Jump to content

Talk:Ginni Thomas

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.196.162.105 (talk) at 17:27, 28 March 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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?

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)[reply]

Article started...

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

She cold-called Anita Hill

It's in the paper of record. Does it belong in the wiki of record? [1] --Muboshgu (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight

[2] and [3] = violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on this WP:BLP page. This has been reported to WP:BLPN. -- Cirt (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I don't see where else it should go. "Career"? "Family"? Iffy at best. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

With a deceptive edit summary of simply, "clarify", this subsection has been expanded, again = [4]. This is inappropriate, and the sect should be trimmed back down to a smaller size. -- Cirt (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It doesn't need to be further "clarified", whatever that means. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this edit [5], by Muboshgu (talk · contribs). Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 15:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Attempt at compromise

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

One-sentence-long subsection

Let us please avoid creating one-sentence-long-subsections, as was done here [6]. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
Great, thanks. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 15:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert with no edit summary

[7] = 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)[reply]

Behavior issues with User:KeptSouth and edit summaries on this article

  1. Refers to individual users in edit summaries [8].
  2. Makes controversial edits with zero edit summary whatsoever [9].
  3. Uses deceptive edit summaries while making controversial edits to a WP:BLP page objected to in ongoing discussion on the talk page [10].

KeptSouth (talk · contribs) 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)[reply]

More undue weight

[11] = removed as WP:UNDUE WEIGHT violations in a WP:BLP page. -- Cirt (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

  • 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.[12]

--Marc Kupper|talk 07:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --BDD (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of any Arbcom-related issues, the external links section was pretty bloated with a lot of superfluous links that served less as information and more as promotion/spam. I've removed some of them per the guideline, and it's clear a few editors agree with it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not clear at all. Have you actually clicked on any of these links? They're highly informative and improve the article. MilesMoney (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Informative" != compliant with our policy. See WP:ELNO. Roccodrift (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Roccodrift, I'm familiar with it. Specifically which part do you believe applies? If you can't explain, I must conclude that it does not apply and act appropriately. MilesMoney (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're familiar with it? That's an interesting claim, considering that just an hour before you said that you'd never heard of it[13] (despite the link that was provided in the previous edit, which you apparently ignored). This has been explained already and there are at least 3 other editors who agree. Don't try to start another WP:FILIBUSTER. Roccodrift (talk) 20:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo disagrees. I asked a reasonable question: you mentioned a policy but you did not specify what part of it you believe applies. You don't have to respond, but then again, I don't have to leave your version in place. MilesMoney (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jimbo Wales: "I think such links should be included in virtually all BLPs, particularly links which allow people to easily hear directly from the subject" 71.23.178.214 (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I supplied you with a reasonable answer. I'm not going to engage in another one of your tendentious word games. The links don't comport with EL policy, a link to the policy was provided, it was pointed out to you that a consensus of other editors agree with that interpretation of the policy. Unless you have a rational argument as to how the links do comport with policy, there's nothing left to discuss here (your threat to start an edit-war notwithstanding). Roccodrift (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A cabal is not a consensus, and railroading is not agreement. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 08:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are being evasive and non-collegial. I asked you a direct, relevant question. You alluded to WP:EL, but it does not seem to apply. If you believe it applies, please quote the part that is most appropriate. Quotes or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 21:41, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I removed them again. The Liberty Consulting one returned a 404 Not Found error. Three others were next to useless because they held nothing more than our article holds. One link to Daily Caller was just a search results page, disallowed by WP:ELNO. External links that are disputed must stay off the page until consensus is achieved, which appears unlikely from the polarized discussion here. Binksternet (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100% with Binksternet. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another nasty little game of tag-teaming:

