Talk:Ginni Thomas/Archive 1

Treason
Thomas is not an attorney. Why does this page call her "an American attorney?" That is inaccurate and should be changed. Also, why isn't there more information about the treason she committed when she helped to incite an insurrection and attempted election theft? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.162.105 (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently NOT an attorney
The article states she is an "American attorney" but she does not appear to be a member of any bar. Certainly she is NOT a member of the Virginia Bar (where she lives) or the DC Bar (where she often has worked) nor the Maryland Bar. If she is NOT a member of a bar, she is NOT an attorney.

Nota Bene: Do not confuse academic qualifications with professional qualifications. She definitely is a Juris Doctor and, thus, is rightly called Dr Virginia Thomas. But "attorney" is a professional qualification NOT an academic one. According to the article itself, she has NEVER worked as an attorney. She merely has a professional doctorate in law - which is an academic qualification not a professional one.

Also Note: Thomas herself, as far as I know, has NEVER presented herself to the public as an attorney. She usually self-describes as a conservative activist or advocate. So, it looks like the person who wrote the opening paragraph to the article simply presumed without doing any research that she was an attorney because she has a law degree.

Until evidence is found dthat she actually IS a member of a legal bar somewhere in the world, the word "attorney" should be removed from the article. But it would be perfectly correct to say sh is a Juris Doctor because that merely states her academic qualification. The articl is not an advertisement for her, so there is no need for a disclaimer, as there would be for law firm stationery or business cards.

2601:645:C300:5120:5C27:FEF6:DFA3:D126 (talk) 13:15, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Article started...
... with 28 citations, as well as (1) public domain image (thanks to User:Y). Smee 08:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC).

Previous marriage of husband?
Was Justice Thomas married before? Should this be mentioned in the article if so? Thanks.Wolfview (talk) 08:59, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was married before. No, I don't see how it matters to her article.  If she was previously married, that might be relevant to her article. Drrll (talk) 09:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

She cold-called Anita Hill
It's in the paper of record. Does it belong in the wiki of record? --Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight
and = violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on this WP:BLP page. This has been reported to WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * In no manner does it violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT and it's offensive that you, Cirt, suggest that it does. Get a grip. 71.169.182.79 (talk) 15:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * An entire separate subsection? It should be trimmed and merged into the biographical discussion about her life. -- Cirt (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see where else it should go. "Career"?  "Family"?  Iffy at best. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Created sect, Personal life. Removed the WP:UNDUE WEIGHT from the WP:BLP page - there is no need for large amounts of blockquotes or quotes in this sect. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * None of this is a good idea. This article is not a puff piece for Ginni Thomas.  This current story is not about her personal life.  For all we know, it is about her political life, but that doesn't matter and we should not speculate.  All's we know is that it's about Thomas' "reaching out" and contacting Anita Hill and what she said in the message and what Hill's response is to it.  It goes nowhere else.  The account is factual and totally verifiable and to remove it or obscure it violates WP:NPOV.  Just let it say what it says. 70.109.174.66 (talk) 05:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Does it have an entire subsection devoted to it, in the article on the WP:BLP person, Anita Hill? Does it have as much space devoted to it, in the article on Anita Hill? Nope. -- Cirt (talk) 06:39, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For Anita Hill, this fits in well in the Clarence Thomas section as an after effect. The impact on the biography of Ginnie Thomas is much different.  One person was minding their own business, the other decided to rehash the past.  It could be okay as it is, unless the story develops further. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:32, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cirt says "Nope", but makes absolutely no case for his/her conclusion. This story has sufficient significance to get the attention of several news organizations.  This story does not (yet) deserve its own wikipedia page, but it deserves to have the facts that are verifiable stated.  It is (or was) an entire subsection, less than 10% of the article and it is not yet about Thomas' personal life.  It is only about the fact that she contacted Anita Hill and suggested to Hill that Hill apologize for what Hill continues to maintain was nothing other than truth telling.  This is a significant part of Thomas' biography and, currently, does not look particularly flattering to her.  To leave it out makes this article into a puff piece and violates WP:NPOV.  Just let the facts speak for themselves.  BTW, my switching IP address is what my ISP does.  I have nothing to do with it.  I believe it has switched again. 64.223.106.222 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You should register an account. Fair or not, someone registered will be taken more seriously than someone posting with an IP address. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It needs to be trimmed down, more. It does not need any more space devoted to it than at the BLP article Anita Hill, where it has a grand total of about two-lines. -- Cirt (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's currently three sentences, and includes Thomas' reasoning for the call, which doesn't belong on Anita Hill's page. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your disagreement is noted. Further, it should definitely not be given any more size in this article, than at present. -- Cirt (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That I agree with. Unless there's more to come in this story, it is what it is. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

