate for describing judges. In the US, the judges are appointed in a partisan way, so they're stuck with it. And Clarence Thomas is undoubtedly a conservative.

Thomas is NOT an Objectivist
I have removed Clarence Thomas from the Objectivist category. Firstly, being influenced by Ayn Rand does not make one an Objectivist. Secondly, His opposition to abortion removes him ipso facto from the category, as upholding the right to abortion is an integral part of the philosophy. Even more importantly, one cannot be both an Objectivist and a Catholic (as Thomas is) since an integral component of Objectivism is atheism. To draw an analogy, one would not call Gandhi Christian pacificist, even though he was strongly influenced by Tolstoy. LaszloWalrus 19:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If "upholding the right to abortion is an integral part of [objectivism]" as you contend, might I suggest that, before worrying about whether or not Justice Thomas is an objectivist, you start by editing Objectivist philosophy? You clearly seem to have a crucial insight into objectivism that is not currently included in its wikipedia entry: I would have thought that, were "upholding the right to abortion . . . an integral part of [that] philosophy," Objectivist philosophy would have something to say about this supposedly integral point, yet it fails to mention abortion - this supposedly "integral part" of it - even once. Moreover, you contend that atheism is a defining characteristic of objectivism, while its wikpedia entry again mentions atheism once, and then only to say that different adherent to the philosophy disagree about it.
 * I have no idea what objectivism is, nor what the objectivists say about abortion, but your contention is not only supported by external evidence, it is flatly unsupported by the text of a coequal article at Wikipedia. Thus, might I suggest that you go ahead and start editing Objectivist philosophy and come back when your claims have been accepted into that article for a period of time? That way, you will be able to credibly make the case that Justice Thomas does not belong in this category because he holds views incompatible with those discussed in the Objectivist philosophy article. In the meantime, your edit is
 * Reversed Simon Dodd 21:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * May I suggest that we should not decide this on our own? Does Thomas call hismelf an objectivist? Have other notable people done so? We should rely on sources, not our own judgement. -Will Beback 22:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will - I have no idea if he is or not. I'm not arguing that Thomas is an objectivist, I'm saying that what User:LaszloWalrus is doing qualifies as vandalism. At some point, an editor decided that Thomas was an objectivist and added him to that category; User:LaszloWalrus is free to disagree, but thusfar, has not only failed to provide any support for his removal of Justice Thomas from this category, but what comments he has offered in support are flatly contradicted by Wikipedia's entries for the very philosophy involved. How can one take seriously the contention that atheism and support for abortion rights are core to an ideology, when that ideology's wikipedia entry says nothing about them? If the entry for Objectivism is wrong - that is, missing discussion of these allegedly key opinions - User:LaszloWalrus should start by fixing objectivism, not by making unsupported edits to Clarence Thomas.
 * Again, I'm not saying that Thomas should be in this category - in fact, personally, nothing would please me more than for Thomas to be removed from a category which even vaguely or tangentially associates him with Ayn Rand, as I think it would be hugely disappointing if he had some interest in Rand (it would be like discovering that Antonin Scalia is secretly a fan of NSync: the sort of egregious lapse of judgement that really makes you question your opinion of a person). I would be delighted for an editor to appropriately dismiss this category. But I do think that before removing the category, the editor doing so should provide sources or at least engage on the talk page, as User:LaszloWalrus has thusfar failed to do. Simon Dodd 13:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is strangely convoluted reasoning. If an editor added Thomas to a category without citations, it was a POV edit, and any good Wikipedian should remove it until citations are supplied. The first edit was POV, and you are accusing the removing editor of being POV. Strange! It is the first editor's job to provide the appropriate citations. I'm removing the category on that basis. Pollinator 14:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * As per notes above, I have no objection to the category being removed, and I have no intention of picking a fight with an admin over it. ;)
 * Incidentally, your user page refers to a story wherein monks argue over how many teeth are in a horse's mouth, citing various stories, until one monk asks why they don't just count the number of teeth in the horses's mouth. Nice story - but applied to WP, wouldn't that constitute original research? Simon Dodd 14:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism was the system of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand. Here is an excerpt from a lecture entitled "The Philosophy of Objectivism" (sanctioned by Rand): "God... is a systematic contradiction of every valid... principle. No argument will get you to a world contradicting this one. No method will enable you to leap from existence to a "super-existence." Similarly, here's Rand (writin in The Objectivist Newsletter) on conservatives vs. Objectivists: "Objectivists are NOT conservatives." Here's Rand on abortion: "Abortion is a moral right — which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." Thomas is not an atheist (he's Catholic); he is a conservative (in contrast to Objectivists); he does not support abortion. Which sources say Thomas IS an Objectivist? LaszloWalrus 23:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hearsay, boring and moot. Simon Dodd 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What is "hearsay, boring and moot"? LaszloWalrus 05:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Be careful when you say Thomas opposes abortion. There is no evidence that he personally opposes the practice of abortion. He just thinks the Constitution does not give a right to abortion. I can say I support Universal Health Care, but I can also say the Constitution does not grant Universal Health Care. Support and think the Constitution protects are two different matter. WooyiTalk to me? 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Libertarianism section
Part of it borders on original research and part of it is just poorly sourced. Let's look at it:
 * In an interview published in Reason magazine, conducted when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Thomas expressed his sympathy with libertarianism. 
 * What he actually said in the interview:
 * Reason: So would you describe yourself as a libertarian?
 * Thomas: I don't think I can. I certainly have some very strong libertarian leanings, yes. I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But at this point I'm caught in the position where if I were a true libertarian I wouldn't be here in government.
 * This does not justify a separate section called Libertarianism.
 * In particular, Thomas's philosophy is profoundly influenced by African-American libertarian economist Thomas Sowell and Objectivist Ayn Rand .
 * According to FindLaw columnist Edward Lazarus: "It is said that Thomas's favorite movie is "The Fountainhead" - a film based on the Ayn Rand novel.... Indeed, Thomas's allegiance to this story is so strong that, each year, he requires his new law clerks to attend a screening that he hosts." 
 * This is relevant and has been moved up to the personal life section with a proper reference.
 * On the bench, although Thomas is usually conservative, he occasionally displays a libertarian streak, especially on his vociferous dissent in cases such as Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. City of New London. 
 * The Volokh Conspiracy is simply not a credible reference for an encyclopedia article about a living Supreme Court Justice. The burden of evidence is not on editors who remove questionable content. It's on editors who put it back in. So please find a more reliable source. We can say that Thomas admits to having some "libertarian leanings" because that's a direct quote from the Reason article, and I have no problem adding that in the appropriate location with the appropriate reference (which I will do). MoodyGroove 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Anita Hill POV
I added the sections that you mention. Are you disputing the facts involved? It certainly seems indisputably factual, for example, that the women who worked for Thomas and with Hill came forward to support Thomas, while Hill's supporter (Angela Wright) had been fired for calling another employee a "faggot." So it wasn't just a simple matter of "he said, she said." Isn't it intellectually honest to consider these women's testimony for whatever it's worth? If the situation were reversed -- if all these women had come forward to testify, "Yes, Thomas was a pervert, he was always harassing me as well" -- wouldn't that be worth including? Well, then, why not here?

As for the contradictions in Hill's testimony, well, again the facts speak for themselves. If anyone can identify self-contradictions in Thomas's testimony, feel free to add those as well.


 * Please don't. That would constitute original research. All negative comments about living persons must be both notable and reliably sourced. MoodyGroove 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

For example, it is an undebatable fact that (a) Hill had called Thomas a dozen times over the years, including one time when she left a message containing her hotel room number, and that (b) Hill originally tried to deny that these calls were made, but was forced to concede that they had happened. Now imagine the situation in reverse: Imagine that Hill had alleged that Thomas called her a dozen times at her apartment, that Thomas had denied doing so, but that phone records had then been produced showing that Thomas had definitely made those calls, and that Thomas basically had to admit that he was lying. Wouldn't that be exceedingly relevant in judging his credibility?


 * He's right...it's not so much that there was a deliberate attempt by the author of the section in question to make Prof. Hill look bad as it is that Prof. Hill's case was so utterly ridiculous that there is no supporting evidence to present here.

The problem isn't the so-called "facts" (I think you mean the evidence, by the way, not the facts), but your presentation of them. You thought it relevant that certain members of the Judiciary Committee were Democrats, but never pointed out that the Senators making comments that helped Thomas's case were Republican. So I added that. You also characterized what was nothing more than a particular speaker's belief as "observations" and the like, which made it sound like the statement was "factual" when it was really an opinion. So I changed that, too. I also made some grammar corrections, and edited out irrelevant portions of your quotes from Thomas's opinions. Also, BTW, many of Thomas's views about original meanings of the text aren't so widely accepted by serious scholars, which says nothing of the core policy problems of originalism, both of which issues are probably better left to another article.d

[DELETED BY User:MoodyGroove per WP:BLP] This article only mentions sexual harrassment. KannD86 17:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Random, speculative 'heard it someplace' pseudo-information will be deleted on sight per WP:V and WP:BLP. MoodyGroove 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

i came across this page as a result of recent news reports. the section on Anita Hill was clearly written by someone who takes Thomas's side. i see from previous discussion that this section used to be even worse, but it is still far from unbiased. it contains one sentence introducing the allegation, and then consists entirely of rebuttals. it doesn't even contain a clear description of what the allegations were, much less try to present the pro/con arguments fairly (or, for that matter, present the "pro" arguments at all!). Benwing 03:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

here's one example:
 * Hill's supporters later insisted that relevant testimony from Angela Wright, a PR director for the EEOC and a witness to the alleged offensive conduct, was suppressed, even though the Democrats controlled the Senate. Democrats were reluctant to call Angela Wright as a witness after Thomas testified that he had fired her for calling another employee a 'faggot.' [10]

text like "even though the Democrats controlled the Senate" is clearly POV that's attempting to discredit the facts even as they are introduced. furthermore, the cited reference does not appear to substantiate the "Democrats were reluctant to ..." claim. it simply says that she got "cold feet", along with one *Republican* senator (Simpson) asserting that she was discredited. Benwing 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right. I've removed what looked to me like the biggest BLP violations from that section.  I was surprised to find this section in such bad shape given how high-profile the issue has been lately.  I also suggested in an edit summary that we get rid of the whole David Brock paragraph; I think his claims are tangential to the case and better suited for the article on Brock.  The only other sentence in the paragraph is unsourced opinion.  --Allen 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

