Talk:Anita Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Oklahoma (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject African diaspora (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politically Motivated Character Assassination?[edit]

I have seen coverage on MSNBC News and also FOX News that suggests that Anita Hill's accusations against Thomas were "politically motivated character assassination" and that if Thomas had not been a conservative, he would never have been subjected to her accusations.

Does anyone have any source material that either proves or disproves that assertion? (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time, Hill was an active conservative Republican, or so said the news coverage of the day. I suggest searching for that. If true (and I see no reason to doubt it) it would render that explanation for Hill's accusation implausible. It would still be plausible that she would have received assistance in bringing the matter before the committee from those who were politically motivated, but that's not nearly the same thing. Dvd Avins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
No, Anita Hill was not a Republican (or a conservative) despite what some chose to imply at the time. During the hearings in 1991, Newsday reported that Hill was a registered Democrat. During a television interview, Hill herself contradicted reporter Ed Bradley's assumption that she was a Republican; she clearly said she was a registered Democrat and 'not a conservative' (February 1992 60 Minutes). Hill's Democratic Party registration was also reported in Essence (magazine), March 1992. During her entire adult life (through 2009), Federal Election Commission records show that all Hill's political campaign donations have been to Democrats. Years after the alleged harassment by Thomas, a conservative columnist testified under oath somewhere that Ms. Hill had also accused him (John Doggett (columnist)) of having made unwanted advances to her, Doggett claimed the advances were entirely in Hill's imagination. This whole sordid business has always been "she said, he said". -- (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
The discussion page is for discussing the article, not for venting opinions about the subject of the article (see top of this page "not a forum") . nut-meg (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
See User talk:Nut-meg#Anita Hill. Also, this seems somewhat odd. -- (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Removal appropriate per WP:BLP. In fact this discussion itself is somewhat borderline so I suggest it stop now unless there is some relevance to how we should edit the article Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps something should be added to cover the witnesses who testified that Hill had previously seemed to imagine that men were taking interest in her, and all the speculation during the hearings about whether it was "fantasy" or "transference," and how even those who said she was not telling the truth believed that she believed what she was saying. These seem to be important points in an article about the woman and the controversy. 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If that gets added, it would have to contrasted to Specter's nationally televised accusation of perjury, which (assuming Specter was telling the truth about his own state of mind) says at least one of those disputing her story saw her as deliberately lying. Dvd Avins (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edited David Brock part 2[edit]

The 'conservative hit-job' part about David Brock is unsubstantiated. The reference linked to someone's homepage with text and details of the original allegations. No where was the 'hit-job' confession mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New Job[edit]

Added "followed him to this new job", which is true.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 Happyjoe.jpg ]] 06:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

  • Hm. I'm not sure about that. I think a citation is needed.

--Amynewyork4248 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

    • She says it herself in her opening statement...that she was offerred the opportunity to go with Thomas, and she took it. The other woman who went, Thomas' secretary (Diane Holt), testified that Hill (and Holt, herself) was "excited" to go with him. 06:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

David Brock Furthers doubts[edit]

Current entry states, "In 1991, public opinion polls showed that 47% of those polled believed Thomas, while 24% believed Hill. Doubts about her testimony were furthered by the widely publicized and later recanted claims of David Brock." However, one public opinion poll shifted in favor of Hill after the publication of Brock's book. [1]. Better to say, "Brock sought to further doubts about her testimony..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weffiewonj (talkcontribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism / Errors[edit]

The front page has some error/vandalism. Please attend to it Gautam Discuss 06:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose Edits[edit]

None of Wallamoose's edits are cited, and should be challenged. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Some paragraphs are cited, and all of my edits are based on the official transcript which is also cited. You seem to be challenging my edits for the sake of challenging my edits. Is there material I added that you dispute and find controversial?(Wallamoose (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC))
Actually, I don't see any citations on your edits. Please cite what you add. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
All of my edits are based on the official transcript. So if you could add that citation where necessary I would appreciate it. I will try to do a better job in the future. And if there's still a question involved please use the SOP fix it with a date tag, and I'll get to it when I can. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Edit reference 7[edit]

^7 Hull, Smith, Scott. All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies, pxvi

Add "Publisher: The Feminist Press at CUNY (February 1, 2003)"

From listing at Amazon:

00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Perseus109 - 6/8/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus109 (talkcontribs)

Inappropriate mention of black feminism[edit]

The linked main article on Black Feminism's opening line directly associates sexism with racism, but Clarence Thomas is African-American. As regards the subject matter of the article, unless a scholastic argument can be made which removes Clarence Thomas' African-American heritage from the issue and/or cause of his alleged sexism, then its inclusion in the article itself is inappropriate. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do so without sacrificing the scholastic value of the article, for by doing so it will become an argumentative, possibly propagandist piece of literature. It may well be that Anita Hill's experience inspired "Black Feminism," as the article states, but to retain educational value the implicit suggestion that race and sexism are linked, even when an accused offender is African-American cannot be permitted to remain in this article. By simply pointing out that Clarence Thomas is African-American, a tabla rasa student will then be able to recognise the apparent contradiction, and then may or may not pursue further study to develop their own informed opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of "Hill to SCOTUS" claim[edit]

Under the Later Career section it is asserted at the end of the section that:

"In 2012, she may be nominated to serve as Supreme Court Justice."

There is no reference offered for this assertion. Is there any truth to this at all and, if so, shouldn't there be a cite for the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansloot (talkcontribs) 05:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This was already removed at the time of my review. Jaydubya93 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)