Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 3

Content quality is currently bad
Hi folks. Just a heads up from a reader: a lot (or most) of this article is offtopic. It also reads poorly (too much "John says Thomas is a broad thinker, but he's also been called a narrow thinker by Mary"), and some copy editing is needed.

For example, the section about him being a conservative spends as more time talking about what a conservative is as it does talking about Thomas' conservatism. The Stare decisis section gives Thomas two sentences, but it gives three paragraphs to a general discussion of alignment among other judges. There are four sections which start with "The online PBS biography of Justice Thomas by John Fox...".

This topic doesn't interest me much and I don't have much knowledge of this area, so I won't be the guy revising the article, but this article needs a start to finish review. Stuff that's not about Thomas should be moved to relevant articles. Wikipedia should not have fifteen separate discussions of voting alignment (one for each SC judge present or past of whom there's a medium length article). If it's info about the behaviour of the SC, then put it in the SC article and link to the SC article from here.

Hope that helps. Happy editing. Gronky (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of these criticisms, though I've found the article a bit difficult to improve. There is really no debate among reliable sources that Thomas is among the court's most conservative justices, whether you define that term judicially or politically, yet this simple and widely agreed-upon item cannot be mentioned without a lengthy paragraph of exposition from one of Thomas' aides about the nature of judicial conservatism. Several editors here feel that the online PBS biography contains inaccuracies, so that's why every sentence on it starts with "According to the PBS online biography by John Fox..." Heck, it was a bit of a battle to get any mention of Thomas' confirmation hearings into the WP:LEAD, despite the fact that it is the central component of any reputable biography of the man, including his own autobiography. But I digress. I won't be the guy cleaning it up either. MastCell Talk 22:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'm not sure I agree with all of Gronky's criticisms, though I can't say that it's a particularly well-written article, either. To my mind, the John Fox source is not very reliable and ought to be removed, but others have insisted on keeping it even though it contradicts more reliable sources such as statistics from the Harvard Law Review.

Gronky also says: "The Stare decisis section gives Thomas two sentences, but it gives three paragraphs to a general discussion of alignment among other judges." That doesn't seem correct. The section in question is as follows (I've numbered the paragraphs):

"I. The online PBS biography of Justice Thomas by John Fox states that Thomas 'has little or no respect for judicial precedent.'[62] However, law professor Michael J. Gerhardt asserts that Thomas has supported leaving a broad spectrum of constitutional decisions intact.[74]"

"II. Justice Thomas supports statutory stare decisis.[75] During his confirmation hearings Thomas said: '[S]tare decisis provides continuity to our system, it provides predictability, and in our process of case-by-case decision making, I think it is a very important and critical concept.'[76]"

"III. Among the thirteen justices who served on the Rehnquist Court, Thomas ranked eleventh for overturning precedent (as of 2008).[77] However, he urged overruling precedent more frequently than the other justices.[77]"

"IV. According to Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas is more willing to overrule constitutional cases: 'If a constitutional line of authority is wrong, he would say let's get it right. I wouldn't do that.'[78] Thomas's belief in originalism is strong; he has said, 'When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution's original meaning.'[79] Thomas believes that an erroneous decision can and should be overturned, no matter how old it is.[79]"

I do not see three paragraphs generally discussing alignment among other judges. Paragraph I is specifically about Thomas. So is paragraph II. Paragraph III compares Thomas to the other judges, without getting into specifics about who they are. And paragraph IV is specifically about Thomas again. So I frankly don't see what the problem is with this section, other than that it begins with the crummy Fox reference.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem, Gronky, is that there is a fundamental disagreement between editors of this article about virtually every aspect of the article. Both sides (assuming there's only two) believe, I think it's fair to say, that the other side is deliberately trying to skew this article to reflect their POV. The upshot is that the article's text is a compromise, and compromises are rarely elegant. As Ferrrlodge points out, for example, John Fox's article "is not very reliable and ought to be removed, but others have insisted on keeping it even though it contradicts more reliable sources such as statistics from the Harvard Law Review." Wikipedia, although it has many virtues, seems institutionally incapable of well-written, balanced, comprehensive articles on contentious topics. Justice Thomas is a contentious topic; everyone agrees that this article should be as good as it can be, but because various visions of what the best possible article is are at root incompatible, the goal isn't to make this article perfect, but rather, as good as it can be in the circumstances. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What "sides"? I don't see anyone even bothering to edit this article, much less taking well-defined "sides". Wikipedia actually has some remarkable examples of balanced coverage of contentious topics; it really depends on what sort of editors take up residence on an article, and how many eyes are on the subject. MastCell Talk 04:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course there are sides. You alluded to an example of such a division in your comment above: "it was a bit of a battle to get any mention of Thomas' confirmation hearings into the WP:LEAD," you wrote, "despite the fact that it is the central component of any reputable biography of the man...." Meanwhile, I (and probably Ferrylodge also, although I don't mean to speak for him) regard his confirmation hearings as being of little importance. It doesn't belong in the lead, in my view, although the consensus has gone the other way and I respect that. Nevertheless, that's my view; I think it unlikely that you accept that in good faith (after all, "any reputable biography" contradicts me, right?), and I think it's likely that you attribute my advancing that position to an assumption that I'm sympathetic to Thomas.
 * I also think you miss something important in saying that you "don't see anyone even bothering to edit this article...." I take that to mean, how can I say that this article's clunkiness is a result of a dispute over its content when no one's even actively editing it? But that forgets that the existing text represents a fragile consensus, and the lack of active editing (if indeed there is such) is far more likely to reflect a concern to avoid shattering the consensus with an unfortunate edit, returning us to the earlier edit wars, than to reflect a lack of desire to improve the article.
 * As to Wikipedia's coverage of contentious topics, I have never seen a single example of an article on a politically contentious issue that didn't descend into either edit warring or bias if one side gives up. At least, not while the subject was in the news; Nuclear Option and Unitary Executive are respective examples of edit warring and bias while they were the focus of a political firestorm. Now that these issues are out of the limelight (and a fortiori since, as a comment on Talk:Nuclear Option wryly noted yesterday, the political polarities have inverted), we may well see them become balanced articles. But when an issue on which we have an article is the subject of intense public scrutiny, Wikipedia fails. It might at least have a chance if, as a matter of course, we semi-protected such articles for the duration of the storm; that would at least limit the ability of non-Wikipedians to fire off those chain reaction edit wars. But when there are two sides to the story, some editors will try to beat the other side out of the article, they will often succeed, and to the extent they fail, the result will be a cumbersome compromise text. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If Britannica's article on Clarence Thomas might be used as a "measuring stick", I don't know that the article is that bad in its current iteration. Clarence Thomas United States jurist

born June 23, 1948, Pinpoint, near Savannah, Georgia, U.S. Main

Clarence Thomas, 1991. [Credits : Consolidated News/© Archive Photos]associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1991, the second African American to serve on the court. Appointed to replace Thurgood Marshall, the court’s first African American member, Thomas gave the court a decisive conservative cast. 

Thomas’s father abandoned the family when Thomas was two years old. After the family house was destroyed by fire, Thomas’s mother, a maid, remarried, and Thomas, then age seven, and his brother were sent to live with their grandfather. He was educated in Savannah, Georgia, at an all-African American Roman Catholic primary school run by white nuns and then at a boarding-school seminary, where he graduated as the only African American in his class. He attended Immaculate Conception Abbey in his freshman year of college and then transferred to Holy Cross College in Worcester, Massachusetts, where he graduated with a bachelor’s degree in 1971. He received a law degree from Yale University in 1974.

Thomas was successively assistant attorney general in Missouri (1974–77), a lawyer with the Monsanto Company (1977–79), and a legislative assistant to Republican Senator John C. Danforth of Missouri (1979–81). In the Republican presidential administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Thomas served as assistant secretary in the U.S. Department of Education (1981–82), chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC; 1982–90), and judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal District in Washington, D.C. (1990–91), a post to which he was appointed by Bush.

Marshall’s retirement gave Bush the opportunity to replace one of the court’s most liberal members with a conservative. The president was under significant political pressure to appoint another African American, and Thomas’s service under Republican senators and presidents made him an obvious choice. Despite his appeal to Republican partisans, however, his nomination engendered controversy for several reasons: he had little experience as a judge; he had produced little judicial scholarship; and he refused to answer questions about his position on abortion (he claimed during his confirmation hearings that he had never discussed the issue). Nevertheless, Thomas seemed headed for easy confirmation until a former aide stepped forward to accuse him of sexual harassment, a subject that dominated the latter stages of the hearings. The aide, Anita Hill, an African American law professor at the University of Oklahoma who had worked for Thomas at the EEOC and the Department of Education, alleged in televised hearings that Thomas had made sexually offensive comments to her in an apparent campaign of seduction. Thomas denied the charge and accused the Senate Judiciary Committee of engineering a “high-tech lynching.” A deeply divided Senate only narrowly confirmed Thomas’s nomination by a vote of 52 to 48.

On the Supreme Court, Thomas maintained a relatively quiet presence but evidenced a strong conservatism in his votes and decisions, frequently siding with fellow conservative Antonin Scalia. This alliance was forged in Thomas’s first major case, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), in which he joined Scalia’s dissent, which argued that Roe v. Wade (1973), the ruling that established the legal right to abortion, should be reversed. Thomas’s conservative ideology also was apparent in his opinions on the issue of school desegregation; in Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), for example, he wrote a 27-page concurring opinion that condemned the extension of federal power into the states and tried to establish a legal justification for reversing the desegregation that had begun in 1954 with Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. Because “desegregation has not produced the predicted leaps forward in black educational achievement,” Thomas argued, “there is no reason to think that black students cannot learn as well when surrounded by members of their own race as when they are in an integrated environment.”

Although the controversy surrounding his appointment dissolved shortly after he joined the bench, Thomas will perhaps always be measured against the justice he succeeded. Ideologically, Thomas and Marshall were stark contrasts, and throughout his career Thomas worked against many of the causes championed by his predecessor. As one of the most reliable conservatives appointed by Republican presidents, Thomas generally followed a predictable pattern in his opinions—conservative, restrained, and suspicious of the reach of the federal government into the realm of state and local politics. Brian P. Smentkowski


 * Alternatively, one can take a look at the Oyez, Official Supreme Court media, Clarence Thomas biography.


 * Here is a good collection of articles at Answers.com which suggest how we are doing, and possible areas for improvement. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Stan

Fox
This article includes the following source: Fox, John. “Biographies of the Robes: Clarence Thomas,” PBS (December 2006). It seems to me that the other sources are adequate without that one. Fox is used for the lead sentence in four sections of this Wikipedia article: Voting alignment, Frequency of dissent, Stare decisis, and Judicial review. In all four of those cases, the Fox sentence does not accurately summarize what's in the rest of the section.

The Fox piece is a brief, online tertiary source that relies on other work that Fox does not cite. The Fox piece was written hastily, and contains plain errors (e.g. "He [sic] decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority”). The only Supreme Court case that Fox mentions is Atkins v. Virginia, in which Thomas did not even write anything.  Fox misleadingly suggests otherwise, focusing on one small aspect of Scalia's opinion, and attributing it to Thomas.  This is a very lopsided and incomplete description of that case, not to mention being unrepresentative of the sum total of cases that Thomas has been involved with.

Fox has done some documentary work in the past. Per the NY Times: “John Fox, the producer of a 1984 documentary about the history of the Jews, has expanded it to a set of interactive DVD-ROM's.” However, I cannot find that he has ever done anything else of note, other than producing that PBS series and DVD.