DOE not introduced before abreviated
The DOE reference here is not previously referenced in full. It should then have words before (intials). Is it Department of Energy? --Mokru 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Full Name?
Does Clarence Thomas not have a middle name? --unknown user --Mokru 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

New WaPo article on Thomas
The Washinton Post just did an article on Thomas's history that I thought might have some interesting facts if anyone wanted to add them to the article. The article can be found here Washington Post article about Thomas Remember 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a sentence about Thomas taking custody of his great-nephew. I'm not sure whether it's worth adding more information from the article, such as his strained relationship with his relatives, none of whom have enjoyed the type of success that he has. Techielaw 01:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Is this the Op-Ed mentioned in the section where they discuss Anita Hill's accusation?--Mokru 21:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Splitting out Anita Hill controversy
What do people think of creating a new page to discuss the Anita Hill controversy? Otherwise, I feel that this page may eventually be unfairly dominated by that aspect of Thomas's career. Remember 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the existing section is too large at present. The incident has dominated Thomas' life story. However I think it could be expanded and an expanded section may be too large. The incident is coverred in more detail in Anita Hill, and it certainly dominates that article. In sum, I'd say that if folks want to add more info on the incident that an article devoted ot it would be the best place, but that we shouldn't reduce the coverage already in this article. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To say that the incident has "dominated" Thomas' life story is clearly a vast overstatement. Thomas is a Supreme Court justice with a long law career.  That's like saying the Monica Lewinski scandal, which is arguably much more prominent, has dominated Bill Clinton's life.  I strongly support creating a new page to discuss the controversy, cutting down the section here and at Anita Hill and then linking the truncated section in both articles to to new page.  It would give the page its proper due, without overemphasizing it here.  Good idea, Remember.  --Jdcaust 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The Anita Hill incident dominates Thomas' life story because he has been the subject of so little other coverage. Prior to his nomination he was a virtual unknown, and he has been relatively quiet on and off the bench since his confirmation. Is there any profile of Thomas that doesn't mention it? I don't think the existing material is excessive, and if it were split out it would probably grow much larger. I think it's better to keep it short, like it is now, and in its existing place. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Upon review I think we can shorten the section by cutting down the long quote from Thomas. The famous "high tech lynching" line is the key part that we should quote, the rest can be summarized briefly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My argument should have been, what do people think of creating an article on the Anita Hill Controversy. It was a big event that still has large ramifications within the US and deserves its own article.  Obviously there is not enough material right now to support the page, but I believe that we could put together a good article that could document the controversy. Remember 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Anita Hill Controversy" would be a POV title since the controversy involved both Hill and Thomas. I agree that the controvery did have large ramifications, and that is why I don't think the section in this article should be reduced further even if a separate article is created to address the controversy alone. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have any suggestions for an alternative title, perhaps "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy?" Remember 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Using "controversy" in the title is not ideal, since it prejudges the matter to some extent. Based on a more recent event, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, I'd say the most neutral title would be "Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination". That makes it clear it's not about Thomas, but about the nomination and all that it entailed. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are there any good words that lack a negative connotations for something as combatative as a sexual harrassment accusation?--Mokru 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Affirmitave action
shouldn't there be a section on affirmitave action in the judicial philosophy section? He is after all the only African American on the supreme court and there have been some rather important Affirmitave action cases lately. Cryo921 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Granted --Mokru 22:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Appointment
I've deleted the following two sentences from this section:
 * "Under questioning by several Senators during confirmation hearings, Thomas repeatedly asserted that he had not developed a stance on the Roe v. Wade decision, which prevented states from criminalizing abortions. Eight months after his confirmation, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, he filed a joint dissent finding that "Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled."

While I do not challenge these facts, their inclusion and presentation here are clearly anti-Thomas. Showing Justice Thomas's actions after confirmation that differed from comments he made during the hearings have the result of making him look intentionally dishonest. This type of statement should *not* be placed in the "Appointment" section, but would be better placed in a section regarding the Justice's decisions on cases or perhaps in a "Criticisms" section. (As an analogy, consider the fairness of this statement in the "Political Campaigns" section of the Bill Clinton Wikipedia article:  "As in Clinton's first campaign, the Republicans as well as some members of the media insinuated a history of marital infidelity on his part, all of which the Clinton camp categorically denied.  Twenty months after his inauguration, his marital infidelity would be exposed.") Weekeek 08:43, 1 Oct 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dxco below. The Clinton comparison you brought up is not much of an analogy in my opinion. "His marital infidelity would be exposed" is obviously anti-Clinton POV. If you replaced the second sentence with something referring to the Lewinsky allegations surfacing (in a NPOV way), I would think that it would be acceptable.


 * Since Thomas's assertion that he had no opinion on the matter was so controversial at the time, it should definitely be mentioned how he finally decided the issue. Pasboudin 11:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thomas apologists say his testimony was that he "never debated Roe". It's a subtle difference.  Quite clever actually, I'm very opposed to Roe and I could say this too.  It takes on a different meaning than those hearing it think it has.  Is this dishonest?  Depends. --Mokru 22:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I've just read this article for the first time, and found the current state (as of my timestamp) of the Appointment section to be quite reasonable. Considering how inflamatory the whole deal became (Mr. Thomas' quote near the end of the section perhaps as an example of this), this section now seems to be fairly moderate and mild in tone. As a small note, would it be possible to get a source for "(Democrats were reluctant to call Angela Wright as a witness after Thomas testified that he had fired her for calling another employee a 'faggot.')"? Dxco 17:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the following language"Under questioning by several Senators during confirmation hearings, Thomas repeatedly asserted that he had not developed a stance on the Roe v. Wade decision, which prevented states from criminalizing abortions. The court would rule on an important abortion case eight months after his confirmation, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Thomas filed a joint dissent finding that 'Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled.'"This does not belong here because 1) it has nothing to do with his appointment, and 2) the sole reason for inclusion of this language is to make it appear that Thomas is dishonest. The last time this language was removed, a section was added later in the article detailing the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case and quoting Thomas's reasoning in the decision. That discussion is in the appropriate place and doesn't make any veiled attacks on the Justice's honesty.--Paul 07:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I moved it out of the Appointment section per your objections. The abortion question was a vital enough part of his hearings that the way he ultimately addressed the issue after appointment is important to mention, at the very least in passing as is done here. Pasboudin 01:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Moving it from the Appointment Section is an improvement, as was adding the "wrongly decided" language.
 * However this sentence:"Many leading organizations had opposed his nomination due to his suspected anti-abortion stance, though Thomas had repeatedly asserted that he had not developed a stance on the Roe decision during confirmation hearings."...does not add any facts, and betrays a point of view. First, it characterizes Thomas's opposition as "leading organizations", but the big problem is that it implies Thomas is a hypocrite or liar. This is the same problem that User:Weekeek (see above) pointed out saying it made him appear "intentionally dishonest."  We cannot say or imply that Thomas is being disingenous here, because we cannot know if he had an overriding opinion on Roe v. Wade at the time of his hearing.  The offending sentence is an accusation that we cannot make based on the facts.


 * As the article stands now, it mentions that Thomas was opposed by pro-choice groups because they thought he would not support Roe v. Wade, and the article also spells out exactly where Thomas came down on the issue when he had a chance to vote on an abortion case. If the reader wishes to draw their own conclusion, they can do so, but it not appropriate for an encyclopedia article to make such an accusation. --Paul 23:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it's quite an "accusation" since he did say that he hadn't formulated an opinion, so he was free to go either way when an abortion case came up. But since there is obviously some disagreement here I will reinsert his stated position during the confirmation hearings in the "Appointment" section. This way there is no juxtaposition of the two sentences which you find questionable when placed together. Hopefully this will be acceptable. Pasboudin 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted the phrase "liberal" 3x times in this paragraph. The labeling of the organizations involved in Thomas' Appointment process is irrelevant. Furthermore, the description of "bork" as a legitimate political tactic only used by "liberals" is clearly another example of overt bias. Hence, removal. 75.73.33.16 (talk) 10:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. These definitely qualify as weasel words.  However, new comments go to the bottom.  As such, I've moved them there. --Jdcaust (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Early career

 * "At first, the nomination appeared to be stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee, until a copy of a "documents request" from the committee (which at the time was controlled by the Democrats and chaired by Senator Joe Biden) was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal reprinted the documents request, taking up one-quarter of the op-ed page. In the ensuing negative publicity surrounding the documents request, Thomas's nomination was discharged from the committee."

I don't really understand this. Perhaps the auther could expand this a tad so it is clear what the significance was of the "request," what was contained in the "request," and so explain why the publishing of the contents spurred the nomination along. Im pretty sure the author intended there to be a cause and effect described here, but I think at present it isn't clear just how it works. 67.168.99.182 17:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (woops, changed browser: Dxco 17:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC) )


 * ''"... taking up one-quarter of the op-ed page."