With a deceptive edit summary of simply, "clarify", this subsection has been expanded, again =. This is inappropriate, and the sect should be trimmed back down to a smaller size. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It doesn't need to be further "clarified", whatever that means. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with this edit, by . Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Subsection header: "Conflict of interest claims"
Creating an entire subsection called Conflict of interest claims violates WP:WTA. It also violates WP:UNDUE WEIGHT in a WP:BLP. It should be dealt with in the Career subsection, and not pushed out POV in this manner. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for expressing your opinion, but it is just that, an opinion. If the section was titled "Conflict of interest" rather than "Conflict of interest claims", then I agree, it would have violated WP:BLP policy. As it was, it did not because this is a major issue that has been brought up over the years repeatedly, it is a notable part of her life story that relates to large portions of her long career, and the material was phrased giving both sides. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I choose not to debate this as you have raised other issues that I believe affect article improvement even more, and I would like to spend some time on actually improving the article. In any case,  I have now folded the conflict of interest claims into the career section. I felt that when you combined the material, you created a slightly meandering narrative. Hopefully you will agree that it is best to mention her job, describe it briefly, then discuss the c of i claims. -Best regards- KeptSouth (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Attempt at compromise

The change I made from Cirt's edits is best illustrated by looking at one of the old paragraphs and comparing it to the current version. It represents a quite reasonable attempt at compromise, IMO, and is more readable, IMO.


 * Was:
 * "The issue again arose in 1994 while Thomas was working for Representative Dick Armey, who was then the Republican House Conference Chairman,[20][21] and again in 2000, while she was working for the Heritage Foundation, collecting résumés for potential presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration.[22][23] She worked as a policy analyst for U. S. Congressman Dick Armey, and later at the Heritage Foundation where she served as a White House liaison during the administration of President George W. Bush.[24][25] She serves on the Alumni Advisory Board of her alma mater, Creighton University School of Law.[4]"


 * Current version
 * "Thomas's next job was as a policy analyst for U. S. Congressman Dick Armey, who was then the Republican House Conference Chairman. The issue of a possible conflict of interest was raised again in 1994 while Thomas was working for Armey.[20][21] By the year 2000 she was working for the Heritage Foundation, and claims of conflict of interest were again raised because she was collecting résumés for potential presidential appointments in the George W. Bush Administration at a time when the U.S. Supreme Court was deciding the case of Bush v. Gore.[22][23] She continued to work at the Heritage Foundation during the administration of George W. Bush, serving as the think tank's White House liaison.[24][25] She serves on the Alumni Advisory Board of her alma mater, Creighton University School of Law.[4]"


 * Well, that's all for now. -Best regards-KeptSouth (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks okay for now. The whole "conflict of interest" thing is still over-weighted with respect to the amount of text in this article actually devoted to a biography of the individual. It will need to be trimmed down more in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One-sentence-long subsection
Let us please avoid creating one-sentence-long-subsections, as was done here. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, it was a two sentence subsection, and was my attempt follow the MOS policy that says "Titles should match the article contents". Apparently you realized this and decided to name and group subsections according to time periods, so everything was resolved via accurate edit summaries, and mutual cooperation. -Regards- KeptSouth (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert with no edit summary
= this edit was a revert with zero edit summary. It removed my prior edit that had changed the wording to make it more NPOV, and instead reverted all of the wording back to a prior version - with zero explanation as to why. That is inappropriate editing. -- Cirt (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Behavior issues with User:KeptSouth and edit summaries on this article
has asked that I not post further to his user talk page, and instead post here. I am posting the above here for posterity, regarding (repeated now several times despite comments about this inappropriate behavior pattern) misuse of edit summaries. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Refers to individual users in edit summaries.
 * 2) Makes controversial edits with zero edit summary whatsoever.
 * 3) Uses deceptive edit summaries while making controversial edits to a WP:BLP page objected to in ongoing discussion on the talk page.
 * 1) Uses deceptive edit summaries while making controversial edits to a WP:BLP page objected to in ongoing discussion on the talk page.