Generally, Wikipedia articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Not only the publisher, but also the piece of work itself and the creator of the work, affect reliability. There is no indication that this Fox piece was reviewed or even proofread by anyone. Basically, the Fox piece is of dubious value, compared to the rest of the references that we are currently using.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be reasonable to reduce our reliance on that particular source. Let me ask a complementary question: what sources should we be using? In other words, can we come up with a list of notable, "reliable", encyclopedically appropriate biographies and sources to draw from? That might be a useful start. MastCell Talk 04:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The footnotes are a mess and need to be formatted. I'm not really an expert on Justice Thomas (as of yet), so I don't know if the refs are missing any important works that we ought to include.  I'll try to give it more careful consideration soon.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With respect, the footnotes are no longer "a mess" thanks to your yeoman work. I've put in some other sources, which might answer your questions.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * Thanks, your contributions are helping to put this article in much better shape.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Federalism
The judicial assault on federalism was spectacular. There is a very important decision of the SCUS which should be mentioned. It involved violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by a state. The court held that the 11th Amendment trumped the federal law. Don't remember the case, but this represents a sea change in federal regulation; and it is a classic war of the titans. The second example was the case that involved the federal power to regulate "navigable water" and associated wetlands. The court read this power narrowly, throwing into doubt the very assumption of power by the federal government. Offhand, I don't remember the names of these cases, but I am sure that Justice Thomas was an enthusiastic participant. I think that they deserve some specific mention. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Stan


 * Are you thinking of Alden v. Maine and Rapanos v. United States? The former was a prominent sovereign immunity case involving FLSA, and "11th amendment" is often used as a shorthand for anything related to sovereign immunity; the plurality opinion in the latter arguably meets the description of a "narrow" reading of "waters of the United States." But I can't imagine that those are the cases you have in mind, because in those cases, federalism prevailed - the "judicial assault" on federalism was defeated in Alden and blunted in Rapanos. (This isn't to say that federalism means "the state wins," although both those cases involved federal overreach into the state sphere that the court struck down.) Thomas didn't write a word in either case, however, so their inclusion would have to be carefully handled to avoid WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, or, frankly, in light of how you phrased the point above, WP:POV.
 * We would usually refer to the Supreme Court by the abbreviations SCOTUS or USSC. "SCUS" isn't quite a neologism, but it's ugly, and uncommon, see . - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FWIWS, I wasn't meaning to insult the court in my use of an unpopular acronym. I was aware of the other acronyms, thank you.
 * Otherwise, you found the cases and are right on all counts. So these would not be good examples.  FWIW, I think your use of the phrase "federal overreach" is not quite right, and is as objectionable as "judicial assault."  But neither of us was putting those phrases in the article, but were simply using them for purposes of an editorial discussion.  Thanks for finding the cases.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC) Stan


 * Thomas' partial concurrence/dissent today in Cuomo is worth a read, speaking of federalism, insofar as he seems to side with federal authority over the states (and contra Scalia's majority opinion, too!). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilkes
In the external links, we have this:

"*Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., Strange Cruel Justice (2003)& Too Few Voices Heard in Choice of Thomas (2003) & Open Letter Concerning the Invitation To Justice Clarence Thomas to Speak at the UGA School of Law Graduation Ceremony (2003) & Embarrassing Justice (2003) & I Accuse You, Clarence Thomas (2006) & A Rodent in Robes (2008). which originally appeared in Flagpole Magazine."

On the other hand, Wikipedia has this guideline:

"In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline."

I think it kind of goes without saying that something titled “Rodent in Robes” is derogatory and has no place here. External links should be kept to a minimum, and the seven links to this one author do not contribute significantly to this Wikipedia article. This Wikipedia article includes lots of scholarly non-derogatory articles criticizing Thomas, and if someone can find such a piece by Donald Wilkes then we can consider presenting it here, even though he has sought to silence those with whom he disagrees (e.g. several of the linked articles argue for disinviting Justice Thomas from speaking at the University of Georgia).

The linked piece “I Accuse You Clarence Thomas” is full of characterizations like “a lapdog of prosecutors, and a sock puppet of prison wardens,” et cetera. Similar material is in the piece “Embarassing Justice” (e.g. attributing to Thomas “a harshness of tone, a sarcastic meanness, an aggressive coldness”), and in the piece “Open Letter” (e.g. Thomas’s opinions have a “mocking, scornful tone”), and in the piece “Strange, Cruel Justice” (referring to “compassionless creatures such as Clarence Thomas”), et cetera et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * These are all just external links, correct? If so, you have my support to remove them.--Paul (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree.  For the record, my only involvement with these was to note their source.  The level of discourse is odious, and we ought not to be linking in an encyclopedia to it.  7&6=thirteen (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * 7&6=13 is right. Those external links were inserted by an IP (198.137.30.24) on October 23, 2008.  The IP was located at the University of Georgia.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gerber
I agree with Rafael's point that Gerber's book isn't really a biography, but the characterization of him as "conservative law professor Scott Douglas Gerber" is neither supported nor consistent with how the article refers to other professors. We refer to "law professor Michael J. Gerhardt," "law professor Ann Althouse," "Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson," "Professor Michael Dorf"; even Robert Bork is referred to simply as "a law professor." I have therefore removed the adjective, removing the sourcing problem and bringing the description of Gerber into compliance with every other academic whose work is cited in this article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Then I will remove Gerber's characterization of Toobin as liberal. He's an impartial journalist and should be treated as such. Examination of Gerber's work clearly shows him to be a conservative, and if you're pretending he isn't partisan, then why should we allow him to label others as partisan? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For one thing, because it is original research for us to examine Gerber's work and conclude that it shows him to be a conservative, while Gerber's claim that Toobin is a liberal (which, by the way, is patently obvious by itself - an "impartial journalist"? Really... Do you still believe in the invisible man, Santa Claus, and the tooth fairy, too?) is not bound by the limits of OR and is verifiable, at least as a statement of Gerber's opinion. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gerber's labels of Toobin are not the subject of the article. Don't press this issue; plenty of professors think Thomas unqualified, and lack representation. Gerber's conservatism is "patently obvious" also. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but we don't need to rely on OR for that, and letting Gerber's observation stand cretes no tension between the passage at issue and usage in the rest of the article. Instead, you're reduced to hiding Gerber's observation about Toobin behind an elipsis--and for reasons that aren't clear if we assume that you aren't motivated by a desire to avoid the impeachment of your primary source for this article by including relevant information about his leanings. In my view, the quote should be included in full absent good reason to abridge it. Nevertheless, I will give other editors have a chance to weigh in before taking any further action in regard to this within the article itself. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article presently includes this quote: "than liberal critics... are willing to concede." I support removing the ellipsis and inserting the actual words written.  I usually try to avoid using an ellipsis, because it is a notorious tool for changing the intended meaning of the person quoted, and even when an ellipsis does not do so, it raises the readers' eyebrows.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, surprise! The two conservatives who police this page agree! Anyway, Gerber's borderline not notable. He's at a third-tier law school, and you're citing what amounts to his blog. Besides which, plenty of you conservatives think "liberal" a bad word, so you're trying to discredit Toobin. He's a journalist, most of whom try to be impartial. And yes, I cite Toobin's book because I like to cite everything I add so there's no dispute. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Gee, I hadn't realized that WP:RS now requires a graduate law degree from the Ivy League to be cited in a Wikipedia article about a judge. Sounds a bit snobbish to me, and certainly not fair to folks like Kevin Merida.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (1) Findlaw.com is not a blog, still less "[Gerber's] blog." (2) You might want to be careful about criticizing which tier school someone is at when you evidently have yet to be taught what the verb "cite" means ("I like to cite everything I add" means "I like to point to or quote as an authority or example," not--as you mean--"I like to support everything I add with citations"). (3) your assumptions about what prejudices "we" must have provide thin support at best. Toobin is a reasonably good, reasonably well-educated writer who has time and again demonstrated that he can provide accurate reporting so long as the reader understands and corrects for his ideological blinkers. The correct response is not to exclude his views from this article, but rather, is to advise the reader of the dimensions of those blinkers to the extent WP policy permits. (4) I will certainly agree that most journalists try to look impartial. Some put on the mask more artfully than others, but it's in the nature of things that all are blinkered by their presuppositions; the only difference is that conservative journalists are checked by their liberal editors whereas liberal journalists are not. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! And, (5) Please cite the wikipedia policy that requires that a source satisfying WP:RELIABLE must also be WP:NOTABLE in themselves? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might find it more productive to whine about the "liberal media"'s conspiracy against the right somewhere else. I DID intend the first meaning, because I stick very closely to the words of the sources I cite. In contrast, you frequently characterize cases with nothing more to back you up than the raw text of an opinion. This is a bit more "activist." Obviously, findlaw.com as a whole is not a blog, but that page is little more than a blog entry by Gerber. Findlaw's Writ is a blog. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have a lot to learn about WP:SPS if you think findlaw.com qualifies as a "blog entry" by Gerber, and--in light of your hilarious observation that I "frequently characterize cases with nothing more to back [me] up than the raw text of an opinion"--even more to learn about law. You illustrate once again that your first year outside of the academy is going to be rough. I can't wait for Rafael's first argument. "Chief Judge Easterbrook, and may it please the court: the defendants insist on characterizing [the relevant earlier cases] based on nothing more than what those cases say." This will go well. I wish you much-needed luck with that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's very true - whenever I see an alteration or elipsis, I want to stop to look at the original, to see what's been changed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This issue isn't settled, and yes, Findlaw's Writ is a blog. I've asked someone else for an opinion. Simon Dodd, you spend so much time on Wikipedia, it seems highly unlikely you're a practicing lawyer or even have a regular job, so you'd do well to stop talking down to others. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I still disagree with this edit replacing words with an ellipsis, and I'll revert it since Simon Dodd evidently disagrees as well. An ellipsis is clearly not appropriate here, because the removed 3 words do not take up much space at all.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Findlaw is a commercial website with some original content as well as primary and secondary sources, and accepts advertisements. It can be a reliable sources, but parts are merely opinion.  I have no idea of Gerber's political stances. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has an article about Findlaw's Writ (website). It's a particular part of the Findlaw website.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Safford
Dodd and/or Lodge (mostly Dodd I think), in your attempt to make Thomas's opinion in this case seem reasonable, you deleted my summarization of the case and focused on factual details like the drugs involved. I am asking you to look beyond the details of the case to include the broader Fourth Amendment implications. I will be editing your treatment of the case if it goes unamended. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your original edit said:

In the case of Safford Unified School District v. April Redding, Thomas was the sole dissenting vote in regards to the strip search of a female high school student. Thomas found legal a search involving removing the clothes and shaking out the underwear of a 13-year-old girl. He cited the "considerable leeway" the Court had given school districts in previous Fourth Amendment cases.

I amended that as follows:

In cases involving schools, such as Morse v. Frederick, Thomas has advocated a return to the doctrine of in loco parentis, which conveys school administrators broad authority over students. His opinion in Safford Unified School District v. Redding illustrates his application of this deference to school authority in the Fourth Amendment context. After Redding was accused of distributing non-narcotic drugs in violation of school rules, school administrators searched her belongings. Believing that "students ... hid[e] contraband in or under their clothing," they then had her strip to her underwear, "pull her bra out and to the side and shake it, and to pull out the elastic on her underpants" to see what might fall out. Nothing did. Eight members of the court concluded that this "strip" search violated the Fourth Amendment; Thomas was the sole dissenting vote. All parties agreed that the school had "[r]easonable suspicion that Redding was in possession of drugs in violation of these policies," and whereas the majority believed this justified only the first search, Thomas concluded it "justified a search extending to any area where small pills could be concealed," and bolstered his conclusion with the "considerable leeway" the Court had given school districts in previous Fourth Amendment cases.

(footnotes omitted; see this diff ) All four of the points from your original edit were retained in my take (the case was about a strip search involving a 13 year old girl being asked to remove her clothes and shake out her underwear; Thomas found that search legal; he was the sole dissenting vote on this point; he cited the "considerable leeway" the Court had given school districts in previous Fourth Amendment cases). I think all four of thoese points are important, and I thought my take was a pretty good balance between context and brevity. The text has since been changed, not by me, and at risk of being too self-serving, I agree with you that it isn't as good in terms of focussing on those points. I would support going back my version quoted above. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my comment above, I have boldly created a clean diff between the article as it was until moments ago and my original edit of Rafael's addition so that we can see what the differences are easily: - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The present text is as follows:

"In cases involving schools, such as Morse v. Frederick in the First Amendment context, Thomas has advocated greater respect for the doctrine of in loco parentis, which conveys to school administrators broad authority over students. His dissent in Safford Unified School District v. Redding illustrates his application of this postulate in the Fourth Amendment context. School officials in the Safford case had a reasonable suspicion that 13-year old Savana Reading was distributing prescription-only drugs, in violation of school rules and state law. All of the justices concurred that it was therefore reasonable for the school officials to search Ms. Reading, and the main issue before the Court was only whether the search went too far by becoming a strip search. Eight members of the Court concluded that this strip search violated the Fourth Amendment, with Justice Thomas dissenting on this point. The Court's majority said there was no 'indication of danger to the students from the power of the drugs' even though they were prohibited by both school rules and state law; Thomas responded by saying that, 'It is a mistake for judges to assume the responsibility for deciding which school rules are important enough to allow for invasive searches and which rules are not” and that 'reasonable suspicion that Redding was in possession of drugs in violation of these policies, therefore, justified a search extending to any area where small pills could be concealed.'"