This comment as well seem to be trying to indicate something, but I am not clear what. Is the exact size of the article that was printed a key element in Thomas' nomination process?67.168.99.182 17:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (woops, changed browser:  Dxco 17:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC) )


 * Here is the original edit from 07:48, 2 May 2005 by 66.147.187.136


 * "In 1990, President George Bush, Sr. nominated Thomas to the DC Circuit Federal Appeals Court. At first, the nomination appeared to be stuck in the Senate Judiciary Committee, until a copy of a "documents request" from the committee (which at the time was controlled by the Democrats and Chaired by Senator Joe Biden) was leaked to the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal reprinted the documents request on their op-ed page (even with a very small font, it took up one-quarter of a broadsheet page). The nature of the documents request was so broad and overreaching that it looked like the committee was attempting to request virtually all documents that Thomas had authored while a Federal public servant. In the ensuing negative publicity surrounding the documents request, Thomas's nomination was discharged from the committee. Thomas was confirmed by the senate in March 1990."


 * This fact can be confirmed either by a visit to the Wall Street Journal's website (regrettfully www.wsj.com is a $$$ subscription website) or a visit to a larger 'bricks & mortar' library.


 * 72.82.175.2 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What fact are you referring to? The above captioned paragraph is a synthesis of several facts. 1.) There was a document request by the Senate Judiciary Committee. 2.) The document request was leaked to the WSJ. 3.) It was over-reaching, as evidenced by its size and scope. 4.) It caused negative publicity to the Senate Judiciary Committee. 5.) The exposure of the request led to the discharge of the nomination from the committee. 6.) Thomas was confirmed in March 1990. I find it difficult to believe something this notable would require a visit to a 'bricks & mortar' library. Best, MoodyGroove 12:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove


 * MoodyGroove,


 * I am specifically referring to the Documents Request (DR) aspect of the passage. Let us go over points 1 through 5 individually (point 6 is already well established through multiple internet citations).


 * Points 1, 2 & 3 are confirmable by the WSJ article.


 * Point 4 would be a reasonable consequence of the public disclosure of points 1 & 3 (there are most likely other contemporaneous news stories to this effect). Indeed the negative publicity raised suspicions that Thomas had leaked the DR to the WSJ, so much so that the WSJ (shortly after publishing the DR) ran a disclaimer that said that the DR was NOT leaked to them by Thomas.


 * Point 5 would also be a reasonable consequence of the public disclosure of points 1, 3 & 4 (again, there are most likely other contemporaneous news stories to this effect).


 * Regarding your comment, "I find it difficult to believe something this notable would require a visit to a 'bricks & mortar' library.". You might want to go to a 'bricks & mortar' library someday.  You would be amazed at the stuff that got reported in local newspapers from about a decade ago and earlier that is not available on the internet.


 * (Strictly as an aside, you might even find a story about a local politician making a politically damaging statement from years ago. A story that everybody forgot about.  A story that sat on a piece of microfilm in a library for about dozen years.  Until you went there, photocopied it, scanned it, and uploaded it to his Wikipedia article.)


 * 72.82.175.2 01:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's quite an appalling thought. MoodyGroove 02:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Early Career Clarification
"From 1974-1977 Thomas was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri."

I doubt he was working as an attorney for Monsanto at the same time as being Assistant Attorney General of Missouri -- at least that is how it reads to me. Can someone clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokru (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unexpected Rulings
This section seems problematic for several reasons: A)It is very unencyclopedia-like to list some 'unexpected' decisions. B)It also seems POV to make a determination that Thomas should have voted one way, but because he didn't in a case, that decision is 'unexpected'. -- Ozoneliar 23 October 2006


 * Isn't it generally accepted by most major media that he represents the "very conservative" side of the Court? Badagnani 04:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The fact that major media has labeled a Justice Conservative/Liberal is meaningless. Further when looking at the other justices, I haven't seen a similiar section. We should let his decisions speak for themselves. -- Ozoneliar 23 October 2006


 * I agree. Constitutional law isn't a political philosophy.  The article doesn't explain why Thomas's judicial philosophy would indicate he'd come out some other way.  Perhaps the cases are simply "notable" in some other way, but it does seem to be a problematic category. Zz414 17:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this section should be deleted? I say it should any input? -- Ozoneliar 23 October 2006


 * No, it's very helpful to readers. We can't ignore the fact that certain justices have strongly held beliefs, either left or right, and Thomas is generally regarded to be "very conservative" in his rulings.  One might use the term "atypical" rather than "unexpected" rulings, or simply discuss the rulings in different terms without using the word "unexpected."  One would think that even the president who originally nominated Thomas for the Court would be surprised at some of the rulings discussed here.  We don't want a whitewash, which is what the posting above seems to advocate.  Badagnani 03:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if one is to accept the that this section should exist(which I'm not ready to do yet) Several things are still wrong with it. A)This section seems to be independent research, and high conclusory B)It does not cite to any source, especially a non-biased research source.C)The section does not explain in every ruling why it is unexpected. D)Thomas seems to be the only justice with a section like this. E)Like ZZ414 said Con Law isn't political philosophy. We should not lump justices of the Supreme Court in with political ideologies, and then say since the Justice is either a so called liberal Justice, or a so-called Conservative Justice this ruling is unexpected. Further, I question the use of the terms Liberal and Conservative in reference to Justices on the Supreme Court altogether.   For the Foregoing reasons I continue to recommend the deletion/ammending of this section. -- Ozoneliar  24 October 2006

I'm also going to throw in a vote for deletion. While I find it a bit interesting, the whole idea erroneously conflates political philosophy and judicial philosophy. The only way these rulings are "unexpected" is by applying political definitions to constitutional jurisprudence. Viewed solely from a conservative judicial philosophy, they make a lot of sense. I don't agree with Ozoneliar's assertion that it's independent research. But that said, I just don't think the section's terribly encyclopedia-like. Something like this would never be in Brittanica. --Velvet elvis81 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

External links to cases
There are a a few cases here only linked to externally - we should work on getting articles written on them so we can turn those into internal links. The cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, United States v. Hubbell, United States v. Bajakajian, Indianapolis v. Edmond. BD2412 talk 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thomas's voting record/reversing congressional decisions
Thomas's voting record is extremely relevant, especially as "judicial activism" (or, "legislating from the bench") is at the center of debate regarding SCOTUS justices and nominees. User: Keetowah has chosen to continually obscure, downplay, or altogether delete this important study. That's rather ironic, because a quick check of the Robert Byrd page shows that, in certain cases, there's nothing about a person's past actions that Keetowah deems unworthy of including in a Wikipedia entry.

Keetowah is free to construct a laudatory website to Clarence Thomas, whom he no doubt regards as the finest legal mind since Solon. But Wikipedia entries should be about the truth, not obfuscation or propaganda.

The Yale study should stay. --Eleemosynary 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't mischaracterize my position. I do not believe that the Yale study should be eliminated.  I believe that it should streamlined.  It is merely the study of one Yale professor.  It does not deserve its own section. Also, the way that it is presented violates Wikipedian policy in that whoever put it up there in the first place stole wording directly from the study and that is a copyright issue.  It needs to be slimmed down and re-written.  Oh, I'm sorry that you don't want Robert Byrd's racist KKK past and present to be shown to the public.  ---   --Keetoowah 14:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, you've tipped your hand again. It's not the study "of one Yale professor."  That's a mischaracterization.  Nothing was "stolen" or is a copyright violation; the study is quoted and attributed.  Perhaps slimming it down would help; but not with "weasel language," as has been done previously.  Regarding your suggestion that I wish to obscure Byrd's "racist KKK past and present," that's just more hyperbole and personal attacks by you.  Did Arbitration teach you nothing?  Eleemosynary 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not personal attack you. You would like that so you could justify your constantly following me around Wikipedia like a stalker. --Keetoowah 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Another personal attack from Keetowah. Duly noted.  Eleemosynary 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think these personal back and forths are appropriate. As we all are political, it adds nothing to introduce personal attacks --Mokru 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, the information belongs on the page, and prominently - it is a useful statistic (about all Supreme Court justices, in fact). I'm not sure this article needs the information about ALL the justices, however - Thomas' score, and where that places him relative to other cour members, would be sufficient.  My only issue with it is presenting it as if it is the sole and only measure of judicial activism, whatever that means.  I say the latter because I suspect that defining 'judicial activism' solely as 'how often he votes to overturn laws' is a narrowly drawn and partisan definition.  In a sense, it is being set up as a straw man to knock down.  Of course, in real life, partisans of any political stripe define a "Judicial Activist" as someone who makes decisions contrary to their ideology ... &mdash;Morven 18:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Cogent and well-reasoned. I've removed the other justices' voting percentages. Eleemosynary 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the other percentages should be put back in - there are only nine justices, it's not like it's a huge addition - and it puts the number in perspective. Let the reader draw his/her own conclusion about the meaning. --Kevin 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Regarding Eleemonsynary's latest edit... "He is considered to be part of the "conservative wing" in the current court." is okay but "liberal block" is "laughably POV". What am I missing here? --Paul 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Conservative wing" and "Liberal Wing" are somewhat NPOV. But "liberal block" or "conservative block" implies rigid, groupthinking cabals.  Eleemosynary 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of the material in this article discussing Thomas's judicial philosophy discusses parts of the constitution and specific cases, as well as discussion of some well-known constitutional principles such as "Substantive Due Process." This material is germane to a discussion of the judicial philosophy of Thomas.

However, the section on "Reversing Congressional Mandates" reflects a current political squabble. It is entirely a POV argument and does not belong in this article. User Morven even admits this when he says "I suspect that defining 'judicial activism' solely as 'how often he votes to overturn laws' is a narrowly drawn and partisan definition. In a sense, it is being set up as a straw man to knock down." He is entirely right.