More undue weight
= removed as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT violations in a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Common name is Virginia Thomas?
It appears her common name is Virginia Thomas and not Virginia Lamp Thomas. I'm proposing to rename the article to "Virginia Thomas" per WP:COMMONNAME. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 07:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The NY Times has 21 results "Virginia Lamp Thomas" and 5,930 results for '"Virginia Thomas" "Clarence"'.
 * cnn.com - 1 result for "Virginia Lamp Thomas" and 861 results for '"Virginia Thomas" "Clarence"'.
 * Google has 9,520 results "Virginia Lamp Thomas" and 55,200 results for "Virginia Thomas" "Clarence Thomas". Google for just "Virginia Thomas" has about 325,000 results with of the results on the first page being about this person. Adding "Clarence" to the search drops it to about 75,400 results meaning far more than "Virginia Lamp Thomas"
 * Google Books is more of a toss-up with has 327 results for "Virginia Lamp Thomas" and 453 results for "Virginia Thomas" "Clarence Thomas"
 * People magazine cover uses "Virginia Thomas".
 * Her own bio uses "Virginia Thomas."
 * On another site she uses Virginia L. Thomas.
 * ✅ --BDD (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

January 2021 activities?
Shouldn't the page be properly updated to show she opposed the election of Biden, supported overturning the results, and supported the group attacking the capital on 1/6/21 ? https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1347395084527017985?s=20 I am not the person to do it however... --gobears87 (talk) 19:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Claims regarding buses and involvement with Turning Point USA
The article claims that Thomas sent buses to Washington, D.C. for the January 6th rally; there are no primary sources that support this claim. The article also claims that Thomas currently serves on the Advisory Council of Turning Point USA, but the Turning Point USA website's list of its advisory council members does not include her. I think that this text needs to be removed as there are no primary sources supporting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DWRoelands (talk • contribs) 03:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To add to article "No, there is not evidence that Ginni Thomas paid for buses to bring people to the Capitol siege." Marquardtika (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Council for National Policy
Has Virginia Thomas been a member or employee of the Council for National Policy? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * According to Anne Nelson (Shadow Network), Thomas was a member of the board. There’s also this evdience. Charlie Kirk of TPUSA was also revealed as a member. As you may recall, it was Kirk’s group who was instrumental in busing Trump supporters to the attack on the Capitol. The connections between the CNP, Thomas, Kirk, and all the seditionists behind the insurrection is growing. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to Move Article to “Ginni Thomas”
Hey guys! I’d like to obtain consensus from the community before proceeding, but with many news sources referring to Thomas by her nickname “Ginni” rather than “Virginia”, I think it would be appropriate to move the article to “Ginni Thomas” instead of continuing to use “Virginia Thomas”, per WP:COMMONNAME. InvadingInvader (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't researched this issue, yet I wholeheartedly disagree with your idea of moving the article to a new name.
 * INSTEAD you might want to create a "Ginni Thomas" page, but make it a REDIRECTION page that redirects to this existing "Virginia Thomas", either automatically or by providing a link to click on (I did that years ago. I don't remember how I did it, though it was quick and easy).
 * 2003:FC:8F0D:BB00:AD34:323A:DE0F:ED96 (talk) 06:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason for your disagreement. --Pokelova (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Support: Ginni does seem to be winning out over Virginia. --Pokelova (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Press reports and personal references virtually always seem to refer to her as Ginni. (I know that Google counts are not considered a very good way of choosing names, but "Ginni Thomas" just now got 867,000 hits while "Virginia Thomas" got 527,000.) BTW Ginni Thomas is already a redirect to this page - has been since 2010. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. I got a similar result as MelanieN above, and as a sanity check I searched for "Clarence Thomas wife" on Google News, and while both Virginia and Ginni were used, I did get the impression that Ginni is used more commonly, particularly in headlines. Endwise (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made a technical request to perform the move, as it looks like there's consensus in favour of it. Endwise (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The page is protected, so I've moved your request to the "admin needed" section. Dr. Vogel (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Last sentence of lead
Her support of the rally occurred before the violence took place, and she later apologized for contributing to a rift among Clarence Thomas's former Supreme Court clerks. Doesn't really seem relevant. The first half is already mentioned in the previous sentence and the second part seems unimportant.  Nixinova   T   C  22:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The second part is what the paragraph on her support of the rally mostly discusses in our article for the most part; leads are meant to follow the body so the rift it created among Clarence's clerks makes sense to include. I have condensed some of the redundancies though. Endwise (talk) 06:03, 26 March 2022 (UTC)