This is the product of edits by a number of different editors. What specifically does it leave out that should be included? I really do not think it is useful to elaborate about shaking underwear and bras. Simply saying that it was a strip search is fine, without getting into bras and undies and all that; those details are certainly not necessary in order to describe the legal principles involved.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree. In the example you give, I think it's very important to "elaborate about shaking underwear and bras"; without such a description, the use of the term "strip search" will naturally lead the reader to believe that this was an actual strip search, involving Reading being asked to strip down to skin. Ironically, I would have thought that if Raf is concerned about the passage "attempt[ing] to make Thomas's opinion in this case seem reasonable," he would be agreeing with you on this point. ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Eight justices characterized it as a "strip search". Justice Thomas wrote: "I would reserve the term 'strip search' for a search that required its subject to fully disrobe in view of officials...The distinction between a strip search and the search at issue in this case may be slight, but it is a distinction that the law has drawn."  This article should just say that it was a "strip search or the like" and be done with it, IMO.  Is this the only issue regarding the current version?  An important point here is that the 8-justice majority was basing it's conclusion on how dangerous the drugs were, and this should be included.  Also, I think it reads better to begin by stating what all 9 judges agreed about, and then saying how Thomas disagreed, rather than vice versa.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me what exactly Raf's objection is - it would be helpful if he would clarify. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue here for me is Fourth Amendment implications. Thomas is willing to go very far in this area, and I object to the coverage in this article being so fact-centric. What's more important is the principles behind his position. This is the article about Thomas, not Safford. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should keep unnecessary facts to a minimum (e.g. details about the strip search). But there's no way to discuss Safford without getting into some of the facts, because the 8-justice majority made a very fact-based distinction: they approved of a search, but not a strip search, and they would have approved a strip search if the drugs had been more dangerous.  Maybe this can be made more concise, but I don't think there's any way to avoid it altogether.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Timing of swearing-in
I have to take issue with this edit. The fact that Thomas' swearing-in was moved up ("rushed", "hurried") by a White House concerned about additional revelations is well-documented in reliable sources. I cited Strange Justice; both that book and Toobin's make similar points, in that by moving up the swearing-in, the White House pre-empted additional information which cast substantial doubt on Thomas' contentions at the hearing. Both books are reliable sources, and are used as such in the article.

I also don't think that the edit properly represents its sources. It claims that Thomas' swearing-in was held later than originally planned. However, the actual source notes repeatedly that the swearing-in was rushed by the White House, creating "friction" with its "unseemly haste", and that the White House tried to claim, against precedent, that the swearing-in made Thomas official. The second source used by Ferrylodge notes in its first sentence that the swearing-in was "hastily arranged" to "pre-empt" the official courtroom ceremony. It's inappropriate to use these sources to paint a picture opposite to that which they actually describe. Let's use the source more carefully. MastCell Talk 23:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I've edited the article somewhat while you may have only read the initial stuff. So, please check again. It's very clear that Thomas was initially scheduled to be sworn in on October 21, but that date was postponed due to the death of Rehnquist's wife. No dispute about that, right? And it's also very clear that the swearing-in would have been postponed longer but for a request by Thomas, right? And it's also clear that the swearing-in terminated journalistic investigation of Thomas's private life, right? I think further details are better left for the sub-article, where this matter was taken from the section titled "Authors supporting Hill's allegations". Importing more stuff from that section, without importing more stuff from the section titled "Authors skeptical about Hill's allegations" seems like it might further skew this article's balance. Here's the version I suggested:

"Thomas was sworn in on October 23, 1991 by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. That ceremony had initially been scheduled for October 21, but was postponed until October 23 due to the death of Rehnquist’s wife, and it would have been postponed longer but for a request by Thomas.[1][2]  The swearing-in cut short continued journalistic investigation into Thomas’s private life.[3]"

"[1]“The Thomas Swearing-In; A Festive Mood at Thomas Swearing-In,“ New York Times (1991-10-19)."

"[2]Greenhouse, Linda. Thomas Sworn in as 106th Justice,” New York Times (1991-10-24)."

"[3]Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (Doubleday 2007): “since Thomas had been sworn in, the Post decided not to pursue the issue and dropped the story.”"

Ferrylodge (talk) 23:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources (Strange Justice, The Nine, and the two Times articles which you cited) collectively say:
 * Thomas underwent an unusual (though not unprecedented) swearing-in prior to his actual courtroom ceremony.
 * The swearing-in was "hastily arranged", "rushed", etc (terms used in reliable sources) at the direction of the White House; per Strange Justice, they were driven by concern that additional damaging revelations about Thomas' private life would be forthcoming and didn't want to risk waiting till November 1.
 * The White House tried (presumably without success) to assert that Thomas became a Justice as soon as Bush signed his commission, contrary to the law (per one of the Times articles), again demonstrating haste to get him seated.
 * Shortly after Thomas' swearing in, the Post received several pieces of information which potentially corroborated Hill's story, and cast substantial doubt on Thomas' assertions under oath. The paper's editors chose not to further pursue the story since Thomas had already been sworn in.
 * All of those things are supported by reliable sources. Are you disagreeing that those specific points are made in the sources you and I have compiled? Are there equally reliable sources which present a different view of the swearing in? I'm not about to get into a revert war with you, but I'm very concerned about your representation of sources in this instance. Your proposed text fundamentally misrepresents the sources - you make it sound like the swearing-in was "delayed", when in fact all the sources agree that it was rushed, hastily arranged, etc at the insistence of the White House. Do you see my concern? MastCell Talk 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's very significant that there was indeed a very unusual delay caused by the death of the wife of the Chief Justice. That's not misrepresenting anything.  It's a plain fact.  What Thomas and the White House did was to reduce that delay.  It's not as if Thomas was sworn in faster than other justices, and we should not give the false impression that he was.  The text I suggested does not leave out that the swearing-in cut short the sordid, disgusting investigation into what videos Thomas had been watching.  And that investigation is detailed in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. You're talking about what you find significant, or sordid. I'm talking about what the cited reliable sources describe, and what the sources find significant. The sources indicate that the White House was in a great hurry to make Thomas look "official", even resorting to questionably legal arguments. They also note that the White House acted out of concern about additional skeletons in Thomas' closet. Finally, they note that shortly after his rushed swearing-in, additional revelations came to light but were not pursued because of his status as a sitting Justice. Which aspects of the whole affair are "sordid" is in the eye of the beholder, but has no bearing on an accurate and honest representation of the content of the cited sources. MastCell Talk 02:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because something is supported by reliable sources doesn't mean it should be included. See WP:UNDUE. An article should be "an accurate and honest representation" of its subject - the inclusion vel non of particular claims or sources is determined by its value against that goal. (And, by the way, it's somewhat dubious that these points qua facts are supported by reliable sources; a source may be reliable for purposes of "so and so claims X" while not being reliable for purposes of "X is true.") - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * These aren't opinion pieces. When the New York Times says something happened, we usually relate that it happened. If it didn't happen, then the Times would presumably be willing to print a correction or retraction. WP:UNDUE is a separate issue, and possibly a valid one. Is the hasty swearing-in and the subsequent ending of journalistic investigation notable and relevant here? I'd suggest that the level of detail (1-2 sentences) is in keeping with the length and depth of the existing coverage. It may be more appropriate for the sub-article (Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings); that could be a subject of discussion. MastCell Talk 19:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mastcell, both of the cited New York Times articles described the fact that the swearing-in of Thomas was postponed. Why is that not worthy of mention in this Wikipedia article?  And please note that the draft I provided above does indicate that Thomas was anxious to be sworn in, and does indicate that his swearing-in ended investigations.  Let's keep WP:Summary style in mind here too; there's a sub-article that can provide further details.  (And I never meant to suggest that either this article or the sub-article should say that the cancelled investigation was "sordid".)Ferrylodge (talk) 15:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Ferrylodge's edits hide crucial facts about this matter, and essentially hide the fact that the sexual allegations made against Thomas were true. Because of this, they are slanted, and MastCell's content should be included. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Were you in the room with Hill and Thomas at the EEOC?Ferrylodge (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I edited the article to address MastCell's concerns. I am convinced that Strange Justice's findings deserve inclusion. I have a copy of the book, also. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed an inaccurate summary of what is in the sub-article. The 3 WaPo reporters did not corroborate that Thomas harassed Hill. Had they done so, it would have been published. All they did was find info about Thomas's private life (e.g. allegedly renting some porn flicks).  WaPo decided at the time that it wasn't worth publishing, so I have difficulty seeing notability all these years later.  It's in the sub-article, and per WP:Summary style it does not belong here too.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anita Hill Allegations section - Sexual Harrassment Allegations
I weighed in on this before and I still don't like the terminology used here:

"Hill, an attorney, was then called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas had subjected her to inappropriate harassing comments of a sexual nature."

This still leaves the reader's mind to hear "Sexual Harassment" in her allegations. This must be intentional on your part. If she used the term sexual harassment or even harassment or harass, then please cite a reference. I don't think there is one that is contemporaneous with her allegations before the Senate. Please remove the word "harassing" from this paragraph — unless you can cite a reference that is not ex post facto. Also, please prevent any future insertions of this type of language in this article. Any use of this term must be on Hill's page and should clearly indicate that it was way after her senate appearance. My best guess is that it is in aid of her speaking circuit fees and that's why there is so much confusion about it: many Wiki people may have heard her give her speeches and simply conflated these later speeches with the allegations she laid before the Senate.Lkoler (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources generally describe the allegations in terms of "sexual harassment" or, if you prefer, "sexual misconduct". Wikipedia follows the content of reliable sources. Ample references are given in the article, though we seem to be committed to limiting those describing notable but potentially unflattering aspects of Thomas' biography. I am not aware of any Wikipedia policy mandating that we use only immediately contemporaneous terminology in preference to more retrospective wording. Perhaps you should consider whether such a policy would make sense if applied uniformly, rather than only to articles where you have a strong personal political viewpoint. MastCell Talk 19:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This has nothing to do with a general policy question or a "general source". It has to do with a specific fact of history. The section I am talking about is making a statement of Hill's allegations at the time of the Senate investigation. The terminology is incorrect and biased against Thomas. I believe it is written intentionally to promote a bias against him. I only ask for a reference to prove me wrong. Otherwise, you must correct the record in the sentence I reference above. It is flat wrong to use the word harassment and it is prejudicial to him on the very point that is in dispute, and the very reason that his name has been drug through the mud. Unsubstantiated allegations against a supreme court justice are bad enough without Wikipedia's adding to them. We must all live up to the high-minded policies that Wikipedia sets forth. Prove it or take it out.Lkoler (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm generally a believer in teaching people to fish, rather than handing them a bucketful of sushi every time they make a insulting and agenda-driven demand. Try this: go to http://news.google.com/ and enter "clarence thomas sexual harassment". Then limit your search to the year 1991. Examine the results. When you're done, come back and let me know whether any contemporary sources used the term "sexual harassment" to describe the substance of Hill's allegations. MastCell Talk 22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The onus is on you, I'm afraid. You keep missing my point — I hope not intentionally. How contemporary sources characterize Hill's testimony is not the issue. The issue is whether Hill used this highly inflammatory term in her TESTIMONY before the Senate committee. Is this clear? The sentence in dispute here says "she [Hill] alleged that Thomas had subjected her to inappropriate harassing comments of a sexual nature". Prove this if you can — "harassing" has a specific meaning and she never used it. The fact that that term is in the article is evidence of extreme bias. Your appeal to "general sources" or to "contemporary sources" makes it look like you don't want to evaluate her testimony. I'm sorry if I didn't use this crucial word "testimony" before. I have no doubt that Nina Totenberg, for example, contemporaneously used all sorts of sordid words to describe the many lies by Hill. No debate there. But this won't support the claim that is made in the offending sentence. If you want to use contemporaneous sources' statements and what they alleged, then rewrite the sentence to say it this way. Otherwise, I'm sorry but it is inaccurate and highly prejudicial as it now stands. Lkoler (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like we're in agreement that numerous reliable sources, both contemporaneous and modern, describe Hill as alleging "sexual harassment". That actually answers the relevant question, and affirms that the description is appropriately in line with Wikipedia's policies. Please take a look at them: verifiability, no original research, and the neutral point of view are good starting points. MastCell Talk 23:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I said "I have no doubt..." That is not an affirmative statement that I know of such claims. With the Left, one can "have no doubt" about almost any lie nowadays. That's not the same as wading into those sewers and confirming such things. Linear thinking seems to be impossible here. Just stay on subject and we can get through this. Something tells me that you don't want to touch the subject of what Hill actually said — what she alleged. You steadfastly ignore it. Why is this? Finally, Wikipedia's high standards require us to fix mistakes that are in the record not to propagate them. You may wish that Anita Hill had just come out and accused Thomas of sexual harassment, but she didn't. That's all there is to it.Lkoler (talk) 00:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, we are not in agreement. Why not just formulate the sentence the way you just said instead of "she alleged". She did not allege harassment.