Just to be complete, the current political squabble goes like this. Conservatives say that "liberal" Justices don't really care what the Constitution says, and they just make stuff up to agree with their policy preferences. Hence, the conservatives argue that such Justices practice 'judicial activism,' when what is needed is 'judicial modesty.' A judge, the argument goes should give deference to the actions of the legislative branch.

The liberals counter by arguing that the more conservative jurists are no more 'modest' than the liberals because they vote to overturn Congressional laws. Thus, they are just as 'activist' as the liberal jurists. The conservatives counter by arguing that respecting the letter of the Constitution and striking down Congressional power grabs, is essentially a negative activity and is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. And the argument goes on and on.

This argument is non-judicial, and entirely political (it would never be cited as an argument in a SCOTUS decision), and it does not belong in an encyclopedia article on a Supreme Court Justice. --Paul 22:55, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Ancestry
There really isn't enough discusion to merit this organization except that it is more logical to break out each ancestry as a part of the whole.

Gullah???
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a Gullah, and spoke primarily the Gullah dialect until the age of 16."

Is this for real? Or has he been Seigenthalered? --Peripatetic 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he claims Gullah descent (did you read the linked article?) and that he grew up speaking the Geechee dialect, and also that he plans to write a book about this. Like many people with Native American descent who hid this for many years, things are changing and now it's more fashionable/acceptable to admit one's heritage. Badagnani 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The original quote was in Thomas's own words, in the December 14, 2000 The New York Times (registration required to read, or you can find the article via Lexis-Nexis). Badagnani 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Gullah Heritage in Autobiography?
Does his new autobiography get into his Gullah heritage? Badagnani 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Playboy Origins of High Tech Lynching

 * The expression "high-tech lynching" coincidentally or ironically first appeared in Asa Barber's 'Men's' column published in Playboy magazine in an issue released before Thomas' Supreme Court hearings.

...was added (with some POV I have not reproduced), and then removed. I can't find any evidence of this on the Internet (0 hits for "high-tech lynching" "asa barber"), but it would be interesting if it were true. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Limbaugh wedding
It is certainly worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Rush Limbaugh's third marriage at his Virginia home, and it was not included as an attempt to imply POV "politics by association." A Supreme Court justice performing the marriage of the most-listened-to political radio host in America is certainly worth mentioning. Eleemosynary 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It certainly is not worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Rush Limbaugh's third marriage at his Virginia home. If it was not included as a POV attempt to imply "politics by association," then why do you say "A Supreme Court justice performing the marriage of the most-listened-to political radio host in America is certainly worth mentioning"?  Do you mean if he wasn't the "most-listened-to political radio host in America" it wouldn't be noteworthy? So the noteworthiness is because of Limbaugh's political-radio-host fame? Tell me again with a straigt face that you aren't including this to make a political implication.  I have once again removed this POV-pushing.  Also, you (perhaps inadvertantly) reverted my "leak" change at the same time.  I have also restored that change, adding a cite. --Paul 21:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate your combative tone, nor your refusal to assume good faith. It is indeed worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Limbaugh's wedding.  I think you're projecting a little.  Do you think there's some political significance of Thomas performing Limbaugh's wedding that you would like to strike from the article?  I do not.  Your "challenge" to me is silly.  I'm putting my edit back.  Please do not remove it until consensus has been reached.  And thank you for adding a cite. Eleemosynary 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, check the David Souter page "Personal Life" section. If that information is worthy of inclusion (as I think it is), the Limbaugh wedding info certainly should be here.  Eleemosynary 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * agree. It belongs in the article. It's a verifiable fact, it's inclusion does nothing to detract from the article, and it does not push any POV. Just because Thomas presided over Limbaugh's wedding does not mean there are other implications to this. It just means he presided. Many justices/judges do that for friends. And its not like its a big secret that Thomas is a strict originalist/member of the conservative justice bloc ⇒    SWAT Jester   [[Image:Flag_of_Iceland.svg|18px|]]  Ready    Aim    Fire!  03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the problem with including this information is. Badagnani 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Elee asked me to take a look here and give my $.02. In my opinion, that Thomas performed the wedding, and especially at his house, should be included as a noteworthy bit of trivia.  The reason, in my opinion, has nothing to do with politics but rather celebrity.  Limbaugh is a celebrity.  If any Justice performs a celebrity's wedding ceremony, especially at the Justice's personal residence, I think its noteworthy.  Say Souter performs Kirsten Dunst's wedding.  Her politics are irrevelant but I think mention of Souter performing her wedding ceremony should be in both their entries.   If the ceremony was at Souter's house it is even more interesting/noteworthy as it implies that he might be closer to this famous person than people would otherwise assume.  Lawyer2b 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Swat, Elee, Lawyer, and Bada (apologies to anyone whom I've missed), inasmuch as I think the factoid to be a notable piece of trivia, and I, in assuming good faith, impute no malign, POV-infused bias to its having been included. Joe 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One of the maxims here is that as long as a fact is sourced and verifiable, it will end up in an article regardless how minor. So the trivia will stay if people want it. Relevancy would be better served if someone found out how often he conducts marriage ceremonies and to whom. Also, does it belong in the "Life" section? It is more trivia than a discussion of his life. The section's bigger issue is Why isn't there more information about Thomas's personal life and relationships? This is an article about him, and his two marriages rate about as much discussion as the Limbaugh wedding trivia. NoSeptember   talk  08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, though I will point out that "factoid" refers a made-up fact, and I don't think anyone is claiming that in this case. I also agree that this is a biography, and we should try to cover biographical info like marriages, children, hobbies, etc that are beyond the mere CV entries yet are sufficiently well-reported to be verifiable and beyond gossip. As editors we need to balance the coverage of different elements of the subject's life. As to the immediate point, Limbaugh is more than a celebrity, he is a highly partisan political commentator, a fact which lends additional relevance. -Will Beback 09:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is one of the main problems of wiki. What is relevant for a biography?  It seems simple enough to any encyclopedia user to say that Thomas is or is not a republican.  That combined with his judicial philosophy covers the spectrum.  Any wedding then, doesn't really add much to the article.  Depending on emphasis.  If it is overemphasized, it detracts from the article quality.  If it is removed, it potentially deminishes the article quality.  If it's in a trivia section, give it all the emphasis you'd like.  If it's in any other section, the emphasis should be relatively minor.  I don't think anyone would dispute that the Supreme Court often follows ideological party lines.--Mokru 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Allegations in The Nine
A new book, The Nine, comes out with allegations regarding Thomas's penchant for porn. As Above the Law states : "The decision to rush the swearing-in of Justice Clarence Thomas spared the controversial nominee the publication of more embarrassing personal revelations than Anita Hill's notorious testimony. That same day, three Washington Post reporters were set to write a story about Thomas' extensive taste for pornography, including accounts from eyewitnesses such as the manager of his local video store. "But since Thomas had been sworn in, the Post decided not to pursue the issue and dropped the story." I don't know whether we should include this or not since it is only allegations about a story that was never published, but I thought I should bring the issue up on the talk page because I anticipate it become a future point of discussion. Remember 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with some good porno, as long as it doesn't distract from his legal reasoning. ~ Rollo44 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * That's tricky. The book is a reliable source, but it isn't making the assertion about Thomas and porn, it's simply reporting that the WaPo was going to report on that. In that circumstance it appears more like gossip than simple reporting. However other material from the book may be more appropriate. Here's the original ABC report that the Above the Law blog cites: . For example, the details that he adoped a grandnephew and that he's received large book advances are noteworthy. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-considering 1st paragraph edit?
I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong." Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject. I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
 * A1. Benjamin Cardozo
 * A2. Learned Hand


 * B1. John Marshall Harlan
 * B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit? It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinion piece on WaPo regarding Hill controversy
This article has some interesting assertions in it to support why the author takes Hill's side over Thomas's side. Does anyone think some of this information should be included? Remember 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on how its included. I don't know if an Op-Ed piece on the Anita Hill controversy from this year will necessarily fit as a reliable source.  If the source is included as an example of how this person takes Anita Hill's side, that's one thing, but I'm not sure that's notable.  However, I doubt that an Op-Ed piece's assertions themselves can used as a reliable source in a wikipedia article.  This is especially true considering that the writer is obviously taking a biased view point.  I guess you could include some her refutations of Thomas' points in his book, but you risk taking an already large section in this article and extending it even further.  The detail should reflect the notability of the event in relation to everything else in the article.  The Anita Hill controversy is significant, but its far from the most significant thing about Thomas.  --Jdcaust 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Checking the Anita Hill section again, it seems to be prominent because of a long quote from Thomas. Perhaps a better way to cover this controversy is to remove or cut-down the quote, then give a cited overview of both Thomas' and Hill's side of the events. In any case, the section could use some improvement. --Jdcaust 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the section might need work, but removing the commentary of Thomas at the hearing is not a good way to edit the section. There is no one whose opinion at that hearing is more important than Thomas's.  Also, there is no opinion of any commentator who wasn't at that hearing that is as important as Thomas's, especially as this particular article is concerned.  This article is about Thomas and he deserves to have his side of the story told, from his perspective, not the perspective of Rush Limbaugh or Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden.  Any cited overview is going to be slanted whether it comes from a pro-Thomas supporter or a anti-Thomas supporter.  From that perspective is much better to have him speak for himself and let the reader decide, not some Wikipedian.  And remember that is the point of view that this encyclopedia aims to take, a neutral one.  It is his article, not Anita Hill's, not Ted Kennedy's.  Thomas should have his say, and not the truncated words of a Wikipedian, if it is then we run the risk of bringing POV into the article.--JobsElihu 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you get into the "Anita Hill" controversity related to approval of Supreme court nominees you're getting into the argument about reasons for pro or con voting on the subject matter; And in doing so you're neglecting the controversity about whether senators were supposed to consider anything other than judicial qualifications in judging the candidates and that the previous nominee (Bork) was agreed to be eminently qualified but was voted down nevertheless.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * From SEPT. 16 on this talk page: "Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) (UTC))" Garcia never follows through on his promise to address the situation and ignores every comment in the RfC that supports cutting down and balancing the allegations section. In fact if you scroll through the talk page you'll find that RafaelGarcia simply went on adding more one-sided and largely irrelevant information. Are these the actions of a good faith editor? He's had the same problems on other articles. It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC))


