Talk:Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rewritten intro and new categories[edit]

I did some editing to try and improve the article. I reworked the opening introduction to make it more clear and complete. To better organize the article I also added some categories and moved some text. Let me know if anyone has any questions/ comments/ suggestions. I hope my changes improved the quality of the entry. (Wallamoose (talk) 17:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Anita Hill testimony Section - Sexual Harassment was not claimed by Hill[edit]

I have stated this in the discussion page at Clarence_Thomas and it is my contention that Hill's testimony to the Senate Committee does not contain a clear unambiguous declaration that she had been sexually harassed by Thomas. Instead she was evasive and unwilling to commit to a legal claim of sexual harassment. I believe the claim in this page's testimony section should not have those two words in close association. It was Hill's evasive language that made me wonder about her when I first heard her testimony. I think there is sufficient doubt in her testimony to the committee to draw the conclusion that she had something to hide or something to worry about. Everything hinges on these two words really. Sexually inappropriate stuff would never have never made it to the committee and especially not in open session. I believe a clear take-away from this weird testimony is that she was being coached to use those two words but when she was faced to making this lie (the described behavior and comments do not rise to the level of harassment), she hesitated because she was lying and she was worried about perjury. Arlen Spector was going after her on this very issue.
Here's my rewrite of the first sentence of the third paragraph in the section:
Before:
"Hill's testimony alleged sexual harassment by Thomas."
After:
"Hills testimony was evasive in using the words 'sexual harassment', claiming that she did not want to make the legal claim of sexual harassment. During close questioning she evinced discomfort in making a legal claim of sexual harassment. Without this claim, it is unlikely she would have been called to give her testimony to the committee." Lkoler (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NPOV, we can't negatively characterize her as "evasive" unless a reliable source is cited (i.e. a solid footnote). Likewise, we cannot speculate about whether she would have been called to testify, unless a reliable source is cited. See WP:RS.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I only want to maintain that the statement in the article which says she claimed sexual harassment is coming from ambiguous testimony. Wiki rules, I think, can certainly be relied on to prevent things that are not clear. I can give details from her testimony, but I shouldn't have to do this. If you know the testimony, then I needn't do this. Let's consider that I am charging this claim as coming from ambiguous testimony or maybe coming without a reference. I mention my doubts about her evasiveness to show reasonableness why I think this claim can be seen as ambiguous. Whoever wrote the original article could not meet the unambiguous standard that is required here. It should not have been stated in so declarative a fashion.
I certainly understand about my statement regarding her being called to testify for the reason of sexual harassment. I am pretty sure that I can come up with a reference for that. I will work on this point. Lkoler (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll edit the article to address your concern, by including info from the main Thomas article.166.137.136.54 (talk) 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed some speculation[edit]

I removed a phrase about Wright's "not wanting to testify" because I did not see that in the testimony cited in the ref. Also a speculative sentence about "not wanting to be seen as ... sour grapes." also not supported by the citation.

Mydogtrouble (talk) 16:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McEwen[edit]

I think we ought to at least briefly mention McEwen, with a footnote so readers can learn more if they want to. Perhaps something like this: "Biden decided not to let people testify against Thomas who were not subordinates; for example, a Democratic Judiciary staffer named Lillian McEwen claimed that she used to be Thomas's girlfriend and alerted Biden that she had information. Much later, in 2010, McEwen came forward with a book discussing Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences and off-color language." How's that? I doubt this merits inclusion in the main Thomas article.

Per Richard Cohen at WaPo: "The revelations -- so banal as to comprise a virtual exoneration -- are that Thomas was obsessed with women, likes them big-breasted, and indulged in a critical viewing of pornography.".166.137.136.54 (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an edit for several reasons. For instance, it completely bypassed ongoing talk page discussion, and selectively presented information with undue weight. This article is about the Thomas hearings, so why omit Biden's reason for not calling McEwen? And the fact that Thomas liked to look at pretty women does not seem sufficiently notable (did Hill even mention it?). See WP:Talk, WP:Recentism, WP:Undue weight,WP:NPOV, and WP:Tabloid.166.137.138.80 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:BLPN[edit]

Currently being discussed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tabloid-like_accusations_against_Clarence_Thomas Drrll (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McEwen material moved from main Thomas article[edit]