 * The problem may be that you've buried a real, potentially legitimate concern about a specific content issue in layers of personalized rhetoric and bloviation about "the Left" and NPR's "sordid" attacks - all of which leave one with the impression that you have Wikipedia confused with the frothier nether regions of the conservative blogosphere. Here's a idea: propose a specific change to the article content, without any personal attacks. I can't promise anything, but it will probably be more effective, or at least more pleasant. MastCell Talk 00:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

While User:Lkoler is certainly right about the burden of evidence in the context of WP:BLP, it seems to me that this was really a problem of sourcing - not whether there are reliable sources, as user:MastCell suggested, but whether those cited are adequate to support the harrasment charge. user:Ferrylodge's last edit has just obliterated that problem, to everyone's satisfaction I take it. Hill alleged harrasment; she said so in a reprint of a primary source in a secondary source contemporaneous to the event. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please consider rewriting this sentence for two reasons. 1) This riveting testimony was the most incredible political theater that many of us witnessed in our lifetimes. I certainly believed her until I heard Thomas' testimony and that of the witnesses that he brought forward. The whole story is complicated and these meandering and obfuscating replies simply must be brought out in some way — they are part of the story. It's important and the whole story hangs on her credibility as compared to his. It is unfair to not air this accurately on the biography of a supreme court justice. 2) It's very interesting that my request for a simple reference was so hard fought and badly reasoned by MastCell. Read the silly non-responsive replies. MastCell's evidenced prejudice on this subject might show what has been done in the mainstream press on this issue. MastCell only knows the one version that was driven home by the mainstream press. Mastcell didn't know the details but simply believed what was told. The actual testimony was printed once but the negative descriptions of Thomas by the mainstream press were printed many times. Here is a chance to straighten out this story and give future readers a chance to see why it drove passions so wildly on both sides of the political spectrum. Here is my suggested change to the sentence that reads: "Hill, an attorney, was then called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas had subjected her to inappropriate harassing comments of a sexual nature." With this: "Hill was then called to testify at Thomas's confirmation hearings. There Hill alleged that Thomas subjected her to inappropriate comments of a sexual nature. During close questioning she evinced discomfort in making a legal claim of sexual harassment, although in other venues she did claim this." Perhaps a reference to the October 7, 1991 FBI interview?Lkoler (talk) 06:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I know English pretty well - and that reference is at best ambiguous -- especially when you read the rest of her testimony on this subject. You must realize that this deliberately complicated and obfuscated testimony of Hill's is done to prevent making the claim of sexual harassment to the committee, which is my most important point. She hides it behind the words "legal claim". She clearly seems worried about perjury or some other thing that she had promised or been coached on. And, though she knew what was wanted by those who forced her on to the public stage, she wouldn't commit herself in her testimony to this committee.


 * It would probably be better to get into the nitty-gritty at Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination. This article merely summarizes what's there, so if we change what's there then it might be possible to change what's here.  And why omit that she's an attorney?  And where did she make a legal claim of sexual harassment?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Attorney: it seems irrelevant for this charged sentence, but I realize that one's profession is often attached to newly introduced characters. So, I guess I would suggest moving it up one sentence where she is first introduced, as in: "...an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney, who had worked for Thomas..." This is where it belongs. Legal claim: I guess you're right, I wrote that clumsily. But, my reason for mentioning this is to show how she skirts the issue -- ambiguously says that she chose not to make a legal claim, but always insisting that it might be sexual harassment, but that she was hoping that the committee would make such a claim for her. So, I should amend my suggested re-write thus (at the end of that sentence): "...legal claim of sexual harassment, but in spite of this evasive testimony, in other venues she did claim that she was sexually harassed." Hence, my mention of the October 7, 1991 FBI interview. Lkoler (talk) 09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion, but I hope this suggested change is considered on its own merits.
 * I moved the word "attorney" to an earlier sentence. However, I don't favor your other changes at this point, because they're not supported by reliable sources.  Cite some sources, and your changes will be considered.  The best place to do this would be at the sub-article, not this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Goldstein
Tom Goldstein in particular and SCOTUSblog generally are recognized as experts in the relevant field. His assesment is relevant, reliable, and stays. The removal is undone. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Disagree. The quotation in particular is flattery, entirely opinion, not encyclopedic, and not tied to any specific events. If I pulled a Scotusblog post slamming Thomas, you'd be up in arms. That quote has no place in the section or article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's hardly flattery; Goldstein is (and has made it repeatedly clear that he's) a critic of Thomas. That's part of the reason the quote belongs: it's an admission against interest for a liberal Thomas critic, coming from someone highly regarded as a court watcher in a position to know.
 * To be sure, SCOTUSblog is, as the name suggests, a blog. But you are misapplying WP:SPS if your theory is that it precludes the inclusion of Goldstein's assesment. The concern underlying WP:SPS is, expressly, that "[a]nyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason," emphasis added, self-published sources such as blogs are frowned upon as sources. But it would be ludicrous to pretend that a Supreme Court advocate and court watcher as esteemed as Goldstein is not an expert in the relevant field. And as SPS confirms, "[s]elf-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article"--(Goldstein is)--"whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" (it has been; indeed, he was wheeled out as a court expert on The News Hour tonight). The source is reliable, the material is relevant, the suggestion of undue weight is preposterous (the article has over 7000 words exclusive of footnotes; the disputed quote is 96 words directly relevant to the section in which it's quoted), and the material accordingly stays. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The material is NOT "directly relevant;" it speaks to Thomas's career as a whole, while the section is about his latest years. It's also overlong, and there are no opposing points of view. If you wish, it could be abbreviated and mentioned where the article talks about the forcefulness of Thomas's views; it's much more relevant there. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That claim stretches the presumption of good faith past breaking point. If your objection were really that you view it as "speak[ing] to Thomas's career as a whole, while the section is about his latest years" (which is a dubious characterization), you would simply move the quote elsewhere instead of deleting it. It isn't overlong (as mentioned above, it's less than a hundred words directly on-point), and it the absence of a contradicting view is irrelevant (WP:NPOV is the standard, not the Fairness Doctrine). Your goal is to keep it out of the article entirely, for obvious reasons: it's damaging to the narrative you want to put forward when people you can't dismiss as Thomas "supporters" contradict your view. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't know anything about Goldstein's political views, and looking into them is OR, remember? That's totally against WP policy. Also, the NPOV policy requires balance and an impartial tone, neither of which are in that quotation. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:03, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to look into them or do OR: Goldstein says explicitly in the quote that he "disagree[s] profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions." That's all that is required to validate this as an admission against interest, and the quote's status as such is not even the only reason to include it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't a reason to include it at all. What WP policy says statements "against interest" are more deserving of inclusion? I suppose it could go in the article on Goldstein himself... RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm kind of leaning toward RafaelRGarcia on this one. Generally there ought to be a really strong reason to cite a blog, and this Goldstein quote seems to be more opinion than information.  It's a close call, but I'd leave it out for now.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This and the discussion about Safford above really belie Raf's plaintive wail that you and I "are both conservatives in agreement about most everything" ;) - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 05:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I sought additional opinions on this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard. user:John_Z concurs that "Scotusblog is reasonably reliable, even for BLP's, with attribution, see its article for its notability and reputation." But points out that it's moot: Goldstein's post was also published by The New Republic,, and that is undisputedly a reliable source. Now that the sourcing is beyond dispute, I think we should put the quote back in. If Rafael wants to add a quote to "balance it out" - his novel Fairness Doctrine take on WP:NPOV - he is at libety to. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's in New Republic, that's a lot better. I still think this article should try to stick more to facts rather than opinions, but I won't remove it if it goes in.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I can't put it back in at the moment without risking 3RR problems or edit warring accusations. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Coming in a little late...I don't know if the entire quotation is necessary (undue weight), but a mention/summary of Goldstein's opinion certainly is. As for the RS issue...there's no doubt that this is a reliable source for what it's being used for. RS and SPS are policies that are misunderstood and frequently cited incorrectly, but the truth is WP:SPS is very clear in saying that blogs written by experts in their field are reliable sources for that field&mdash;and for saying what Goldstein thinks about something, no source is more reliable than his own mouth. So, long story short, RS is not an issue here, the only issue is how much weight this should get (ranging from a full blockquote, like Simon Dodd has added, to no weight at all, which is what RafaelRGarcia was arguing for). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't agree that it's undue weight. WP:UNDUE embraces both quantitative and substantive considerations, neither of which are implicated here. Quantitatively, the full quote is just under a hundred words, a drop in this article's 7000+ word bucket. Substantively, Goldstein's view is important for the reasons given above - it is at once the view of a regular practitioner before the court, the assesment of a widely-respected court watcher, and an admission against interest to the extent that Goldstein strongly disagrees with Thomas.
 * Moreover, consider the difficulties of chopping it up. What should go? The statement that "[n]o other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking" as Thomas? That's one of the main points. Removing the statement that there is an irony in the "public perception, rooted in ignorance, that he is the handmaiden of other conservative Justices, particularly Justice Scalia" is the light by which the other points are thrown into sharp relief. Removing the statement that Goldstein "disagree[s] profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions" removes the perspective of the author from the reader's consideration, and blunts the force of the assesment. And removing the statement that "if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice" removes Goldstein's principal conclusion. If you think the quote should be truncated, what ought to go?
 * I suppose that we could cut the observation about Scalia, leaving us with "No other member of the Court is so independent in his thinking [as Thomas] ... I disagree profoundly with Justice Thomas’s views on many questions, but if you believe that Supreme Court decisionmaking should be a contest of ideas rather than power, so that the measure of a Justice’s greatness is his contribution of new and thoughtful perspectives that enlarge the debate, then Justice Thomas is now our greatest Justice." But how is that better?
 * I appreciate that we should always look for compromises that improve the encycop&aelig;dia. But we should also recognize that there are situations in which compromise is either not possible, or detracts from the encycop&aelig;dia. This appears to be such a situation. It is pellucidly clear that Goldstein's assesment belongs in the article, in part or whole, and because it is hard to see how the quote can be included only in part, it follows that it must be included in whole. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just keep in mind that you may be opening the door to something that you may not really like. The more pro-Thomas opinions go into this article, the more pressure there will be to include anti-Thomas opinions.  If this article is to remain (or become) stable, it may therefore be appropriate to stick more to facts than opinions.  This is merely a practical consideration, not necessarily related to any Wikipedia policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If Goldstein - or someone of equal stature (which does not include any reporter) - has a comparable assesment about Thomas, that might be included as a counterpoint. I understand the concern, but I think that the door is already open (the Orlando Bloom stuff, for example), and can later be closed. I think we should review what materials are offered for inclusion and see what there is. If I am shown wrong, I will later support removing both this addition and those implicated also. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I maintain that this block quote has no place in the section or even the article. I'll be adding a balancing anti-Thomas opinion soon. The quotation needs major truncation at the very least... it's too sweeping in its characterization of the public perception of Thomas, for example.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rafael, how about if we get rid of Tom Goldstein and also get rid of Orlando Bloom. Will that take care of the matter?Ferrylodge (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You have his name wrong. And the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm not trying to remove all opinion from the article; it's just that this quotation has undue weight. It seems some of you are loath to keep this article balanced. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given that Ferrylodge went on the record against having the Goldstein quote in the article, you might want to temper your criticism of him, Raf, since he's the only ally you have on this point. As to the sweep of Goldstein's quote, talk to Tom. He said it, his opinion is singularly notable and easily verifiable, and it belongs here. Any source you add will be scrutinized carefully for weight and bias; the opinion of an assistant professor of political science at nowheresville community college that Thomas is a bad apple will be deleted. Ferrylodge's point that the article should focus on facts is well-taken as a general rule, I would simply make exceptions for people who are so notable and clearly expert on the subject. Thus, Linda Greenhouse's opinion of Thomas doesn't belong in here, but that of Stephen Shapiro or Erwin Chemerinsky may. That's the bar for you to clear. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to see a "nowheresville" professor's comments, you won't have to look far. Just look at Gerber's quotation in this article. Don't use language like "only ally" when it's just three people talking, two of which are rather rightist. There's no problem with Greenhouse being cited, according to WP standards. Did you remove her? I'll have to add her back. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the opinion of Professor Wilkes, tenured law prof at UGA and an expert on criminal procedure. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect that you are mistakenly taking a parody seriously. If it isn't a parody, it certainly looks like one, and either way might not belong in the article; see, e.g., WP:FRINGE. We don't have to reach those questions, however, because it runs afoul of WP:SPS and googling it finds no sources other than his own website. It is therefore removed per SPS. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:20, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it isn't parody? After all, the same guy said that "Justice Thomas's participation in the scandalous Bush v. Gore decision is, without more, sufficient to render him unworthy of being invited to give the graduation speech" . I would think that accusing the entire Supreme Court of being "unworthy" to give speeches on the basis of participation in a decision one didn't like is decidedly sufficient to push someone out to the fringe, cf. Sibley v. Breyer et al., No. Civ. 06-107 (RMC) (D.D.C., Oct. 11 2006), although there is a lot more of the fringe to traverse thence, see . - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not parody. Wilkes is a tenured professor at UGA and has just as much of a place in this article as Gerber or any other professor. Yes, it's on his website, but it also ran in Flagpole magazine. Re-added. Both Goldstein and Wilkes are legal experts. SCOTUSBlog is Goldstein self-publishing, so it should be removed if Wilkes is. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Your argument about SCOTUSblog as an SPS had little enough relevance back when it was rejected by the RS noticeboard (see my 16:30, 4 July 2009 comment above (SCOTUSblog determined to be a reliable source)), but it has no relevance whatsoever now that Goldstein's comments have been reprinted verbatim by The New Republic, inarguably a reliable source. If you removed the SCOTUSBLOG cite, the quote would still be adequately sourced. Thus, whether "SCOTUSBlog is Goldstein self-publishing" or not, the quote from him can't be removed on the basis of WP:SPS.
 * As to Wilkes, Goldstein is an expert on the Supreme Court, as a practitioner and as a court analyst. Wilkes, according to his faculty profile, is a criminal procedure professor. That doesn't make him an expert on the Supreme Court any more than it makes him an expert in antitrust. But that's neither here nor there yet, because you haven't fixed the sourcing problem. I have no idea what "Flagpole magazine" is; you haven't provided a link, googling finds no link, and the source is obscure (it's not like you're citing the US Reports, which anyone can verify with a few moments research), so what we're left with is potentially unsourced and "[c]ontentious material about [a] living person[.]" And WP:BLP directsthat such material "—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." I have accordingly reverted - and you should be sure to read WP:3RR )("[t]he following actions are exceptions to the three-revert rule, and do not count as reverts under the rule's definition[: inter alia,] ... "[r]everting the addition of ... poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) [just quoted].") If you disapprove, I suggest filing a request at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard rather than edit warring over this (3RR and WP:EW exempts removing this material, for obvious reasons, but for equally obvious reasons does not exempt adding it). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I found Flagpole magazine easily, but maybe your Google is inferior to my Google. http://flagpole.com/ I am re-adding with a citation to Flagpole. It's not self-published material whatsoever. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The author of "Rodent in Robes" is not a reliable source.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's a legal expert, a tenured law professor, and this was published in a magazine. "Rodent in Robes" this is not. The quoted part does not contain derogatory language. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "Rodent in Robes" was published in Flagpole Magazine too. They'll publish anything.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can find flagpole magazine, but your burden is not to prove that the magazine in which the piece exists. It is to provide a verifiable source. I can't find this article on their website, and while for some purposes, existence only in a print source is acceptable, for claims like this, a fortiori in a BLP, you need more than an obscure reference to a tiny sub-regional circulation free rag that can't be verified by anyone outside of Athens, GA or even many people IN Athens, GA. Because the only verifiable source for the content is Wilkes' own website, and the exceptions that allow SCOTUSblog in don't apply, the only source available is unacceptable under WP:SPA, the material should be kept out. (And that is by no means to say that if acceptable sourcing can be found, it should come in. Ferrylodge's objections are well-taken.) What I find puzzling is why you don't simply select something more respectable and verifiable from the canon of Clarence Thomas critiques, instead of putting your eggs in this unseemly basket case of a professor. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the new vote against the Goldstein quote, and the old votes against it, and the ambivalence about it, and the fact that the Goldstein quote was the only thing in the "Recent Years" section and therefore out of place, I've removed the quotation. It's entirely opinion and unnecessary anyway. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted. See WP:PNSD and WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted. We've had plenty of discussion on this, and you're the only person really supporting the quotation. You make as much noise as five or so people might make in support of the quotation, but you're only one person. Quite a few people have given reasons for exclusion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Porn
The sub-article mentions that, after Thomas was sworn in, the Washington Post allegedly found evidence that Thomas had rented some porn videos. WaPo decided at the time that it wasn't notable enough to publish, and of course watching porn videos does not imply sexual harassment. Anyway, I think coverage in the sub-article is adequate for this factoid.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I changed the text of the entry after your first revert, so I wasn't reverting. I didn't go into detail about the porn because I know how much you hate such details. I am including the corroboration; it's not just about porn videos, but about several eyewitnesses. Mastcell, today's anon editor, and I all think it's important for inclusion. RafaelRGarcia (talk)
 * I don't know what anon editor you're referring to, and I believe Mastcell (weeks ago) was referring to Thomas expediting his swearing-in, rather than asserting that watching porn videos belongs here in this main article. I like porn just as much as the next guy, and you can put all the porn you like into articles like auto-fellatio, but this article doesn't seem like the right place for it.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to today's editor who cited a TIME article and who had his edits reverted (rightly). Mastcell also mentioned this issue, not just Thomas's rapid swearing-in (though I will also work that in later). Auto-fellatio, I will leave to you. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We'll let the admins at 3rr figure that out. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's not sensationalize the issue. Of course it had nothing to do with watching porn per se, so moralizing about pornography is neither here nor there. I'm sure you both understand the significance: Thomas was accused of talking about pornographic material at work, to his subordinates, in a manner which created an unhealthy work environment. Thomas not only denied these specific charges, but went so far as to deny an interest in pornography in general, to assert that he found it repulsive and did not own or watch such material, etc etc. This was part of a coordinated attack on Anita Hill's credibility. In that context, and since the hearing turned on which person was more credible, information impeaching Thomas' credibility might of course be newsworthy and relevant. The source (Strange Justice, a clearly reliable source) tells us that the Bush Administration knew, or suspected, that Thomas had other skeletons in his closet, that there was another shoe waiting to drop, and so they hurried the swearing-in to head off the next bombshell. It tells us that information came to light shortly after the rushed swearing-in which called Thomas' assertions into doubt, and supported the allegations which Anita Hill was savaged for bringing forward. It tells us that the Washington Post considered this information credible, but chose not to run it because Thomas had already been "sworn in", lessening the news value of the story. I see that as relevant, well-sourced, encyclopedic information deserving one sentence in this lengthy biographical article; it warrants well more than that in reputable biographies of the man. Ferrylodge, I see what you're doing - you're minimizing it as if it were just a matter of "watching a few porn videos" - but I know you understand the significance. Honestly, I don't care whether this article repeats the assertions about Thomas' viewing habits. I do think we're ignoring relevant, encyclopedic, well-sourced information deserving of brief mention in this article, about some of the fallout from Thomas' confirmation hearings, and getting at the issue of truthfulness and candor on which those hearings turned. But whatever. I'm not here on Wikipedia to sway Clarence Thomas' biography, though I do consider it poorly written and oddly weighted. Other fish to fry. MastCell Talk 05:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, MastCell. I'm also leaning towards including Mayer & Abramson's conclusion that Thomas lied under oath. They're both WSJ reporters, so they're making statements against interest!!! RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Mastcell, wouldn't you agree that this main article should not contain stuff that’s not in the sub-article, per WP:SS? To the extent that new info is being introduced here that's not in the sub-article, it ought to be hashed out in the sub-article first. For example, the sub-article doesn’t say anything about Hill asserting that Thomas used pornography.