 * The information currently in the article here on Wikipedia is merely an expanded version of the information that has been there for a long time, placed there by other editors. In contrast, when you first started editing the article, you sought to remove entirely the accusations of Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett, and others, and you tried to minimize the impact of Anita Hill's accusations. This was one-sided and dishonest. Shame on you. Almost all of the edits I made to the relevant section were using sources YOU provided; I just wasn't saying what you wanted to say. Thank you for doing the work for both of us. As to your request, I'm not required to follow your instructions, and neither is anyone else. If you want to be constructive, try working on material that will actually go into the article and stop crying about how people don't like your edits. I will try to respond once per day at night until my finals are over. Again, I never deleted your edits from this week; all I did was move them, because it is standard practice to provide one side of the story, then the other. You tried to immediately refute Anita Hill's story with a paragraph immediately after it, in the way of other testimony about what Anita Hill and Angela Wright allege to be Clarence Thomas's sexual misconduct and gross perversions, which makes for confusing reading. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sad that left and ignorance reigns so aften in a medium which started with great potential. That is why it is held in such low esteem by even left academia and even many high schools reject it as a source. That Anita Hill was a part of the confirmation is appropriate. That there were supporting and opposing witnesses is fine and a general statement as to the allegations is fine. But the lurid re-enactment and replay of the back and forth has little academic or other value. This apparently at one time was a bio of the man. Wikipedia has taken that away by overwhelming the man's life with one never proven relationship. If someone thinks this "coke can pubic hai" exposure has social redeeming value then why not put it in a setting where someone is interested in that subject; like the pornographic allegations against judges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.137.62 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the above is a very perceptive comment as to the current state of this article, and is germane to the current dispute.--Paul (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above is an anonymous comment from an IP that has never contributed to Wikipedia before for any reason, on any topic, so I feel it should not be given much weight. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced POV
I removed this. Considering, however, that Jeffords later left the Republican Party in order to caucus with Democrats, and thus give the Democrats majority status in the Senate, and considering that Packwood had a very liberal voting record, essentially voting with the Democrats on all major issues, the negative vote was essentially along party lines. I think the ideas expressed have some validity. And certainly Jeffords later leaving the party is a fact. But calling Packwood "liberal" is opinion unless you can cite some sources. The next leap from Packwood being liberal and Jeffords being independent meaning the vote "was essentially along party lines" goes a bit too far. Are all Republicans conservative and all Democrats liberal, so any liberal Republican is "essentially" a Democrat? If you can find a well-known pundit, historian, etc. who has made this point about the vote being essentially on party lines, we can use it. Otherwise it is original research simply opinion. Readin (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking
Do you think we could cram any more links to the article Roman Catholic Church in here? Sheesh. 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Witnesses and bad title under the "Allegations of sexual harassment" section
1) Don't you need to have some mention of the women who came into refute the charges against Thomas. The section mentions Thomas defense of himelf and also his "high tech lynching" remark but a lot of things happened after his remarks. Remember all the women who came in and defended him? Women who worked for him? Surely you don't mean to pretend that it was simply Thomas's use of the race card that turned the tide for him? Those women witness were very persuasive and very powerful. I remember first seeing Hill's testimony and remarking to my wife that Thomas was done. But, after Thomas's spirited response and after the witnesses for Thomas were heard, Hill pulled her other witnesses and backed away from the whole thing. Even with all the pressure put on her by Nina Totenberg!

2) Sexual harrassment was not alleged as I remember -- this term crept in to use later after Anita Hill started making the speech circuit -- and as I remember -- after Bill Clinton had real sexual harrassment problems. The original term used by Hill and everyone else in testimony was "inappropriate behavior". Lkoler (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Your points are absolutely correct. This page is repeatedly being corrupted by the inclusion of false statements in this section.  The perpatrators have taken out any mention of those whose testimony refuted Anita Hill's.  They also insist on stating that Angela Wright testified before the committee which is absolutely false.  In fact there is an ongoing debate about why she did NOT testify and how it might have affected the proceedings.  How do we stop these lies from being included in this article?  (Wallamoose (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC))
 * Hi, I'm just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference one way or the other on the article content, but do have some suggestions on how to proceed:
 * Keep all communications civil
 * Keep discussions focused on the article content, and not on the contributors
 * Keep discussions based on reliable sources. Never speak from personal knowledge, speak only from what is already published and can be verified
 * Don't engage in revert wars. Simply edit-warring to try and get a preferred version of the article, is never effective.
 * Build consensus on the talkpage. Produce sources, engage in good faith discussion with other editors.  If necessary, request comments from other editors.
 * See Dispute resolution for other suggestions on how to resolve the dispute. Remember, the ultimate goal is to produce a high-quality article, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Wikipedia.
 * Hope that helps, --Elonka 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Approach to Oral Arguments POV
The article states that Clarence Thomas is famous for being silent during oral arguments... because he spoke a different dialect when younger? This seems like a stretch. Even the quote from his book offers no insight - many people, including other Justices, were quiet children, became excellent "listeners", and now participate vigorously in the oral give-and-take. Also, this sentence: "Thomas is uncomfortable in the rapid pacing of oral argument discussions, the supposition being he prefers a more cerebral, quieter environment in which to carefully contemplate matters of constitutional law." The footnote goes to the SCOTUS blog, and isn't searchable, and thus the whole statement - or "supposition" is utter conjecture. Much of this paragraph reads like pro-Thomas political spin.

Compare it to the "analysis" section and criticism mentioned in the entry for Justice Anthony Kennedy: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy)

"Conservatives have generally been critical of Kennedy's Supreme Court jurisprudence, with some calling his rulings poorly-reasoned." "Conservative commentator Rich Lowry called Kennedy the Supreme Court's 'worst justice', writing that his written opinions 'have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution', and amount to 'making it up as he goes along.'"

And no such opprobrium cited for Thomas? Even though "clarence thomas" + "worst supreme court justice ever" gets over a thousand distinct hits on Google? If Justice Kennedy's alleged unpopularity is open territory, certainly the antipathy for Clarence Thomas deserves mention. Ecstasy426 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett
Angela Wright Sukari Hardnett never testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This article has contained false statements about their role in the process for two years, and it's time to finally correct the record.

Here's an interview with Wright on NPR. You'll notice the FACT that she didn't testify is discussed. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/100907.wright.html

Here's a government website detailing all the witnesses and the documents submitted during the Clarence Thomas nomination process. You'll notice that Angela Wright never testifies. Instead her phone interview by Senate staff is included in the record. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html

Here's another blog discussing what could have been if Wright had been called to testify. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Graves/Graves.html

Here's an article discussing what COULD have happened if Angela Wright had been called to testify and speculating why she wasn't. http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/womens_rights/003490.php (Wallamoose (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The article doesn't say Wright formally testified. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Now it doesn't. Please stop putting false information in this article.  I've been kind enough to provide you with several sources substantiating the fact that Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett DID NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE.  So why would you continue to try to include false statements about their role in his nomination?  Clearly discussion of allegations made by people who never testified at the hearings doesn't belong in this article.  There is a long witness list of people who DID testify and no mention of any of them is included in this article.  Please stop abusing your edit privilges.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The wiki article never said Wright formally testified. She told committee members; she didn't formally testify.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The version of the article you are trying to maintain says she "told" the committee AND says she "testified". Neither statement is true.  She was INTERVIEWED over the phone by SENATE STAFF and a transcript included in the record.  That is the extent of her involvement in the nomination process.  Why would you want to include information about her in an article that doesn't say anything about any of the witnesses that actually testified at the hearings??? Also, please don't delete my comments from the discussion page.  I haven't deleted any of yours.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