  • (cur | prev) 20:30, 2 January 2014‎ Capitalismojo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,633 bytes) (-24)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove nndb)
  • (cur | prev) 20:28, 2 January 2014‎ Capitalismojo (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,657 bytes) (-148)‎ . . (→‎External links: remove EL)
  • (cur | prev) 20:08, 2 January 2014‎ Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,805 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (Adding pp-protected template (TW))
  • (cur | prev) 20:08, 2 January 2014‎ Mark Arsten (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (19,733 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Changed protection level of Virginia Thomas: IP edit warring ([Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users] (expires 20:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite)))
  • (cur | prev) 14:59, 2 January 2014‎ Binksternet (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,733 bytes) (-72)‎ . . (delete one EL: 404 error. Delete NNDB EL, no added value. Delete IMDb EL, no added value. Delete DailyCaller EL: search results page not allowed per WP:ELNO. These ELs stay out until consensus is formed for inclusion.)
  • (cur | prev) 07:57, 2 January 2014‎ 71.23.178.214 (talk)‎ . . (19,805 bytes) (+244)‎ . . (Undid revision 588684721 by Roccodrift (talk)make your case on the Talk page)

Shall we review? I included the standard links. Binksternet removed some. Mark Arsten appeared out of nowhere and protected the article. He wasn't involved, no one posted a request on his Talk page, but somehow he just "knew" this was where he should be. Twenty minutes later, another new person, Capitalismojo, appears on the scene to delete the rest of the links. Back channels, anyone? Collusion? Cabal? Conservative Cloud? Sockpuppets? Because you know what? I just posted on Arthur Rubin's Talk page, and was answered by Binksternet. I look forward to the explanation of how all these supposedly disparate people "conveniently" managed to be in the same place at the same time. "Same place" being an article about someone who has been of little interest to most people since she resigned her position. I know how I got here, and I'd really like to know how the rest of you "just happened" to drop by. Come on. Be collegial and explain. I'm really interested. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I "conveniently" watchlist hundreds of articles. I rarely agree with Binksternet but did, upon viewing his edits, agree in this case. That's it. The accusation that there is a secret cabal out to get you is appalling. I would suggest you strike or delete your very personal attacks. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:47, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of articles and user talk pages on my watchlist, which is a feature available to registered editors (see WP:Watchlist.) Arthur Rubin's talk page is on my watchlist.
Mark Arsten "appeared out of nowhere" in response to a request I made to protect the biography because it was subject to edit warring. Here's my request which asked for full protection. Instead, Mark Arsten determined that semi-protection was adequate, which makes newly registered and unregistered editors unable to edit.
I'm a liberal-minded guy who holds fairly standard liberal political views. (It's funny; living in Oakland I don't ever have to vote because everybody else here votes like I would. I vote anyway.) However, I have a strong conservative streak with regard to following Wikipedia's house rules. I think external links should conform strictly to the WP:EL guideline. I don't think a bunch of external links should be wedged into an article simply because they exist, or even because other articles have them. I couldn't care less about the politics of Virginia Thomas, yet I would not want to whitewash her biography, or hide any of her peccadilloes. If there was something worth telling the reader, something contained in an online resource, that resource should be used as a reference to support article text about the issue. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a left/right or a liberal/conservative issue; this is about maintaining the standards that our community has decided upon. What's more, when you see people from diverse viewpoints coming together (both persuasions are represented in this discussion), that should tell you something. Roccodrift (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Ginni Thomas/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

*(28) citations, and (1) public domain image, so far. Smee 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Last edited at 19:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC). 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Proposal to Move Article to “Ginni Thomas”

MOVED
Consensus to move, request done after protection removed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Please provide a reason for your disagreement. --Pokelova (talk) 07:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Reference to Ginni Thomas as an attorney

It is not clear that Ginni Thomas passed any state’s bar exam. Generally, if you have not passed a state bar exam you are prohibited from engaging in the practice of law (a definition which is nuanced from jurisdiction to jurisdiction). In addition, not only can you not practice law, you may not hold yourself out as a professional who can engage in the practice of law – even if you are working in a non-legal profession, as doing so could trigger legal ethics violations. So calling yourself a “lawyer” to others or listing your J.D. degree on websites/marketing materials/social media without a disclaimer that you have not yet passed a state bar exam may be an ethical violation. Even casual contexts can run afoul of the current ABA technicalities involving this issue. So individuals should refrain from using the title lawyer altogether. An individual also may not use the title of “attorney” when referring to oneself in any context without having passed a state bar exam. Thus Wikipedia should not refer to Ginni Thomas as an “attorney” activist. 2601:194:4100:81B0:9809:DC91:BAB2:A7F6 (talk) 02:25, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ginni_Thomas&oldid=1079796412"