Also, the statement about “three different reporters” is sensationalistic. Did the 3 reporters uncover the same information or different information? A hundred reporters could have found evidence, but if it's the same evidence then it doesn't matter how many reporters found it.

Additionally, if WaPo didn’t think this was notable enough to print decades ago, why is it so notable now that it belongs not just in the sub-article but also in this main article?

Neither the sub-article nor this main article says that Thomas testified he never watched a porn video. Did he testify to that effect? If not, why is it important for us to get into such detail about his private life?

Frankly, if Senators require Sonya Sotomayor to say whether she's ever watched a porn video or masturbated or visited the Wikipedia article on auto-fellatio, I hope she'll tell them to go to hell. It's none of their business. Same for Thomas. Ferrylodge (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sub-article may lack the information, but that's probably because you police that article and people opposing you are lacking. I'm not interested in policing that article, so you add this information to that article if you so choose. This objection of yours is not valid. Ever since you and other partisan editors have come to the article, you've had the mission of minimizing the Hill treatment.


 * The three reporters were not working together. It is not sensationalistic. There were multiple eyewitnesses, including a porn video store owner.


 * The WaPo info is valuable because it corroborates Hill's allegations. If Republicans had their druthers, the Hill allegations would never have come out, and it appears you are still intent on hiding the truth.


 * Your position on this matter is motivated by political concerns. But Mastcell, today's anon editor, I, and the admin at the 3RR complaint have all said the paragraph is fine. And if Sonia Sotomayor had 4-5 men levying sexual harassment complaints against her, I would be the first to call for her to step down. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, my comment at the AN3 report was only intended to mean that I don't think the paragraph was a misrepresentation of the sub-article (I don't know whether it's a misrepresentation of the real facts or not, since I'm not familiar with this controversy); I don't have an opinion on whether it should be removed, I just meant that Ferrylodge's stated reason may not have been the best reason to remove it. If I had to make a choice now, I would probably say it might not be necessary, and might just be undue weight; watching porn is not the same as sexual harassment, and not necessarily worth going into a lot of detail about in the main article. Heck, I'm sure even Barack Obama has watched porn in his day (and, god forbid, even masturbated!), but that doesn't mean he should be impeached. Hill's allegations about sexual harassment are probably important enough to mention here; whether or not Thomas watches porn is, as far as I can tell, not that big a deal. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thomas denied everything, so how is it not relevant to show he was lying? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:45, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now you're changing your rationale for including it. First it was to show that Thomas was a pervert, now it's to show that he's a liar? That doesn't hold water with me; as far as I can tell, the section doesn't say anything about Thomas denying anything, so it doesn't seem like it's trying to say anything about his truthfulness. And, besides, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox for showing the world how terrible Clarence Thomas is. I'm leaning more and more towards thinking this tidbit should be removed because it's trivial and the motivations for including it are suspect. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 06:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not changing my rationale. There are multiple reasons. The section lacks details on Anita Hill and the other women's allegations because the conservative editors here have strived to remove all details; their absence is not a reason to further remove everything hurtful. Removing the Wapo bit would be another step in minimizing and hiding an important part of Clarence Thomas -- and the nation's -- history. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RafaelRGarcia, you said above, "The sub-article may lack the information, but that's probably because you police that article and people opposing you are lacking." If you don't know what happened at the sub-article, please don't speculate about what "probably" happened.  It's not helpful.  The sub-article doesn’t say anything about Hill asserting that Thomas used pornography, does it?  Nor does it say whether the 3 reporters found the same information or different information.  Nor does it explain why this stuff was not even notable in WaPo's view decades ago but suddenly is notable now.  Nor does it say that Thomas testified he never watched a porn video.  All of this should be hashed out first at the sub-article, IMO.  This is a WP:BLP, and so it's not the place to insinuate that Thomas is a lying pervert, especially if the sub-article doesn't do that already.


 * I'd also like to mention that Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times commented as follows about the revelations in the book by Mayer and Abramson: "What bothers me the most about the 'evidence' presented in the book is that it consists mostly of character assassination and irrelevant allegations....I don't care if Clarence Thomas had an inflatable doll on his sofa and a framed autograph from Long Dong Silver on the wall. Just because a man has an immature interest in dirty stuff doesn't mean he harassed anyone."  See Roeper, Richard.  “Clarence Thomas Book Has Insight, Not Proof," Chicago Sun-Times (1994-11-17).