OK, the Wright section doesn't use the "T" word anymore. That's fine. You could have changed that yourself, but instead you tried to nuke the whole section, which is partisan and dishonest. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your own citation shows she was interviewed on the phone by Senate staff. She was never called as a witness.  She never testified before the committee.  She never spoke with committee members.  And there is no reason she should be talked about in this article, especially with gross mischaracterizations about her role.  There is no mention of any of the witnesses that gave sworn testimony before the committee.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright is completely on topic for the section on the allegations of Thomas saying those things to Anita Hill and Angela Wright. Her interview with senators belongs there and is backed up with many sources. If you want to add further information about Thomas's appointment, I believe you could add the info here, or even on the specific article for that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted any mention of the fact that Wright was fired by Thomas. Furthermore, several witnesses testified under oath before the committee that Angela Wright was fired for misconduct. Evidence was also presented that she had a history of misconduct at other employers. This is why she was never called as a witness. This is why she played no role in the actual hearings. I understand you have a personal bias against Justice Thomas as is made clear by your comments, but this is an encyclopedic entry about his career. Not your personal soap box. There is no discussion of any witnesses that actually testified at the hearings on Thomas's behalf. There is no place for discussion of tangential allegations by persons whose credibility issues prevented their being called as witnesses.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Your own allegations are entirely untrue. I added a sentence about Thomas's firing Wright; one did not exist there before today. If you have further information that could be added to the section, then add it in a contrary paragraph. You do not have the right to nuke the parts of the article on Hardnett and Wright. Wright's employment history is not at issue in the article; she is relevant only insofar as she is one of the many women in Thomas's life, from different stages of his life, who had to suffer his inappropriate remarks and actions. Furthermore, I have no personal bias. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected page
I have protected the page for three days. Please discuss the potential changes here rather than reverting them back and forth on the article. Useight (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To say that you've "protected" this page may be technically true, but what you've done is allowed personal bias to be maintained in an official entry on an important government official. I don't mean to be nasty or difficult, but why on earth would discussion of allegations by persons never called to testify at the hearings be included in an article about Clarence Thomas when there is no discussion of any of the many witnesses who actually testified on Thomas's behalf.  Other users have posted in the discussion section and tried to address this bias, but our efforts have been unsuccessful.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright's interview with Judicial Committee staff is entirely relevant to the section on allegations of Thomas's sexual misconduct. The interview is in the government record and belongs in the article. If you wish to add more information about other witnesses, you should do so, but that doesn't mean you can wipe out the info and citations about two women and their allegations in regard to Thomas. What we have in this situation is a pattern of misbehavior by Thomas, over years of his life, at different employers, and that news did get out. Just because Wright did not officially testify does not mean she does not deserve mention. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As you well know I have added this information repeatedly and you've chosen to delete it. But I'm happy you have agreed here that you will allow this information to be included in future edits.  I trust you will keep your word.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * You "added" the information by deleting evidence of Wright and others' statements and making assertions without citations. That passes no standard. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Angela Wright and Sudari Hardnett
The information on Angela Wright and Hardnett should include the fact that neither one ever testified and they weren't called as witnesses because of their credibility problems.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The wikipage doesn't say they testified. As for alleged credibility problems, do us the favor of pointing to the relevant page in that massive opinion piece. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * p.9 (the page the link is to) paragraph one. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The word "credibility" is not even on that page. You are dishonestly smearing these women. We agree that they didn't testify, though the relevant interviews are in the record.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose Jourdain
"Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." Rose Jourdain never testified.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ybf2u/Thomas-Hill/part3.html (witness list)


 * This is a personal page and is not a reliable source. If I were a student at UVA, I could have my own personal page up there saying that even you testified. RafaelRGarcia(talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record. Rose Jourdain never testified, as I suspect you are already aware.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove or alter the sentence, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment" in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section to indicate that Rose Jourdain never testified. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.


 * It would be dishonest and wrong to remove the sentence. Jourdain did not testify, but the article states she corroborated the statement and would do so publicly if necessary. Jourdain was interviewed by Senate Committee staff, and though the Hill occurrences predated the time period where the phrase "sexual harassment" gained popularity, Thomas's behavior is clearly consistent with the popular conception of the term. On pages 15 and 16 of www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/512-559.pdf Jourdain speaks of Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior" and Wright's becoming "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved." I will be adding these details to the article when it is unlocked. It is true that Jourdain did not "testify" formally; that is not the right verb. But she did relay and corroborate the story to Senate staff of Thomas's sexual harassment of Anita Hill. I am removing the editprotect template until you come up with a version of the paragraph that gains consensus. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As your statement makes clear there is no disagreement that Jourdain never testified. The sentence should be corrected to reflect this fact. Please don't remove my editprotect request again(Wallamoose (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * You are not following the Wikipedia rules. You have to have a specific request; ie, you have to rewrite the sentence. I am clearly disagreeing with you, so there is no consensus here. I removed the editprotect template and will continue to do so as needed. Rewrite the sentence in a way that achieves consensus. Removing the sentence is not agreed on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As you state in you edit 0:49, 16 Sept., "Jourdain did not testify". So there is no dispute over this issue.  Please state the edit needed to remedy the article so we can move forward and end this edit war.  (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * We can just change the verb "testify" to say that she was interviewed and said.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over why witnesses were never called
"Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony."

There is no evidence Biden stopped anyone from testifying. This is an allegation he denies. And there is an ongoing argument about why certain witnesses were never called and who made those decisions. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/440.pdf (Letter sent from Biden to Wright that details the agreement by all parties (including Wright) that the subpeona be vitiated. "I wish to make clear however, that if you want to testify at the hearing I will honor that request.- Jospeh R. Biden"(Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove the sentence, "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony" from the allegations of sexual abuse section as it is not true. See above.


 * You are misusing the editprotect template, as you have not achieved a consensus. Wright signed the document but it seems she did not do so freely. You are only presenting one side of the issue, and you are being dishonest. In this interview with NPR, Wright says more about not getting to testify. I will get back to this issue tomorrow. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's appropriate that you removed my editprotect request. You've only chosen to comment now after the editprotect request was made.  And your argument doesn't support keeping the sentence in the article as written.  While you provide Wright's argument that she claims she wanted to testify, I've provided verifiable court records that say otherwise.  As we've discussed previously, I know there is a controversy about why Angela Wright (and others) never testified.  That's why I've repeatedly tried to change or modify the statement that says Joe Biden made the decision.  He refutes that.  The letter from the trial refutes that.  And nothing in what you've said changes the fact that there's a controversy over why certain persons were never called to testify and it's factually incorrect to say "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony".


 * The factual truth is not established. With some quick googling, I found other sources saying that Biden did pretty much block the testimony. We have to reach consensus on the edits to be made. You are misusing the editprotect template. That is obvious. I am not able to respond to your comments immediately because I am a dual-degree student at top law and business schools; I am busier than you are. The fact that you added editprotect has nothing to do with it. Do not add another template again until you've reached consensus. This is impossible until tomorrow evening, when I'll be more free to participate here, as I have no class on Wednesdays.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please state your suggestion to correct the sentence so we can move forward to fix the article and end this edit war. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Deletion of any mention of Thomas's witnesses and evidence
The record is absolutely clear that no one ever testified alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas except Anita Hill. In fact Clarence provided documentation and numerous credible witnesses refuting any and all such claims, but the editors of this page have refused to allow any of this information in the article.
 * You have not tried to shore up Thomas's side of the issue; instead you have consistently tried to nuke the sections. As a result, your edits were reverted, not just by me.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html "...the fact that the four women who came to Washington to corroborate Hill's story were never called to testify..." and "What we know for certain is that Hill was left as the sole accuser".


 * The wikipage does not say other women formally testified. Thank you for the source on four women corroborating sexual misbehavior; I will add it to the wikipage in a few days. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your statement is false. No one ever testified that they could corroborate any of Hill's allegations.  And no one ever testified that they had been harassed by Thomas. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * The article you cited clearly states that four women went to DC to corroborate the story. They were not called on, but they still corroborate. I will add this to the article when it is unlocked. Thank you.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article states, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." But I'm glad you agree that it shouldn't so we can have this misinformation removed.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

problems with heresay and refusal to act
"Additionally, Ellen Wells, John W. Carr, Judge Susan Hoerchner, and Joel Paul testified that Hill had discussed Thomas's actions at the time she worked for Thomas and that she had characterized them as sexual harassment." Yet none of these professionals advised Hill to keep a record of the incidents. No evidence was ever provided to support her allegations and she contradicted herself on the stand. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Your partisan assertions are meaningless without citations. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My citation is the court record. It's been cited repeatedly. How many times do you want me to cite it? (Wallamoose (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * My own standard is to cite every single sentence I add to Wikipedia.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hill continued contact with Thomas after leaving job
It is an undebatable fact that (a) Hill had called Thomas a dozen times over the years, including one time when she left a message containing her hotel room number, and that (b) Hill originally tried to deny that these calls were made, but was forced to concede that they had happened. Now imagine the situation in reverse: Imagine that Hill had alleged that Thomas called her a dozen times at her apartment, that Thomas had denied doing so, but that phone records had then been produced showing that Thomas had definitely made those calls, and that Thomas basically had to admit that he was lying. Wouldn't that be exceedingly relevant in judging his credibility? (Wallamoose (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't see any citations for these assertions.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Court transcript. Are you kidding?  If you want to dispute the official court records please cite your sources.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I didn't say I was disputing; I said I didn't see any citations. Every sentence added to the article should be cited. Just saying the words "court transcript" is not enough either.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Testimony in support of Thomas
Nancy Altman from the Department of Education testified: "I consider myself a feminist. I am pro-choice. I care deeply about women's issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for two years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters, I could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once." She continued, "It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with -- dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues -- without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * This is fine, but should be shortened to a line or two. It is too long for Thomas's general article.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

contradictions in Hill testimony
Anita Hill initially denied any knowledge of a news report that Senate staffers had told her that "her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that would quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name." Senator Arlen Specter said that after consulting with her lawyers, Hill "flatly changed" her testimony "by identifying a Senate staffer, who she finally said told her that she was told that if she came forward, [Thomas] would withdraw . . . ." Senator Specter went on to say that "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury and that she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."

Another issue arose with respect to Hill's treatment of the phone logs that Thomas's secretary had kept for him at the EEOC. Those logs showed that Hill had called Thomas about a dozen times since leaving the EEOC for a career as a law professor, including one time when Hill called Thomas's office to notify him that she was visiting D.C.; in that message, she had left her hotel room number and phone number with Thomas's secretary. Hill initially told the Washington Post that the phone logs were "garbage," and then implied in her opening statement to the Senate that the phone logs had mostly represented the times when Hill had called to speak to Diane Holt, Thomas's secretary.