Lillian McEwen, who was romantically involved with Thomas in the early 1980s, gave interviews in October 2010 in which she claimed Thomas watched pornography[1] and said he abused alcohol while they were together before he gave up drinking. She worked on Capitol Hill for then Senator Joe Biden, "helping him prepare for the Thomas confirmation hearings" and said she felt Hill and Thomas were both "not being entirely truthful". She believes they had a sexual relationship, and as Democrat she disapproves of Thomas' conservative jurisprudence on the bench and has written a memoir which she is shopping to publishers.[2]

In ten years will this addition still appear relevant? Hmm. I'll note that Thomas already talked at length about his drinking problem in his recent book.166.137.137.84 (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This text gives every appearance of having been cherry-picked from the sources with an eye toward trying to editorially discredit McEwen. More to the point, it's entirely unrepresentative of the cited sources. MastCell Talk 03:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose any mention of McEwen in this subarticle and in the main article, but I believe that what goes in should be relevant to his behavior/speech toward his subordinate employees (since that was the relationship of Anita Hill to him), and should mention that Biden, while McEwen worked for him on the Thomas hearings, rejected examining her charges on the basis that she was his girlfriend rather than subordinate employee. Drrll (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did McEwen really say that she suspects Hill and Thomas had a sexual relationship?166.137.137.87 (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer my own question. McEwen conjectured: "I felt that neither was telling the truth because I had always assumed that Clarence had had a sexual relationship with her." That's pretty amazing, though not necessarily encyclopedic.166.137.137.87 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notice that she had no direct knowledge of such; she just "assumed" such. Drrll (talk) 17:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If McEwen is correct, then obviously Hill would have learned about Thomas's vocabulary and habits while both Hill and Thomas were outside the workplace. Of course, she could have learned about them outside the workplace even if Hill and Thomas had no sexual relationship. I'm not sure how much this dimension has been discussed in the reliable sources.166.137.139.60 (talk) 18:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should look into that before speculating here? This is a forum to discuss how to convey the content of reliable sources, not a forum to brainstorm possible defenses for Clarence Thomas. My concern remains, in that the text above seems cherry-picked to advance an editorial ideology, and fails to accurately convey the content of the cited sources. MastCell Talk 18:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the blockquoted text above is lousy, which is why I removed it from the main Thomas article. Why not comment on the text that I proposed above for inclusion in this article? "Biden decided not to let people testify against Thomas who were not subordinates; for example, a Democratic Judiciary staffer named Lillian McEwen claimed that she used to be Thomas's girlfriend and alerted Biden that she had information. Much later, in 2010, McEwen came forward with a book discussing Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences and off-color language."166.137.136.202 (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Justice Clarence Thomas' Former Lover Speaks Out on Relationship in TV Interview [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Abraham and Bork[edit]

The article was recently edited in a way that distorts the Abraham source, while simultaneously blanking the Yalof source. Abraham says that Thomas received a record low "vote" but ultimately received the same "rating" as many other nominees. Attributing to Abraham the notion that Thomas received a record low ranking is false, and I might add disruptive since it was done without any explanation and after discussion of this at the main Thomas article. Regarding the blanking of the Yalof source, no effort has been made to include the information in a way that would be more satisfactory. Moreover, the allegation of synthesis is patently absurd; one could just as easily say that the Abraham source was included to debunk Yalof. The primary result here is to exclude information that might show Thomas in a more favorable light, and include only information of the other variety. That is not NPOV.

Any time that a Wikipedia article presents more than one POV, a disruptive editor could claim that one of them is presented as "synthesis" to undermine the other. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous sources describe Thomas' evaluation from the ABA as exceptionally and notably poor. We convey that, appropriately, as a relevant item in this article. But then we juxtapose a listing of the number of "not qualified" votes received by Robert Bork. Why? What does that add to the reader's understanding of this topic? It's not useful context, because it omits the reasons why Thomas' rating was in fact perceived as "worse" than Bork's. Instead, it implies to the reader that Thomas' rating wasn't a "record low". That's clearly not what the source is saying; that's an incorrect (or, at best, novel) impression created by the way you've juxtaposed excerpts from the sources.

Reliable sources clearly describe Thomas' evaluation as a record low for a SCOTUS nominee. It's not original synthesis to convey that. On the other hand, it is original synthesis to excerpt parts (not the whole) of other nominees' vote totals to undermine the content of reliable sources. This isn't a gray area, so there's no need to artificially muddy the waters. Do any reliable sources directly dispute that Thomas' vote represented a record low? If not, then let's not go looking for excerpts we can juxtapose to create that impression. Elsewhere, you criticized others for relying on "fleeting footnotes", but here you're touting this passing parenthetical as a vital piece of information? MastCell Talk 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, it is extremely clear from the sources that many other nominees have received the same "qualified" rating that Thomas received. You have not disagreed with that. It's also extremely clear that the vote for that rating set a record low. Your blanket statement that the "evaluation" set a record low is therefore unnecessary and inaccurate. We should say that the vote set a record low, just as the most reliable and in-depth source does (see Abraham). Regarding the fact that he received half as many unqualified votes as Bork, that information is interesting, relevant, and mentioned by numerous reliable sources (and not tucked away in their footnotes). This information helps to provide context for the record-low statement, and vice-versa. Since you're unhappy with the Bork sources, I'll list more later today (I'm on an iPhone now). I have no objection if we also say in this article that Bork's overall rating was "well-qualified" if you think that might be helpful, but I see no reason to excise Bork and muddle the record-low nature of the Thomas ABA vote, as you've tried to do.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript quote[edit]

I don't have any problem with most of the recent edits. However, this one strikes me as wrong. Although the edit summary didn't say so, considerable information was deleted. Primary source material is acceptable to augment secondary sources, so I'm not seeing the problem. This kind of primary source material is especially valuable where it can give the reader a greater understanding of what the secondary source means. I don't have any objection to rephrasing the stuff about the witnesses being "dismissed", but deletion of the transcript material looks problematic to me, and likely to mislead readers. I don't know of any Wikipedia rule that says it's fine to augment a secondary source with a primary source, except when it might make the subject of the article look better, or except where the primary source might clarify what the secondary source wanted to remain unclear. Moreover, it wouldn't have been difficult to cite a secondary source instead of the primary source, if one hates primary sources. See Witcover, Jules. Joe Biden: a life of trial and redemption, page 429 (HarperCollins, 2010).Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons why Wright was never called to testify are complex and a matter of some dispute. That is clear from reliable secondary sources (e.g. Washington Post). Biden's perspective was that she declined his offer to testify, but that viewpoint is not universally accepted. Per WP:NPOV, we should convey the complexity of the question rather than simply choosing Biden's explanation and enshrining it. That's why secondary sources are much more useful than selective excerpts from a hearing transcript.

I've reworded the section, using reliable secondary sources, to clarify the complexity and uncertainty as to why Wright didn't testify. Per the sources, Republican and Democratic Senators alike were antsy at the prospect (albeit for different reasons), and Wright herself was reluctant because she had witnessed the Committee's treatment of Hill. MastCell Talk 22:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your removal of the Witcover source without any explanation. It contains detailed information about this incident, and I will restore it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you like, as long as we describe all notable viewpoints (per WP:NPOV) instead of solely describing Biden's. MastCell Talk 23:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hill lost out on a promotion[edit]

This edit removed material about Ronald Reagan (per the edit summary), which is fine. But, contrary to the edit summary, most of the material removed had nothing to do with Reagan. The deleted material was: "In the same FBI report, Thomas testified that he had once promoted Allyson Duncan over Hill as his chief of staff at the EEOC and that Hill disliked Ronald Reagan.<ref name="abc news2"/>" I disagree with both the misleading edit summary and also with the removal. I'll restore the non-Reagan stuff, pending some reason to remove it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception of Strange Justice[edit]

This edit removed info about the reception of the book Strange Justice. The edit summary says, inter alia, "simply quoting this one opinion at length is unbalanced and hardly representative". Maybe so, but the better solution would be to render the material balanced instead of peremptorily deleting it all (e.g. see WP:Preserve). I'll go ahead and take the former course.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we highlight Richard Roeper's opinion with a lengthy quote, while consigning all other reception to a simple partisan breakdown? Roeper is a film critic. I'm not saying his viewpoint is worthless, but it seems to be given a significant amount of undue weight in your edit. MastCell Talk 22:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tushnet is quoted as saying the book proved Thomas lied under oath. The length of the Roeper quote has been reduced from what it used to be. The material is balanced. (Reagan was an actor, but that doesn't mean he couldn't be a politician too.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance of Ronald Reagan. I continue to think that Roeper is being singled out in a way that's unbalanced, but no longer feel it's worth arguing about. MastCell Talk 23:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roeper's comment also seems to miss the point, arguing against a straw man - 124.191.144.183 (talk) 13:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Embarassment[edit]

This edit to the main Clarence Thomas article says: "Merida and Fletcher describe the ABA's action as a 'significant embarassment to the Bush administration'." I don't see anything in this subarticle about it, so I guess something needs to be said about it in this sub-article, per WP:Summary style. The Merida/Fletcher quote is buried in a footnote without explanation or elaboration at the end of their book (p. 398 fn. 172), so it seems a bit weird to move that quote directly from there straight to the main text of our main Thomas article, bypassing this article. Anyway, I'm going to add a sentence to the present article saying: "The White House said it was pleased that the ABA had found Thomas qualified, and the ABA vote generally had little impact on his nomination." Source: Viera, Norman and Gross, Leonard. Supreme Court appointments: Judge Bork and the politicization of Senate Confirmations, page 137 (SIU Press, 1998). This seems reliable, more so than Merida and Fletcher's fleeting quotation, which would best be left out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. That's an interesting source. It states that Republican Senators threatened to "pull the plug" on the ABA if it didn't give Thomas at least a "qualified" rating. I wasn't aware of that; it might warrant inclusion here. In any case, the source doesn't in any way invalidate Merida/Fletcher's contention that the rating was an embarrassment to the Bush White House. It simply relates that the Administration chose to respond by spinning the rating positively. These are not mutually exclusive, and we shouldn't treat this as an either/or sourcing game.

I agree we should note that the ABA rating had little impact on Thomas' confirmation hearings; arguably, since the source explains why the ABA gave Thomas a low rating, we may want to briefly elaborate on that (they found some of his writing "shallow" and one-sided). MastCell Talk 22:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the ABA vote generally had little impact on his nomination, maybe we shouldn't devote half of this article to the subject? In any event, I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge, MastCell, that many other SCOTUS nominees received the same "qualified" rating as Thomas. Any chance of that happening?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to depersonalize this discussion - a fair request - and so I'm going to decline to be drawn into a back-and-forth debate with you, especially one that you initiate with that sort of tone. Let's talk about specific content issues and sources.

Initially, we treated the ABA vote briefly, by describing the vote totals and contextualizing them exactly as reliable secondary sources did (variously, as a "record low", "lowest since 1955", or an "embarrassment to the Bush White House"). The section was expanded in part because you were unsatisfied with that brief coverage and thought it important to include Robert Bork's vote totals (or at least part of them).

Thanks in part to the sources you've produced (e.g. Viera), we have more reliably sourced material on the ABA rating and its context, so the section has expanded. How would you propose to shrink it, assuming you believe it's too long? MastCell Talk 22:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Undent)Your comment is very misleading and inaccurate, to say the very least. Would you please strive harder to be accurate, because it is very time-consuming to rebut the errors.

The comparison to the Bork ABA vote has been in this article or the main article for over a year. The main article said, "Reagan nominee Robert Bork received twice as many 'not qualified' votes as Thomas.[39]" on October 27, 2011, and it said the same on 25 May 2010. Per WP:Summary style, the info should be in this article if it's in the main article. I do believe that continuing to include the Bork "unqualified" votes is useful, particularly since you apparently continue to insist that we suggest that no SCOTUS nominees received the same "qualified" rating as Thomas, even though that is false and is contradicted by the most reliable sources.

Your comment is also misleading and inaccurate in that you say we initially treated the ABA vote briefly as a "record low", "lowest since 1955", or an "embarrassment to the Bush White House". That is manifestly false. On October 7, for example, this article said (as it had for a very long time) the following: "President Bush said that Thomas was the 'best qualified [nominee] at this time.'[4] The American Bar Association's (ABA) rating for Judge Thomas was split between 'qualified' and 'not qualified.'" None of the material that you say was initially there was actually there. You are insisting on big changes and expansions, and I am trying to accommodate you as best I can, at great cost in time and energy. A good way to shrink this material would be to return to the longstanding version, and proceed by consensus (an outrageous concept, I know).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the choice between responding to your accusations and ignoring them, I'm going to choose the latter. A few sentences about the ABA rating is a reasonable amount of weight. I think we have adequate reliable secondary sources to write those few sentences. I think it's important that whatever content we decide on is an accurate and proportional representation of reliable secondary sources. We need to respect their context and not simply excerpt the bits we find most appealing. In order to move forward, it's probably essential to get some additional input from other editors, so I'll stop there. MastCell Talk 23:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination&oldid=1219442365"