 * I don't see a consensus to include this kind of stuff in the main Thomas article. It should either be in the sub-article, or nowhere at Wikipedia.  I plan to remove it later today, if no one beats me to it.Ferrylodge (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed it now; given the BLP concerns, the burden of argument is on the people who want to include it. It should not be re-added unless a clear consensus is reached here, with input from uninvolved editors. I don't think I need to remind anyone of the 3RR report here, so if anyone has a problem with this removal, make your argument here rather than reverting. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 18:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am against the inclusion since there is no demonatrsation of its relevance to the topic - if newspaper editors at the time felt it wasn't important enough tot pursue then why would we? Including it on such a feeble basis would be inviting POV accusations against wikipedia.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Where is the consensus Simon Dodd claims to be enforcing? I see three editors for and two against - thats hardly a consensus by wikipedia standards.·Maunus· ƛ · 23:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're in the wrong section. I have no interest in, and my edit did not concern, the porn stuff that is the subject of this discussion. You want Talk:Clarence Thomas as my edit summary said. And I don't claim to be "enforcing" a consensus, only that one exists and supports inclusion. The consensus among those contributing - everyone agrees except Rafael - is that the quote is supported by reliable sources and belongs in the article in some form. That being so, it's entirely reasonable to include the quote in toto while we discuss whether it ought to be abridged in some manner. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I was too fats on the trigger there. I am sorry.·Maunus· ƛ · 00:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

← This discussion, and this talk page in general, has become, frankly, too loony to follow. You guys are talking about the moral aspects of pornography, and Sonia Sotomayor, both of which have absolutely nothing to do with the issues at hand. It's evident that this page is going to be owned by whomever shouts the loudest, camps here the longest, and has their fingers most deeply buried in their ears. If material which figures prominently in reputable, mainstream, serious biographies of Clarence Thomas is deemed a "BLP violation" here, because "everyone watches porn" and because a film critic criticized one of the sources, then I see no point in further discussion. Unwatchlisted. Enjoy. MastCell Talk 07:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are definitely problems with the way Wikipedia is run. The few who are willing to sit and police pages for months or years control the experience for the rest of the world, and I bet many people are none the wiser. It's going to be tough for me to stick around here when law school starts up again next month; I hope someone else stays. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph needs to be either sourced, or removed
Since joining the Court, Thomas has taken a judicially conservative approach, seeking to uphold what he sees as the original meaning of the Constitution and statutes. Moreover, he has often approached federalism issues in a way that limits the federal government's power and expands power of state and local governments, while his opinions have generally supported a strong executive within the federal government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.192.157 (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the custom at this article has been to not include footnotes in the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The function of the lede is to "briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." WP:LS The question is therefore whether what is in the lead serves as a reasonable summary of the content of the article. That's the basis for challenging it, and fights about WP:V and WP:RS should be in the context of article content. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme Court career section
. For some reason, our section on Thomas' Court career is mostly comprised of a single Wall Street Journal writer's contentions that some "liberal" clerks made fun of him behind his back. While I have no doubt that this is encyclopedically relevant, and much more deserving of biographical attention than, say, Thomas' confirmation hearings, it seems that we should perhaps start the section with a general summary of Thomas' position and career on the Court. I've included a direct quotation from The Oyez Project, since they've been cited by several editors and appear to be generally agreed-upon as a reasonable and neutral source, summarizing Thomas' Court career. MastCell Talk 17:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree. But the quote you picked is very dated.  "He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia." Rehnquist has been dead for years, and remains so.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. I initially put it in the "Early years on the Court" section, but then decided to combine the two sections. Perhaps we can clarify that the Oyez biography refers to his earlier years on the Court; the other sources (for instance, Goldstein) support the idea that he has emerged from Scalia's shadow. I'm still a bit nonplussed that his entire Court career is summarized by gossip recounted by a single WSJ writer, a quote from Thomas himself, and a quote from a blog. Better sources exist, right? My sense is that Oyez is one of them. I'll give it another shot, in a manner that more clearly reflects William Rehnquist's vital status. MastCell Talk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

"Far left"
What is the justification for this edit, repeatedly inserted by Ferrylodge, describing Thomas' reception by "far left" judges? Where is the term "far left" coming from? The cited source doesn't use it, as far as I can see, and it's a fairly extreme term which should probably not be inserted on editorial say-so when the cited source uses the term "liberal". I'd like to see a policy-based justification for this repeated editorial insertion of more extreme and partisan terms than those employed in the cited source. MastCell Talk 20:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. There is no justification for Ferry's misbehavior here. Besides which, if Blackmun was "far left" near the end of his stay on the Court, then Thomas has definitely been "far right" for decades. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Far right"
Mastcell, are you perhaps overlooking something? You very recently inserted an assessment of Thomas that lumped him with the "far-right" justices. Why is "far left" a fairly extreme term, but "far right" is not? Perhaps you should refrain from "repeated editorial insertion of more extreme and partisan terms." If you do that, then others (such as myself) would be glad to follow your wise example.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that dif show MC using the term "conservative wing of the Court" rather than "far right"? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 23:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Look below that: "Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court."Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Right you are. Sorry, my mistake. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The best solution would probably be to just remove the sentence "Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court." It's kind of redundant anyway to what follows it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the best solution would be to respect the sources, and stop edit-warring. You are missing something. Did you read the source I cited, from Oyez.org? It said, direct quote: "Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court." Those are not my words; "far right" is a direct quote from the source. If a reliable source, one which everyone on the talk page has agreed is reasonable, uses the term "far right" explicitly, and I insert it as part of a direct quote, then that's not me pushing a personal viewpoint. It's me using a reliable source. You respond by:
 * Making a tit-for-tat insertion of the phrase "far left", despite the fact that it is not supported by sources;
 * Edit-warring to maintain that inappropriate misrepresentation of the cited source;
 * Falsely accusing me of editorializing, when you know - in the diff you yourself cited - that I'm using a direct quote from a reliable source.
 * Rather than bother with more of this nonsense, I've reported your 3RR violation, though that's actually the least troublesome aspect of your editing in this instance. I'll wait to see how it's dealt with before editing further. MastCell Talk 06:42, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Mastcell, you've admitted that your edit constituted "insertion of more extreme and partisan terms." I objected at this talk page, and another editor concurred that I am right about this.


 * Anyone can dig up redundant crap about Justice Thomas, and jam it into this article without consensus. But please don't expect other editors to just say "go right ahead."


 * And there was no 3RR violation by me. Only a failure of several Wikipedia policies by yourself.  See WP:AGF, WP:NPOV, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, et cetera.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Mastcell, the problem here seems to be the amplifier "far"; compromise. I would think that we could find consensus and reliable sources for a statement that Thomas is on the right, or the conservative wing of the court. That's a problematic description, for the same reason all such descriptions are problematic: it fosters the impression that there is a coherent "conservative bloc" on the court (false: there are two distinct pairs comprising the so-called "conservative bloc," as we saw in cases like WRTL) and ignores the many cases that lack a clean liberal/conservative split (what is the "conservative" side of any case where Thomas and Scalia split from one another or jointly from Roberts and Alito?). But as a compromise it'll do, giving the reader a rough understanding of the lay of the land. Is that compromise something that's acceptable to you (and to FL)? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's already in the article: "He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia." Mastcell inserted this recently, and I left it.  This same point is already made at many other locations in this article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Simon, I'm sure your opinions are well-founded, but I'd prefer to stick to reliable sources. We've used Oyez.org as a reliable source, right? When they encapsulate Thomas' position on the Court, they say that Thomas "has aligned closely with the far right of the Court." I would prefer we use reliable sources in preference to our own opinions, and I would prefer we accurately represent the content of those sources rather than bowdlerizing the passages that we find too "extreme". I have my opinions about Clarence Thomas' jurisprudence too, and on the utility of pigeonholing Justices on a "liberal/conservative" dichotomy, but I would prefer we instead look to what reliable sources have to say. Furthermore, I don't see this as a case for "compromise" in the sense you and Ferrylodge suggest. I cite a reliable source, using a direct quote. Ferrylodge doesn't like what the source says, so he decides to describe other justices as "far left" - never mind that the cited source says no such thing. Then you offer, as a "compromise", to bowdlerize and misrepresent the reliable source I cited as the price of removing Ferrylodge's inappropriate edit. That sort of editing is exactly the problem with this article. MastCell Talk 03:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is not settled simply because you can find a reliable source describing Thomas in the words you want. I can find reliable sources describing Thomas in the words that I want, too. There are a lot of reliable sources out there that describe Thomas in various terms. So why this source, MC? This isn't about sourcing, so how does it help improve wikipedia to pretend that it is? This is a fight about content, and specifically about how we describe the subject when the constellation of available reliable sources support several destinations.


 * Once we cut away the deadweight of pretending that this dispute is about sourcing, we can see that the purpose of discussion is to get the article as close to right (as WP:BLP requires) as consensus will allow. There are plenty of sources we could cite for a description of Thomas that is much closer to the mark and that would permit consensus. I suggest that we find one that we can cite that satisfies all concerned. That is surely better than your insistence on provoking an edit war over the word "far." - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I like how you've framed this, like I went out and "found" a reliable source to prove my point. Not so. I didn't bring Oyez.org here, and in fact I'd never heard of it until quite recently, when I saw it cited in this article as a source. Other editors (including, I believe, yourself and Ferrylodge) felt that Oyez.org was a suitable source. It was certainly good enough to cite when it called Anita Hill's allegations unsubstantiated, right? Given that this appeared to be an agreed-upon reliable source, I was curious how it summarized Thomas' actual career on the Court. And rather than parse the source myself and risk accusations of bias, I quoted the relevant summary directly. Obviously, I thought I had found a source that would satisfy everyone - in fact, I bent over backward to accommodate what I consider very inappropriate handling of sources by you and Ferrylodge. Apparently, you prefer to consider this a case where I "provoked an edit war". Not encouraging. MastCell Talk 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(od) Since I looked at this dispute as part of Ferrylodge's goodbye, I'll give my two cents. In modern American political discourse, "far left" and "far right" (and their "extremist" variants) have become largely meaningless pejoratives with no descriptive powers. In other words, they're just all-purpose insult terms used on blogs and shouting heads TV shows, to try and paint anyone who disagrees with you as outside the political mainstream. In order for WP articles to be more intelligent than this discourse, I think these terms should be avoided, even if they are said by reliable sources (reliable sources are not always wise in their choice of words). I would further recommend avoiding "left", "right", "liberal", "conservative" as much as possible, since they are all based on an oversimplistic one-dimensional spectrum that doesn't cover legal/constitutional thought that well (or every regular political issues that well). Two cents over. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. On the other hand, the elephant in the room is that Clarence Thomas is widely seen - in reputable biographies and in major-media coverage - to be at the right wing (and sometimes, the "far right" wing) of the Court. I don't see how we can get the article "right" without somehow acknowledging the existence of this elephant. In order to avoid doing so, we bend into all kinds of contortions, accepting reliable sources only if they use wording that doesn't offend the sensibilities or agendas of certain editors. You know, Conservapedia's article on this subject is actually considerably more intellectually honest than ours - a first - because it at least acknowledges this elephant. Now, it may be that biographers and the popular press have Thomas pegged wrongly, and that people who actually know something about constitutional law consider him a principled independent. There's certainly room for that viewpoint, assuming it is appropriately sourced. But right now, that is basically the only viewpoint permitted in the article, and we toss out reliable source after reliable source because a few editors consider their chosen wording or focus infelicitous. The biography from PBS? No good. Oyez.org? Nope. Jill Abramson and Jane Mayer's biography? No way. On the other hand, we have 2 paragraphs from a former Thomas clerk on how he's not really a conservative, and we summarize his Supreme Court career by citing a single highly sympathetic biographer to the effect that a few "liberal" law clerks made fun of Thomas behind his back. How informative. To put it bluntly, this article fails as a biography. One way to start improving it might be to actually respect the content and wording of reliable sources, and incorporating a slightly broader range of them. MastCell Talk 23:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Does someone on the "far right" of a court seek to overturn precedent as much as possible, or to keep to precedent as much as possible? Does someone on the "far right" of a court seek to maximize executive power over legislative power or the reverse?  Seek to maximize federal power over states' power or the reverse?  I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, and can think of plausible reasons for each alternative.  Is there any article in WP that explains what a "far right" person on a court tends to rule in these kinds of cases?  If not, maybe the term isn't a good one to use.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "far right" of the court -- Thomas and Scalia -- vote to overturn more federal laws than anyone else, and yes, they generally maximize executive power over legislative power, and generally maximize state power over federal power. The ideas of "judicial restraint" or "judicial conservatism" is not technically about political beliefs. There have been leftist justices who were judicially conservative, and there have been rightists. Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/11/opinion/11mon2.html?_r=2&n=Top%2FOpinion%2FEditorials%20and%20Op-Ed%2FEditorials RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. Just say that Thomas votes to overturn more federal laws than anyone else, generally maximizes executive power over legislative power, and generally maximize state power over federal power.  Don't try to slap a label on that.  Wasted Time R (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This sort of evades the actual question. If numerous reliable sources have already slapped a label on it, do we fail to mention that because we personally find it objectionable? I think we should mention all of the specifics that WTR and Rafael allude to, by way of exposition, but that's not mutually exclusive with an accurate reflection of how reliable sources have summarized Thomas' jurisprudence. MastCell Talk 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with that approach, assuming it's adequately sourced. MC's claims suffer from the faults described above: that he can find a source using his preferred terminology doesn't transform a content dispute into a sourcing dispute. Numerous reliable sourced have slapped many labels on Thomas - good, bad, accurate vel non. The question is which of these descriptions we select. The most sensible one is just to say that he's on the right of the court. If the term "far right" would be understood to mean that he's the furthest to the right of any member of the court, I would be fine with it, but that isn't how it will be understood: it will be understood prejudicially to imply that Thomas is on the far right, not of the court but in general. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, back on topic: the attempts by DoddLodge to remove "far" from the quoted piece are detestible. Oyez.org certainly is a reliable source, and besides that, we have an abundance of OTHER reliable sources, three of which are quoted in this very article, calling Thomas the most conservative member of the Court. Besides which, Thomas's frequent hearkening back to the 18th and 19th centuries certainly earns him the term of "far right" and "most conservative." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

More reliable sources calling Thomas "far right:"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/law/supreme_court/justices/thomas.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/opinion/03sun4.html RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I find all these labels substitutes for more careful thinking, but I guess that's just me. Back to other articles I go.   Wasted Time R (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting Alignment
I am not finding support for the statement "For example, in 2006 five pairs of justices had an alignment as close." I don't see that either citation supports this. If it's in the Mauro piece, find the line and quote it in the footnote; I couldn't find it by searching for particular words. It's certainly not in the stats pdf page, because that's only raw counts. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Conservative vs. Judicially conservative
All six of the first six sources at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas#Conservatism_and_originalism all call Thomas or Scalia the "most conservative," not the "most judicially conservative." Therefore, Dodd and/or Lodge were strongly in error in putting that extra word "judicially" in the reliable sources' mouths, saying Thomas was "most judicially conservative." Thomas is clearly not "judicially conservative" in the sense that even Thomas's clerk believes in -- refraining from altering and overturning laws. Thomas is an activist, because he votes to overturn so many federal laws. He's conservative, he's a rightist, and you may agree with him strongly and even love him, but he's not judicially conservative, nor is he judicially restrained, nor is he minimalist. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not argue personal opinions, but instead follow the sources. As currently structured, the paragraph is emblematic of the problems with the article as a whole. It summarizes numerous independent, reliable sources in a throwaway half a sentence, and then gives a lengthy "rebuttal" to a former Thomas clerk, who may be presumed to be somewhat less than independent on the subject. Let's go back to the sources; let's prioritize independent, reliable sources; and let's ask what they say. If we start from there, the article will get better. We can of course note that Thomas' clerks take issue with the characterization, but their defense of their boss should not form the core of the article. MastCell Talk 02:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point about the clerk quotation. Besides which, it's a misleading thing to include in the article, given the NYT piece that is also used later in the article, because that piece points out how frequently Thomas votes to overturn federal laws -- more than any other justice! By the clerk's own definition, a "judicially conservative" judge wouldn't touch federal laws, leaving it to the Congress to change its own laws. "Judicial conservative" used to mean "judicial restraint" or "judicial minimalism." The layman misunderstands "judicial conservative" to mean "conservative who happens to be judicial." Whoever originally changed "most conservative" (as I had had it) to "most judicially conservative" (I think it was Dodd or Lodge last fall, but no I won't hunt diffs) made this naive mistake. Even the amateurish article about JCs on WP makes this error, and cites no sources, yet this article had linked to it. Sloppy. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, having arbitrarily defined what it means to be a judicial conservative, cf. Straus, The Death of Judicial Conservatism, 4 Duke J. Const. L. & Pub. Pol'y 1 (2009) (discussing various meanings of judicial conservatism), you declare that Thomas isn't a judicial conservative because he doesn't meet your definition, and must ergo be simply a "conservative" (whatever that means). Brava! Any more rabbits you'd like to pull from the hat? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have my definition as I understand it from reading a lot of Supreme Court biographies. Clerk Jaffe has his own definition, too. And Thomas doesn't meet either of those definitions because he is the MOST FREQUENT vote to overturn federal laws. Therefore, parachuting the Jaffe quotation into the section on conservatism is purposefully misleading. Jaffe doesn't even say Thomas is judicially conservative in the quotation you were using. Neither did any of the six reliable sources you quoted say either Thomas or Scalia is "judicially conservative." Neither of them are. They're conservatives who happen to be judicial. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So what? Your point only has bite if judicial conservatism means - and only means - not striking down federal laws. But few people think that judicial restraint means never striking down laws, and no one seriously contends that judicial conservatism requires subscribing to the rule of clear mistake. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at the Straus piece, and Thomas doesn't fit his ideas of judicial conservatism, either. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The point isn't that Thomas fits this or that definition of judicial conservatism - quite the opposite. There are several ideas that fit roughly under the "judicial conservative" umbrella, and the bare fact that you have your opinion about which is best (I have one too) doesn't entitle you to say that if Thomas disagrees, he must not be one. The fact is that Thomas considers himself a judicial conservative, and so do the vast majority of informed commentators. That's good enough for Wikipedia. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Again (and again, and again...) rather than argue our personal definitions of "judicial conservatism", can we go to the sources? Who describes Thomas as a judicial conservative? Who describes him as, simply, a "conservative"? If the vast majority of "informed commentators" use specific wording, then let's discuss those sources. Certainly we should note that Thomas himself, and his staff, consider him a judicial conservative, but what do independent, reliable sources say? Many describe his political conservatism as well - after all, sources indicate that Thomas' politics played a role in his nomination. Numerous sources indicate that Thomas was chosen in part to appease the conservative "base" of the Republican party, which was dissatisfied with David Souter's earlier nomination (example: "When (conservative activist Thomas) Jipping was asked by the first Bush White House to suggest a nominee who might excite the conservative base, he supplied a single name: Clarence Thomas."). Sources? MastCell Talk 17:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * MastCell is right. Simon, you seem to like letting Clarence Thomas define himself, but if his self-perception is discordant with reliable sources, then we have to go with what the latter says. Your and/or Lodge's abuse of Wikipedia was taking reliable sources that called Thomas "conservative" and changing the WP page to say they called him "judicially conservative." That's sloppy and misleading. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I have seen quite plainly mean conservative in a judicial sense - a distinction that you have labored to obscure by removing the Jaffe quote. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:38, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The source I cited immediately above - from this past Sunday's Times - quite clearly indicates that Thomas was considered conservative in a political sense. In fact, the source indicates that his political conservatism was a key impetus for his nomination. Which sources are you referring to that describe him as a judicial conservative? And why do you consider this distinction of such extreme relevance, when reliable general-audience sources generally fail to note it - shouldn't we stay in step with the sources rather than our personal concept of relevance? And finally, if this distinction is indeed notable and relevant, shouldn't we find a more independent, reliable source than the argument of a former Thomas clerk? MastCell Talk 20:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Far right revisited
I've posted this content dispute to the BLP noticeboard. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Noroton's comments at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard (archive) essentially settle this. Including the inflammatory tag "far right" raises serious and needless BLP problems. Needless because there is nothing of value gained: all that inclusion does is create a false insinuation that Thomas is an extremist without any countervailing illumination of the subject. The Oyez quote has been removed and should stay that way. It no longer has anything of value to say given that the acceptable content it provided is now provided by another source. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I certainly respect Noroton, but I don't think his comments "settle this", anymore than those of other commenters at the thread who were perhaps less sympathetic to your position. I simply don't see a BLP issue here, and I don't think that your effort to shut down discussion via fiat is appropriate, especially since your conclusion doesn't accurately reflect the content of the noticeboard thread. I'm quite familiar with the policy, and while I take Noroton's points on board, they're not particularly convincing to me. There is a content/sourcing issue, one which we can discuss, assuming you're interested in doing so. Alternately, if you believe I'm way off on BLP, we can wait for additional feedback at the noticeboard, or ask in another venue. MastCell Talk 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've already invited outside input, we got it, and it cut against you. I don't see how much point there is in inviting it elsewhere when you have no intention of accepting it, and will brand as "[un]convincing" anything that opposes the bias you self-evidently want in this article. You've been told that this raises an BLP issue, and if you won't accept that, I suppose we're going to have an ongoing edit war until you do. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to accept outside input. I'm not happy to accept your misrepresentation of outside input. Here's the thread. One editor (Baccyak4H, who is experienced in BLP issues and has, so far as I can tell, no axe to grind) didn't seem to see a BLP issue. Another editor, Balloonman, opined only that our article on the far right needed work. Noroton agreed with your position, and while I respect Noroton as an editor, I think it is reasonable to take his history into account when considering his views on political BLPs. That hardly constitutes a ringing endorsement of your position, or a rejection of mine - which is fine, but your attempt to misrepresent the discussion is not fine. I'm not interested in having "an ongoing edit war" with you. My first choice would be honest dialog, but your misrepresentation of the noticeboard thread is not an encouraging starting point. My second choice would be to solicit additional outside input. MastCell Talk 00:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Clearly you aren't happy to accept outside input when it conflicts with your agenda here. And linking to the thread doesn't get you very far - you insinuate that I'm trying to "hide" something I linked to mere lines above. What happened in that thread is simple - the only user to offer an analysis of the situation was Noroton, and he categorically rejected your position. Of the other two uses, Baccyak4H rejected your position, agreeing that the terminology you're clinging to has a "problematic connotation of extremism," and Balloonman offerd nothing more than a personal opinion (and a deeply flawed one at that: it isn't accurate, and even if it was, the United States isn't the only country that reads wikipedia) that "far right" doesn't carry the connotations of "far right" in the United States. I've tried to compromise, and you rejected compromise. I took the issue to BLPN and faced with round rejection of your position, you and Raf have simply dug in. What could possibly be so precious to you about the word "far"? Why are you so desperate to keep it in at all costs? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 00:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Baccyak4H said: "Rafael's comment regarding scope of far rightness (within the Court) would significantly temper the problematic connotation of extremism." In other words, he viewed Rafael's point, about relative far-rightness, as addressing the problem. You select the words "problematic extremism" from this sentence, discard the context, and claim this as support for your position. I can't think of a constructive term to apply to that sort of editing. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not married to the phrase "far right" and I'm willing to discuss the section, but I don't see how to make any real progress in the face of these sorts of tactics. MastCell Talk 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to take seriously the claim that you aren't wedded to the term "far right" when you've resisted every attempt to remove it. I've proposed several compromises and edits that would remove it and you've reverted or rejected them. That term is the whole bone of contention in this dispute. If you aren't wedded to it, let's be rid of it and move on. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 14:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen a good reason to remove it. I've seen a number of bad reasons. For example: one argument seems to be that while Oyez.org is a reliable, encyclopedic source (used, for example, to conclude emphatically that Anita Hill's allegations were unsubstantiated), we are permitted to cite it only if its choice of words does not offend the sensibilities of specific editors. I don't consider that a compelling argument. Furthermore, I think that selectively citing the source, or abridging a direct quote based on our editorial preconceptions, is an inappropriate substitution of our judgment for that of a reliable source. We are actively misrepresenting the source if we editorially select quotes with the intention of "toning down" the source's language - that's a poor editorial practice, to my mind, but it's exactly the argument you've advanced. Couple that with the tactics you (and, until recently, Ferrylodge) have employed, and I suppose the bottom line is: I'm willing to be convinced, but not to be bullied. MastCell Talk 18:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(redent) Why don't we stop talking about editors. Briefly, since it's been brought up: As far as my past actions go, I've always been in favor of robust, non-offensive, serious criticism in articles about powerful public figures, whether they're Barack Obama, John McCain, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Imus or Clarence Thomas, and (except for Thomas so far) I've got the diffs to prove it, available on request. I've also put plenty of favorable information into articles about people I detest. But enough about my heroics. Let's actually continue discussing the issue. A consensus here is the easiest way to resolve this.

I haven't seen a good reason to remove it You haven't provided a good reason to keep it in, and the onus is always on the editor to justify adding to content rather than removing it (this wasn't some longstanding part of the article, as far as I can figure out. It was added only in the last 10 days or so.) MastCell, no one has agreed with you that the integrity of the quote is hurt by not including the sentence with "far right" in it. I've objected to it at length at WP:BLPN and the strongest reasons are that the phrase is open to the interpretation that Thomas is somehow a member of the "far right" in the context of American politics, whether or not the source meant to say or imply that. You no doubt agree that we're required to be cautious in our language regarding BLPs. As you think about it more, can you agree that this sentence is problematic? It's important to Simon and me.