 * Under questioning, however, Hill admitted that "I do not deny the accuracy of these messages." Moreover, Diane Holt testified that if Hill had ever called to speak with Holt, that call would not have been recorded in Thomas's phone logs. Holt further testified that the phone log represented only the occasions when Thomas had been unavailable to take the call. In fact, Hill had additionally called Thomas on several other occasions that were not recorded in the logs because Thomas took the call.

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Hill also contradicted herself in attempting to explain the reasons for having called Thomas. At one point, she claimed that "the things that occurred after I left the EEOC occurred during a time -- any matter, calling him from the university, occurred during a time when he was no longer a threat to me of any kind. He could not threaten my job. I already had tenure there." But later in the same session, Senator Simpson asked her, "if what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name, when he left his position of power or status or authority over you, and you left it in 1983, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?" Hill responded, "That's a very good question. And I'm sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction. That is one of the things that I have tried to do today. I have suggested that I was afraid of retaliation. I was afraid of damage to my professional life."

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I think most of this material would be better off in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination. If you really like Thomas so much, you should lengthen the material on his jurisprudence; it's awfully thin. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether I like Thomas is irrelevant. I think it's important that a biographical article about a sitting Supreme Court Justice not serve as a political propaganda piece for those who opposed his nomination or disagree with his judicial philosophies. There is a lot of information on allegations against Thomas (many made by persons who never testified at the hearing), but no mention of the testimony, evidence and witnesses supporting Thomas and refuting the allegations included in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * None of the language in the article rises to a propaganda piece, and it hurts your credibility to make such brazenly dishonest claims. You are free to add other testimony, but you are not free to wipe out one side of an argument. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please state what evidence and testimony refuting Anita Hill should be included in the article to remedy the inherent bias of presenting only allegations. Let's end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC))


 * I see that you've largely copied your text in this section from this website: http://www.upto11.net/generic_wiki.php?q=clarence_thomas . If this was really the past state of the Wikipedia entry, then I can see why a separate article was created; all this material is far too long to include in Thomas's article. You have to create an abbreviated set of facts for this article that you can expand on in the nomination article. I am only interested in this particular article on Clarence Thomas in general, so you can edit like crazy over there.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Edits Needed in Allegations of Sexual Harassment section
The section goes into great detail about allegations made by persons who never testified at the hearings, but includes none of the tesimony or evidence refuting these allegations. Also, there is already an entry for the Clarence Thomas Nomination so this isn't the place to retry the JusticeWallamoose (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct that many of the details you've supported including in the article are more properly put in the Nomination wikipage, which is separate. However, any supposed bio page on Thomas himself would be remiss to avoid at least mentioning the allegations, so of course they should be included. You are free to add information on testimony refuting the allegations, but instead all you have tried, and continue to try, is to remove the allegations, or to improperly remove sentences wholesale. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I will respond to all of this tonight. Why don't you write the paragraphs you want to add for starters and then we can do this efficiently? Every sentence should be cited, though. I will write some stuff too when I am free tonight.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article used to be fairly balanced. I remember a comment from the talk page that expressed wonder that such a fair article had been found on Wikipedia. However, this discussion has gotten my interest, and I just re-read the article. The section on the sexual harassment allegations is now way too big (in conflict with undue weight) and entirely one-sided (does not have a neutral point-of-view).  I'll be interested in looking at the suggested new paragraphs. --Paul (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the section on Anita Hill and Co. is too big; it's just that everything else in general is so small. Thomas fans would do well to shore up what is such a thin article. I'll get around to it eventually myself but have been more in love lately with the justices of the 60s and 70s. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your reply that the balance problem with the article does not lie with the undue weight placed on the Anita Hill affair but is instead related to the paucity of other material is a remarkable claim which is easily refuted by looking at the articles for the other sitting Justices. The Thomas biography is the second-longest article of all of the sitting Justices and fully one-quarter of this article is devoted to "Allegations of sexual harassment" (926 words). Here are the stats:


 * Justice
 * Word Count
 * % of avg
 * Stevens
 * 3190
 * 117%
 * Scalia
 * 3956
 * 145%
 * Kennedy
 * 2592
 * 95%
 * Souter
 * 1939
 * 71%
 * Thomas
 * 3528
 * 129%
 * Ginsburg
 * 1757
 * 64%
 * Bryer
 * 1808
 * 66%
 * Roberts
 * 3496
 * 128%
 * Alito
 * 2366
 * 86%
 * }
 * The problem with this article is clearly that the Anita Hill section is too big in proportion to its importance in life of Justice Thomas. Indeed, I believe that this material causes the Thomas article to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standards where editors are cautioned to not let criticism or praise overwhelm the article. My opinion is that the "Sexual harassment" section needs serious pruning. The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination article covers this material in great depth, so the level of detail we have here isn't needed per Wikipedia summary style. Cutting out about 90% of this material will fix the policy violations without losing any material.--Paul (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Roberts
 * 3496
 * 128%
 * Alito
 * 2366
 * 86%
 * }
 * The problem with this article is clearly that the Anita Hill section is too big in proportion to its importance in life of Justice Thomas. Indeed, I believe that this material causes the Thomas article to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standards where editors are cautioned to not let criticism or praise overwhelm the article. My opinion is that the "Sexual harassment" section needs serious pruning. The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination article covers this material in great depth, so the level of detail we have here isn't needed per Wikipedia summary style. Cutting out about 90% of this material will fix the policy violations without losing any material.--Paul (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with this article is clearly that the Anita Hill section is too big in proportion to its importance in life of Justice Thomas. Indeed, I believe that this material causes the Thomas article to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standards where editors are cautioned to not let criticism or praise overwhelm the article. My opinion is that the "Sexual harassment" section needs serious pruning. The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination article covers this material in great depth, so the level of detail we have here isn't needed per Wikipedia summary style. Cutting out about 90% of this material will fix the policy violations without losing any material.--Paul (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this argument about length of discussion doesn't take into account Thomas's unique situation. We should be thankful that most Supreme Court justices DON'T have sexual scandals surrounding their appointments; Thomas did. It still colors how people see him; I saw Anita Hill talked about in relation to Clarence Thomas on CNN just two weeks ago. Furthermore, other Supreme Court justices who have lengthy controversies surrounding them also have plenty of space devoted to their troubles. For an example, look at the article for Hugo Black, who was on the Court for decades.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I also feel that the sexual harassment section is too big. If the people mentioned therein did not testify against justice Thomas, then their inclusion should be minimal.  Additionally, if another article exists covering this topic in more detail, then that article should be linked here, and, again, the sexual harassment section shrunk.Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not think the section is too big in the context of history and the man's legacy. One quarter of the article, actually, relatively speaking, is not bad.  The sexual harassment issue was the major issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in his nomination fight, and, I am afraid, the one thing most persons of my generation recall about Justice Thomas.  It was  major issue in the 1992 elections for the US Senate and the presidency, which first elected a large class of females to the senate ("The Year of the Women") and, arguably, was the tipping point for the election of the Clinton-Gore ticket.  The issue was recalled lately in Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House and the nomination of Joseph Biden for vice-president.  Sadly, as an attorney and full-time law professor, I can not name a single one of his judicial opinions off the top of my head. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What about ABORTION? Many people who followed the events are convinced the whole Hill scandal was leaked and fabricated to sink the nomination because liberals didn't want a court that might overturn Roe v. Wade.  Also there is: Affirmative action. The issue of qualifications.  Bar ratings. Civil Rights. Etc. Etc.User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC))


 * If the present biographical article on Thomas was the only article containing the Anita Hill material, arguments about undue weight would be less persuasive. However, there is an entire article devoted to the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which is where the details of this matter belong.  The Thomas biography should contain only a summary. The Encyclopedia Britannica covers the Hill matter in 90 words, one-tenth the size of what we have here.--Paul (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be shortened considerably. It is in contradiction to WP:BLP and also provides undue weight to an admittedly important part of his life. However, as a supereme court justice and a lightening rod of judicial controversy, I find it hard to defend the position that after all of his controversial and important deicisions from the bench, and all the relevent history he has, that this one scandal should account for 25% of the article. Perhaps someone can start a new article on the "Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Scandal" and write there to their heart's content, leaving a brief summary here.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a political dispute, and it seems that we have a Bush v. Gore situation here in terms of how votes are coming out. Political feelings are dictating voting whether to make the section long or short. I'm going to expand on the rest of the article as soon as the lock is removed, and then it won't be such a disproportionate part of the article. Arguments about word counts in the Encyclopedia Brittanica are irrelevant without knowing how large their entire article on Thomas is. Also, the fact that Wikipedia does a poor job with Supreme Court justice biographies, leaving them thin and sparse on information, isn't a reason to cut down on a section that's actually fleshed out. As it is, right now we're only spending two sentences on Sukari Hardnett and a few on Mayer and Abramson. Anita Hill and Angela Wright also only have a few sentences each. There isn't an overflow of information here. Conservatives not taking the time to add parts on refutations is not a reason to cut down the accusers. And the current length of the section is concordant with sections on other justices who have had controversy surrounding them.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I know I am something of a latecomer to this controversy, but RafaelRGarcia asked me to put in my two cents. I think that the section on sexual harassment in this article should be shortened, and the remainder of the properly sourced material should be moved to the article on the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination.  This appears to be a superior compromise solution.  --Eastlaw (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the need for a disputed section or unbalanced section tag?
I don't think it's fair that the disputed section of the article is being presented as is without any notice to readers. I suggest an unbalanced, or disputed section tag be added until it is remedied. It's not right that because of one editor's busy schedule and refusal to compromise with other wikipedia editors that fixes are held up indefinitely (see the above discussion for just how long and difficult it is to get even a simple change on a single sentence) while a section that's been vigorously disputed at least since March remains without any notice provided to readers. Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I am not the only editor who's reversed you, so I'm not the only person you need to reach a consensus with. You've also hampered progress for days by insisting on being completely one-sided, which just doesn't help anyone.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The way to balance the section is to find reliable soruces regarding Justice Thomas's defense - for example, statements by Republican senators. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions
I am adding the following facts to this or the Nomination article as needed:

Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, reporters for the Wall Street Journal, concluded in an investigative book on Thomas that “the preponderance of the evidence suggests” that Thomas lied under oath when he told the committee he had not harassed Hill. Mayer and Abramson say Biden abdicated control of the Thomas confirmation hearings and did not call Angela Wright to the stand. They report that four women traveled to Washington DC to corroborate Anita Hill’s claims.

