Talk:Thurgood Marshall

Discrepancy in number of cases argued/won

Under the section, "Chief Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund," this article says "In total, Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court"

Later, under "Court of Appeals and Solicitor General," it says "As Solicitor General, he won 14 out of the 19 cases that he argued for the government".

Obviously, these two cannot be rectified, since if he lost 5 cases for the government, his win record would at best be 27/32. Both are [citation needed]

Most sources I've found support the former, including the NYTimes obituary: https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/0702.html It also says that he argued 14 as a private citizen and 18 as SG.

But I did find one source saying he was 14 of 19 for the government, but it didn't seem the most reliable. [such as this site that gets a warning when you try to access it: http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/hill/marshall.htm ] I can't find a list of all his cases he argued, so I can't say for sure one is right, though I suspect the 29/32 is right.

In any event, this discrepancy should be fixed, but since sources disagree I wanted to place it out here first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.228.60 (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The way I read it, he won 29 out of 32 cases he argued as Chief Counsel for the NAACP. He left that position and took a position as Solicitor General, where he won 14 out of 19 cases he argued in that position. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Solicitor General Section

There’s an apparent wording error in reference to Marshall being the highest ranking black official in government. The Solicitor General is the 4th ranking official at DOJ, Robert Weaver was a cabinet secretary and thus in the line of succession - much higher up the list, and Weaver was in office first. As a result, Marshall did not succeed him as the highest ranking official. Perhaps it should say, highest ranking black official “since” Weaver. --Revmqo (talk) 23:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.129.159 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2021

Shortly after announcing his retirement, Marshall met Thomas in a courtesy meeting which was originally supposed to last 10 minutes but lasted over 2 hours, with Marshall finishing the meeting by telling Thomas "I had to do in my time what I had to do, and you have to do in your time what you have to do." https://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/clarence-thomas-discusses-his-life-and-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0 EVOShadow032 (talk) 14:18, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've spent the last month or so rewriting Marshall's article, and I'd appreciate it if some talk-page watchers would take a look at my work: see User:Extraordinary Writ/Thurgood Marshall. It's not perfect, but I've tried my best to put together a fully sourced article that provides a more-or-less comprehensive overview of Marshall's life and work while remaining concise and readable for the million-some-odd people who view this page each year. I don't want to just move it into mainspace without getting the all-clear from folks on the talk page first, so I'd be eager to hear any and all feedback. Thanks in advance! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention this again: I'd be glad to consider any suggestions or concerns regarding my rewrite before I incorporate it into the mainspace article. If I don't hear anything, I'll just be bold and assume consensus, but I'll still be happy to listen to any feedback, at any point. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:19, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Just noting for the record that I've moved my rewritten version into mainspace. Again, I'd still be more than happy to listen to any thoughts and comments that talk-page watchers might have—please feel free to let me know if there's anything I've overlooked. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work! I've added an interesting quote by Rehnquist to the "Retirement, later life and death" section. Equilibrial (talk) 10:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that when asked by reporters why he was retiring, U.S. Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall replied, "What's wrong with me? I'm old. I'm getting old and coming apart!"? Source: Ball, Howard (1998). A Defiant Life: Thurgood Marshall and the Persistence of Racism in America. New York: Crown Publishers. p. 379. ISBN 978-0-517-59931-0.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Made You Look (Meghan Trainor song)
  • Comment: If anyone could help me with the punctuation in this hook, that would be great.

Improved to Good Article status by Extraordinary Writ (talk). Nominated by Unlimitedlead (talk) at 22:06, 29 October 2022 (UTC).

• @Unlimitedlead: Sorry but I have to fail this. Per DYK newness rules, if an article is a bold link in the prose section of "On this day..." then it is ineligible for DYK. I don't why the newness category rules have to be so weirdly specific nor do I know why this rule was added in the first place. Which sucks too because I would've loved for this to become a DYK but I have to follow the DYK criteria. Sorry Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @Onegreatjoke: Ah, that is truly a shame. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    • I've posted a note at DYK – it'd be a shame to close this so soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
      • @Theleekycauldron: Do you know if this nomination can proceed? The discussion at DYK somehow spiraled into a full-blown argument in the past month, and frankly, I have no idea what's happening! Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
        • First time? :P it looks like the discussion is going to resolve in favour of allowing the hook (goes outside, turns around three times, and spits), so I think we just have to wait for a close. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:55, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
• Sorry, saying "I'm old" is not unusual or intriguing (WP:DYKCRIT). And readers with special knowledge or interest in this subject will certainly have strong opinions about the choice of quote. Joofjoof (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought it would be humorous and interesting to find out that Thurgood Marshall, one of the most important figures in American history, sassed reporters. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is a good hook, for the reason User:Unlimitedlead said. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

• The RfC and related discussion has closed, and the rules have changed so former OTD/ITN/TFAs are now eligible for DYK at least a year after their latest appearance. Given that Marshall's article was last a bolded link in 2014, the article should now be eligible for DYK and thus the review can proceed. Courtesy ping: @Extraordinary Writ, Onegreatjoke, Theleekycauldron, Joofjoof, Unlimitedlead, and Mx. Granger:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Working on the review now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Thanks. With all the chaos at DYK over the past 3 months, I almost forgot this hook was never actually reviewed! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
• As noted above, this is now considered DYK-eligible. No article or hook issues (I agree it's interesting enough to a broad audience), and QPQ was done. Punctuation in the hook looks fine to me. I made some small edits that then nominator/major editor might like to review in this series of revisions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:19, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, FFF! The edits all look good to me. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Social engineering

Thurgood Marshall is described as engaged in Social engineering (political science). But there is no link referencing this concept to Social engineering. I recommend that a link be provided. Merriam-Webster dictionary has the definition here: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20engineering

Thurgood's Real Name

Thurgood marshal was born Thoroughgood Bruh138 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

We already cover that. See the infobox and Note a. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Work with FBI and J. Edgar Hoover

Shouldn't Marshall's behind-the-scenes work for the FBI and J. Edgar Hoover (specifically to undermine civil rights activist T. R. M. Howard) be mentioned in this article, if only briefly? Source: https://www.newsweek.com/strangest-bedfellows-169718 173.88.246.138 (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on Terminology: "African American" vs. "Black" in Reference to Thurgood Marshall

Hello fellow editors,

I hope this message finds you well. I'm writing to initiate a discussion regarding the terminology used in the Thurgood Marshall article, specifically the terms "African American" and "Black."

Recent discussions and guidelines, notably those in the context of legal definitions, suggest a more nuanced approach to these terms. According to 28 CFR § 42.402 (e), as referenced in the [Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/28/42.402), the definition for "Black, not of Hispanic Origin" is a person having origins in any of the black racial groups of Africa.

Given Thurgood Marshall's significant contributions and his historical and cultural context, and he was born in American, it may be appropriate to consider if the term "Black" aligns more accurately with current understanding and definitions, rather than "African American."

This discussion aims to align our article with accurate and respectful terminology, considering both historical context and modern legal definitions. I believe it is important to address this in light of evolving understandings of ethnic identities.

I invite all editors to provide their insights and opinions on this matter. Should we consider revising the article to replace instances of "African American" with "Black" in accordance with the federal law definition as stated in 28 CFR § 42.402?

Looking forward to a constructive and respectful discussion.

Best regards, Sleeplessmason (talk) 16:31, 18 December 2023 (UTC)