Our having editorial preconceptions is another way of saying we have judgment and substitution of our judgment for that of a reliable source begs the question: there are many reliable sources with conflicting views of what's acceptable or best and it is inescapable that we have to choose among them. It's a necessary part of what we do here. So is selecting what parts of a source document to quote (the only way there can be a problem with cutting back on quotes is if we give the reader the wrong impression of what the source thinks, and dropping the first sentence of that quote doesn't do that). I'm not too pleased with Oyez.org as a source for anything, anywhere in the article. That website's "About" page mentions that students created it, at least initially, and it's run by an academic. It isn't a regular dead-tree publication and there is no proof at all that it exercises the normal editorial judgment that reliable, established publications use, although it does get grants from some pretty responsible foundations. I can't say it's unreliable but I'm doubtful about it and I'd be more comfortable if we dropped it as a source for anything in a BLP article about a controversial person. -- Noroton (talk) 19:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you could propose the way you would like the section to read. At the moment, our section on Thomas' early career on the Court devotes its greatest energy to recounting how a few liberal law clerks made fun of Thomas behind his back. The whole section is essentially sourced to a single reputable, if relatively sympathetic, biography. I would submit that the section is non-informative, emphasizes a trivial aspect of Thomas' early career far out of proportion to its relevance, and manifestly fails to represent anything near the range of viewpoints available in independent, reliable sources. How would you rewrite this section? What sources would you use, and how? Since Oyez.org is apparently not acceptable to describe Thomas' relative position on the Court, is it acceptable to continue to cite its flat contention that Anita Hill's allegations were "unsubstantiated" (despite the fact that some editors might take issue with that conclusion)? You don't have to address all of these at once, but I'm curious, at least, how you would envision the "Early Court Career" section in an ideal world, with as many specifics as you're able to provide. MastCell Talk 20:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I swore off editing this kind of politically controversial article long ago, but I might as well be foolish enough to propose something. I don't know enough to rewrite that section -- that would take quite a bit of reading first. But this is what I initially think and where I think I'd find the best sources:
 * The "Early years on the court" section covers the main points that I vaguely remember from reading the coverage and the book reviews over the years, so I don't see enormous problems with it. (It doesn't seem all that different from Encyclopaedia Britannica coverage). Of course, we need to follow what the best sources and the consensus among the sources say (where there is a consensus). This Washington Post pair of articles is linked from the New York Times archives "portal" on Thomas ("Times Topics") and, from what I've read of it, it looks very reliable to me: based on reporting by experienced reporters, giving what seems a neutral account with both positive and negative observations and several unexpected tidbits. It was turned into a book, Supreme Discomfort: The Divided Soul of Clarence Thomas, and I'd use that book, too. The information from Jan Crawford Greenburg seems authoritative (I haven't looked into whether her own book was heavily criticized, though), and I'd keep that.
 * I'd expand on what critics said about Thomas in those early years: That he spoke little in court hearings (covered elsewhere in the article, but maybe it should be here), that he tagged along with Scalia, and (if I remember right that it was a staple of commentary on Thomas in those early years) that he didn't have much intellectual heft and was sullen and kept away from people. Once I had the sources on that, and maybe a couple of quotes if they were particularly useful, I'd cite the Washington Post reporters' book and the Greenburg book for their contrary assertions, based on their insider reporting, as well as see what a couple of other books about Thomas said about that. (I'm not sure how much Greenburg or the Post reporters cover the early years, so it's possible some of this doesn't apply.)
 * The "Recent years on the court" section doesn't need that long Tom Goldstein quote, and I'd replace it with the same sources I've mentioned, especially the Post reporters' book. I'd be sure to mention that Thomas was quite an influential figure in getting black judges, Democrats nominated by Clinton, through the Senate Judiciary committee (run at the time by his pal John Ashcroft). I would integrate criticism of Thomas into these two sections. The goal of course is to reflect what the coverage from the reliable sources is. I think this would do it, but I'm no expert.
 * I'd look at Jeffrey Toobin's book on the court, but I've heard some criticisms of it (can't remember what they are). I'd be looking for things that are repeated in the books or that otherwise seem reliable. There are some respected (sometimes controversial) reporters who have covered Thomas and the court, including Nina Totenberg (NPR), Linda Greenhouse and Adam Liptak (New York Times), Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) and some others. I'd use what they say as a way to judge what mainstream reporting and commentary on the court is -- that's not the same thing as the deeper commentary from the legal or academic communities, but I'd rather leave that part to some other editor.


 * I'd look at anything else, too, including Thomas' autobiography, commentary for and against Thomas, Andrew Peyton Thomas' book, Clarence Thomas: A Biography and Silent Justice by John Greenya, written in 2001.


 * As a stop gap, if we wanted to just get something better than those two sections and do it quickly, I'd look at the New York Times archives and, if I could, the Washington Post archives and put something together from that. -- Noroton (talk) 01:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The quote from Goldstein is important because of what it says, what it refutes, and who Goldstein is. demolishes the liberal stereotype of Thomas; that it comes from a liberal makes it lireable as an admission against interest, and that it comes from an experienced court advocate and court watcher makes it authoritative and informed. Toobin's book is fine to the extent that it's corroborated by other soures, but his biases are not well hidden. Supreme Discomfort, as its title suggests, is an even less reliable source, displaying considerable hostility towards Thomas (see, e.g., ), and should probably be kept out unless absolutely necessary.


 * The answer to Mastcell's question isn't difficult. We should say that he is part of the conservative wing of the court, and that he and Justice Scalia are usually found on the same side. That's an oversimplification, but it's the underlying point of virtually every source, and sourcing it would be easy (my edit here would do the job, for example). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 01:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Supreme Discomfort is a reliable source. Simon, the common thread to your work on this article is the removal of anything negative about Thomas, and that thread continues here. The "far right" characterization is corroborated by reliable sources, and is appropriately set off with quotations and attributions. It's also qualified by "of the Court," though Thomas certainly qualifies for being far right in general. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Goldstein is a respectable commentator. I guess I could be convinced to include his blog, except that a) there is such a wealth of solid reliable sources that it makes no sense to lean so heavily on a blog, and b) we probably shouldn't be picking and choosing our sources with the goal of "demolishing liberal stereotypes". I disagree completely that we should start by judging how "hostile" to Thomas a reliable, mainstream biography is as grounds for including or excluding it as a source. That's exactly the sort of thinking that's led to the current low-quality article and poor editing environment, not to mention it violates about a dozen Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I think Noroton's suggestions are good ones. I had asked Ferrylodge at one point to list what he thought would be acceptable sources, because it seemed like a good starting point. The New York Times coverage is fairly detailed and voluminous; the problem would be parsing it and choosing appropriately representative pieces. Of course, the Post is fine too. I tend to agree with the list of reporters and media outlets as suitable sources. Thomas' autobiography should of course be cited, though with the caveat that it is an autobiography. Greenburg's book is a good source; I think it skews sympathetic, but the whole point is that my opinion on that matter doesn't invalidate it as a reliable source. Other biographies which we should cite include Supreme Discomfort (mentioned by Noroton and based on the Post reportage) and Strange Justice (deals with Thomas' history and the politics surrounding his nomination and confirmation hearings) by Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson. Jeffrey Toobin is, as far as I know, a reputable expert on legal matters and the Court, and a book by him from a major publishing house is an appropriate source here. I agree with Noroton's distinction between popular and legal coverage. MastCell Talk 05:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Goldstein, you're again obscuring the content-sourcing issue. The Goldstein quote can be sourced either from his blog entry or from The New Republic magazine - the latter printed the former as an article. So there's no sourcing issue that arises from including the quote. The issue is one of content, and I've already explained why it's necessary on those terms. Enough has already been said about Toobin and "Supreme Discomfort"; we should try to avoid using them except when corroborated by other accounts, but we can have that argument further down the road with the benefit of a specific issue on the table. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And re "demolishing stereotypes" - I would have thought that when we have a BLP about someone whose public image is at odds with the reality, that provides a very strong argument for us correcting that misunderstanding, within the boundaries of policy. The Goldstein quote does just that - that's why it's so important, and why it's staying. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 12:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good illustration of the problem here. What is the basis for concluding that Thomas' "public image is at odds with the reality"? I understand that Goldstein thinks so, in a limited sense - and I agree that his viewpoint might be notable enough for inclusion in the article. But I don't see why we're starting from the premise that Thomas' "public image" is erroneous across the board, other than the fact that you personally believe it to be so. I would rather tell the reader what various reliable sources have to say, positive, negative, or in-between, and let them draw their own conclusions - that's my understanding of how to write an article on a controversial subject. If there are conflicts between reliable sources, then we can note that, and the reader can decide. I'm totally opposed to your approach, which appears to me to be based on deciding upfront whether a given reliable source is suitably sympathetic or unacceptably "hostile" to Thomas as the deciding factor in whether we use it. I'm also opposed to the idea that we should cherry-pick our sources with the intent of disproving "popular misconceptions" (that is, reliably sourced viewpoints that conflict with our own) about Thomas. MastCell Talk 18:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see my position on this matter have been discussed, with some confusion as to its nature. This summary and this further clarification accurately reflect my position on the matter, and this interpretation misunderstood my position to be the exact opposite of what it is.

I sympathize with the concerns about using the term "far right", enough so that to do so in a living person's article requires meticulous sourcing per BLP. That said, it can be so sourced, especially with explicit attribution, so that the issue now is one of WEIGHT and editorial discretion.

Let me point out that when the term is applied to the context of being within the court, that it simply is now a label for having nine ducks in a row, and unequivocally being associated with the actual duck at one end of the row, or another duck very very near that duck. This makes it considerably harder for any negative connotations of the term to be relevant as used. So the issue of connotation is alleviated by the context, and is not nearly as large a concern as it might be.

That said, the simplicity of the situation also implies that it might be prudent to find an alternative well sourced description which conveys the same attributes but without the connotation baggage at all. In my mind that would be an ideal solution, and I wuold encourage this. I will confess, however, that I cannot think of any such terms, off the top of my head, which are not also quite awkward and contrived ("the most, or nearly most, rightward" :P). In the absence of a better term, the term "far right" seems acceptable.

Lastly, I have not read the article far right, but it sounds like it may be a mess. I would not let the poor status of that article influence the issue here. I would simply suggest an alternate reaction. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * On the theory that the context makes it okay, see (this is a risk of the discussion getting bifurcated, unfortunately). No one would say that Hillary Clinton is on the "far right" of the cabinet; it's just not a locution that is used. Ordinary readers will understand the claim to be that Thomas is a member of the court who is also on the far right. That's false. If there were some benefit to be gained from including this quote, there might be an argument for inclusion, but we gain nothing by including this quote. We purchase nothing for the cost of risking the reader being mislead.


 * As to sourcing, I'm not sure whether Oyez is a reliable source or not, except to the extent that it's an aggregation of primary sources (see WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT). We needn't unravel that here, though, because the sourcing isn't the issue, as I've repeatedly explained. This is an issue of content, not sourcing.


 * Lastly, as to far right, I don't want anyone to think (as user:Balloonman seems to have done) that I'm relying on our article for the theory that this term is generally used to imply someone's an extremist. That's simply common knowledge - we have an article that reflects common knowledge, but it isn't the source of the point. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If no one would say Hillary Clinton is on the "far right" of the current Cabinet, then we won't either, because no reliable sources support such a claim. In this case, a reliable source has placed Thomas (at least in his early years) at the "far right" of the Court. Your analogy ignores the existence of sources in this case and their lack in the hypothetical case. That's sort of a key point. I'm also not particularly convinced by the idea that we have to "improve" the language used by reliable sources to prevent our ignorant readers from misunderstanding it. We don't need to assume that our reader is incapable of reading comprehension. There is a difference between asserting someone has "joined the conservative wing of the Court" vs. "aligning with the far right of the Court." If these statements were equivalent, we wouldn't be having this argument. The source in this case used the latter language; if we then decide, editorially, to use non-equivalent and "tamer" language, we're not representing the source - we're representing what we think the source should have said. That's my fundamental problem here. And taking out the "far right" sentence on misguided and erroneous grounds isn't really a step forward, because those erroneous arguments will likely continue to be applied going forward. MastCell Talk 18:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Given this discussion, it seems agreed on that we can use the phrase "far right" if appropriately set off in quotes and attributed. I've added it to the "conservatism and originalism" subsection; it wasn't necessary when discussing his start on the Court. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being needlessly inflammatory, the "far right" jab is redundant. The article already mentions twice that he is one of the most conservative justices on the Court. Leaving it in reduces the credibility of Wikipedia.--76.111.35.24 (talk) 22:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)