According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas’ interest in and use of pornography, which "far exceeded what the public had been led to believe." However, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, the Washington Post dropped the story.

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't ignore the many editors that have requested the Allegations section be balanced and made more concise. Please fix what you've already added before adding additional edits.  Also, not every accusation by every author is worthy of inclusion in an article on Thomas.  Maybe you should start pages for these authors and include their allegations there!  I will be removing your "Early Years" sections as it has only one source and is biased. I will post it here on the talk page so you can fix it and then return it to the article.  You also need to fix the other problems we've identified and discussed extensively here before adding new material.  Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC))


 * What Early Years? Anyway, no, you can't remove whatever you want, or you're just going to start off an edit war. Just because you're unhappy with something doesn't mean it's biased. Reporters from the WSJ are a reliable source.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it seems you mean Early Reputation. That was taken from a book by a conservative news reporter, Jan Crawford Greenburg, and she's also a reliable source. You can't remove it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm going to remove the instance of "allege" and all its variances from the article, as it's an official Word to Avoid.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree to add in such material, although it should be balanced by the contemporaeous evidence on his behalf. 2008 is past the statute of limitations to re-try the 1992 sexual harassment case. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this article refers to the same Sukari Hardnett? I trust you will investigate and add any information that is appropriate. Thanks! http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2008/40a06ag.pdf (Wallamoose (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Protected
I have protected the article for one week. I counted 13 edits from Wallamoose and 16 from Rafael in just over an hour. I went through the events (kind of skimming, it was a lot to cover), and it looks like it is an edit war regarding (mostly) the location of a paragraph about Diane Holt and about a few citations. Let me first say the the location of that paragraph must be discussed on this page instead of warring on the article. As for the citations, Rafael says here that Wallamoose doesn't know how to cite properly. Well, he's trying to get the citations in there properly and if he did it incorrectly, WP:SOFIXIT, don't just undo each other's work. Rafael also claims here that Wallamoose is adding fact tags wantonly, apparently referring to this and this, but he does it himself here. Wallamoose, look carefully at what Rafael is doing with his edits. He was moving the contents of the disputed paragraph instead of simply removing it. A whole bunch of extra edit warring was done because of adding and removing information that was already in the article.

So, here's what has to be done. Wallamoose has presented some sourced information (and possibly some unsourced info, I haven't checked the citations). The sourced information should be added to the article after it is decided on this talk page which info is verifiable and should only be written in a neutral tone of voice. It must then be determined which location is best for the info. This is to be determined on this talk page. Include the citations. If Wallamoose can't do it correctly, then Rafael should do it. If neither can or wants to add them, place a fact tag instead. Useight (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I added fact tags because Walla cited an index page of many different testimonies. Walla, however, added citation tags for stuff that was already properly cited - newspaper articles and individual testimonies.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did he add a tag to that citation for a pdf page 442-511? An exact page number would be really helpful there. Useight (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourced information refuting Hill's allegations is taken directly from the Senate hearings and needs to be restored below Hill's claims where it belongs. RafaelGarcia needs to be banned. He refuses to compromise with the many wikipedians who responded to the RFC and have asked that the section containing allegations by persons who never testified and were never questioned by the Senate committee, should be greatly reduced or excised completely. RafaelGarcia has continued to abuse his edit privledges and has repeatedly removed the portions I've added that have been discussed (see above discussions) and which were not objected to. See edits (00:41) and (00:48) for example and has removed the unbalanced tag (01:02) unilaterally. He also removed my ref tags (00:46) These are just a few examples of his abusive activities. He has also refused to fix his citations which have been tagged for months.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Tagged for months? What are you talking about? You just tagged them yesterday. The only person who merits banning is you. You're crashing through Wikipedia like a bull in a china shop, making nothing but partisan edits. "Many" wikipedians did not respond to the RFC. I removed the "unbalanced" tag because you added info refuting the allegations - so why should it stay forever? I removed your ref tags because you need to cite to the specific documents, not to the html page that lists tons of different testimonials. I've already explained this to you, but you're complaining again to cause drama. Your edits are sloppy and you should take some time out to learn a few things. It's also standard practice to present one side of something, then the other. That's why I moved your new paragraph about Diane Holt. I didn't delete anything and I was following standard procedures.


 * Your citations are just way too unspecific. A reader coming across the article who sees a link to your html index page doesn't know which PDF to click on or which is relevant. I wasn't about to spend time looking for the PDFs and the pages myself. Furthermore, for citations that are already to the proper documents, if a page is missing, you should add the page number if you need to complain about it - not obliterate the citation entirely. This is dishonest, makes statements seem unsourced when they aren't, and makes more work for everyone else.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose obviously needs to be blocked from editing. He rampages through Wikipedia making nothing but partisan edits. He copies info from other websites wholesale; he's done so with Barney Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests) and his first edits to Clarence Thomas were similar. Pretty much any article he touches, he causes conflict (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gwen_Ifill). When he noticed citations to a book about Justice Blackmun by reporter Greenhouse, he rushed to look up articles about her to smear her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Linda_Greenhouse). He thinks Bill O'Reilly is a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests). He also refuses to learn the most basic formatting and protocol rules, which creates work for all of us. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your post is a clear indication that you are a troubled stalker. The information refuting Hill must go after the information about her in the article, not after a dozen paragraphs of your biased edits about persons never called to testify and with no balance or refutation of their claims. Several wikipedians have suggested cutting this section down and balancing it (see RfC above). Your citations have been tagged for more than a month as I stated. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))


 * What are you talking about, tagged for a month? I am asking for clarification, not for reiteration and lies, which is what you have been giving us. On second thought, please, do everyone a favor and just go watch more FOX News instead of wasting our time here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you look at the bottom of the article page you will see a broken citation tag. I didn't put it there.  It's been there a long time.  The broken citations have also been discussed here on the discussion page, as I recall, as has the lack of balance and need to condense the information you've added to the allegations section.  My suggestion to you would be to stop interfering with my edits, and focus on improving this or some other article.  I don't interfere with yours, except to correct factual errors which I have explained with posts here and properly sourced.  You've eventually been forced to correct you errors, but it's a grueling process as you refuse to ever admit your mistakes.  If you need to bring up an issue you can discuss it here or as a last resort add the appropriate tag (without deleting what's already there. Since the information I'm trying to add has been discussed ad nauseum here and been universally supported it seems your only problem is that this information contradicts your warped view (as you've indicated by repeatedly and inappropriately referring to Thomas as a Perv) as well as trying to include misquotes and improperly sourced material.  I would point out that this edit war started with you removing my entire edit wholesale when you failed to realize that I hadn't taken anything of yours out of the article.  But even after I corrected you, you continued your abusive edits and harassment.  Please stop.  As far as your inane claims that I plagarize from other websites, my entire post is sourced from the Senate hearing, unlike the smears and opinion you've added.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

The edits you've made to this article you brought in from a right-wing website wholesale, without changes; that site cited the Senate page and that's the only reason you know about it. You've since deleted the citation to that page, because you deleted all talk comments you made that you later realized were wrong. Every citation you tagged yesterday, I checked to make sure was still there. They all were, so your behavior is inappropriate. As to this issue that's supposedly been around for a month, I still don't know what you're talking about. Anything you deleted the citation for yesterday is actually still there. For my part, every single sentence I've added to this article has been cited with a reliable source, if not double or triple-sourced. I only used books (which don't become broken, and in general in every article I've edited or created I've almost always used books exclusively), except for last month, at which point I only cited the websites that came up in our discussion (hint: this means it is impossible that something I cited has been broken for months). I didn't delete any edits you made; I moved them. I don't see the need to continually argue with you and point fingers. Anyone who looks at your edit record will see what a partisan hack you are. From this point forward, I'll be happy to report your behavior to administrators, but I will only be discussing the article with you from now on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at (00:41) and (00:48) deleted my addition in its entirety. The rest of your conspiracy theories aren't worth discussing. My edit at 01:50 added citation tags to references that do not include links, page numbers, sources or referred to 50 pages of text (as I noted in my edit description). This contrasts with your removing my references completely in edit (00:46) and removing the unbalanced tag (01:02). I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies. Mind your own business and stop harassing me.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia was doing just fine without you, actually. I did delete your addition for a second, but only to move it. Not everything can have a link to it. Not all books or newspaper articles are online. That doesn't mean they're not valid sources. Your fact tags were simply invalid, and I won't allow such practices to continue. Remember, you're supposed to fix things, not just wipe out citations. I removed the unbalanced tag because once you make additions, I figure it's not so unbalanced anymore. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 00:41, 7 October 2008 Undid my addition of information.  That's a funny way of moving text.  Lie much?  (Wallamoose (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Do we really have to go over this again? I restored it in a different location a few seconds later. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I restored it after you deleted it. And your next edit was 4 minutes later at 00:45 where you attempted to move the paragraph, that you had previously deleted, to the very bottom of the section where it didn't belong.  Do you ever get tired of lying?  (Wallamoose (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC))