Talk:Clarence Thomas

Opinion piece on WaPo regarding Hill controversy

This article [1] has some interesting assertions in it to support why the author takes Hill's side over Thomas's side. Does anyone think some of this information should be included? Remember 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how its included. I don't know if an Op-Ed piece on the Anita Hill controversy from this year will necessarily fit as a reliable source. If the source is included as an example of how this person takes Anita Hill's side, that's one thing, but I'm not sure that's notable. However, I doubt that an Op-Ed piece's assertions themselves can used as a reliable source in a wikipedia article. This is especially true considering that the writer is obviously taking a biased view point. I guess you could include some her refutations of Thomas' points in his book, but you risk taking an already large section in this article and extending it even further. The detail should reflect the notability of the event in relation to everything else in the article. The Anita Hill controversy is significant, but its far from the most significant thing about Thomas. --Jdcaust 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the Anita Hill section again, it seems to be prominent because of a long quote from Thomas. Perhaps a better way to cover this controversy is to remove or cut-down the quote, then give a cited overview of both Thomas' and Hill's side of the events. In any case, the section could use some improvement. --Jdcaust 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the section might need work, but removing the commentary of Thomas at the hearing is not a good way to edit the section. There is no one whose opinion at that hearing is more important than Thomas's. Also, there is no opinion of any commentator who wasn't at that hearing that is as important as Thomas's, especially as this particular article is concerned. This article is about Thomas and he deserves to have his side of the story told, from his perspective, not the perspective of Rush Limbaugh or Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. Any cited overview is going to be slanted whether it comes from a pro-Thomas supporter or a anti-Thomas supporter. From that perspective is much better to have him speak for himself and let the reader decide, not some Wikipedian. And remember that is the point of view that this encyclopedia aims to take, a neutral one. It is his article, not Anita Hill's, not Ted Kennedy's. Thomas should have his say, and not the truncated words of a Wikipedian, if it is then we run the risk of bringing POV into the article.--JobsElihu 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you get into the "Anita Hill" controversity related to approval of Supreme court nominees you're getting into the argument about reasons for pro or con voting on the subject matter; And in doing so you're neglecting the controversity about whether senators were supposed to consider anything other than judicial qualifications in judging the candidates and that the previous nominee (Bork) was agreed to be eminently qualified but was voted down nevertheless.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From SEPT. 16 on this talk page: "Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) (UTC))" Garcia never follows through on his promise to address the situation and ignores every comment in the RfC that supports cutting down and balancing the allegations section. In fact if you scroll through the talk page you'll find that RafaelGarcia simply went on adding more one-sided and largely irrelevant information. Are these the actions of a good faith editor? He's had the same problems on other articles. It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

The information currently in the article here on Wikipedia is merely an expanded version of the information that has been there for a long time, placed there by other editors. In contrast, when you first started editing the article, you sought to remove entirely the accusations of Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett, and others, and you tried to minimize the impact of Anita Hill's accusations. This was one-sided and dishonest. Shame on you. Almost all of the edits I made to the relevant section were using sources YOU provided; I just wasn't saying what you wanted to say. Thank you for doing the work for both of us. As to your request, I'm not required to follow your instructions, and neither is anyone else. If you want to be constructive, try working on material that will actually go into the article and stop crying about how people don't like your edits. I will try to respond once per day at night until my finals are over. Again, I never deleted your edits from this week; all I did was move them, because it is standard practice to provide one side of the story, then the other. You tried to immediately refute Anita Hill's story with a paragraph immediately after it, in the way of other testimony about what Anita Hill and Angela Wright allege to be Clarence Thomas's sexual misconduct and gross perversions, which makes for confusing reading. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sad that left and ignorance reigns so aften in a medium which started with great potential. That is why it is held in such low esteem by even left academia and even many high schools reject it as a source. That Anita Hill was a part of the confirmation is appropriate. That there were supporting and opposing witnesses is fine and a general statement as to the allegations is fine. But the lurid re-enactment and replay of the back and forth has little academic or other value. This apparently at one time was a bio of the man. Wikipedia has taken that away by overwhelming the man's life with one never proven relationship. If someone thinks this "coke can pubic hai" exposure has social redeeming value then why not put it in a setting where someone is interested in that subject; like the pornographic allegations against judges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.137.62 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is a very perceptive comment as to the current state of this article, and is germane to the current dispute.--Paul (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The above is an anonymous comment from an IP that has never contributed to Wikipedia before for any reason, on any topic, so I feel it should not be given much weight. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 15:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've never really commented before, so sorry if I made a procedural error, but I wanted to point out that fn 25 is broken. The whole sentence it's in really needs better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.180.240 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fn 22 is broken as well.

I added the broken sources template to the top of the references section, I looked it up and it said this was the proper thing to do.

Also FN 9 links to a title with no corresponding information contained within the site.

The sentence supported by FN 23 appears a bit one sided to me. The section makes it appear that Thomas is steered by his clerk who worked for Scalia previously, imputing that Thomas would then vote like Scalia. The reader should also consider that Landau, the clerk, clerked for Thomas on the D.C. Circuit before he joined the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia, which to me undermines this proposition. See http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8991 for Landau's bio. Because Landau clerked for Thomas before he clerked for Scalia, unless Scalia profoundly influenced Landau's thinking, Landau was probably the same thinker he was on the D.C. Circuit 2 years earlier when he clerked for Thomas. This would diminish the importance of the statement that Landau clerked for Scalia before Thomas and thus the proposition that Thomas follows Scalia. Thanks! 68.43.180.105 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)c1nn

Unreferenced POV

I removed this.

Considering, however, that Jeffords later left the Republican Party in order to caucus with Democrats, and thus give the Democrats majority status in the Senate, and considering that Packwood had a very liberal voting record, essentially voting with the Democrats on all major issues, the negative vote was essentially along party lines.

I think the ideas expressed have some validity. And certainly Jeffords later leaving the party is a fact. But calling Packwood "liberal" is opinion unless you can cite some sources. The next leap from Packwood being liberal and Jeffords being independent meaning the vote "was essentially along party lines" goes a bit too far. Are all Republicans conservative and all Democrats liberal, so any liberal Republican is "essentially" a Democrat? If you can find a well-known pundit, historian, etc. who has made this point about the vote being essentially on party lines, we can use it. Otherwise it is original research simply opinion. Readin (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

Do you think we could cram any more links to the article Roman Catholic Church in here? Sheesh. 14:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Witnesses and bad title under the "Allegations of sexual harassment" section

1) Don't you need to have some mention of the women who came into refute the charges against Thomas. The section mentions Thomas defense of himelf and also his "high tech lynching" remark but a lot of things happened after his remarks. Remember all the women who came in and defended him? Women who worked for him? Surely you don't mean to pretend that it was simply Thomas's use of the race card that turned the tide for him? Those women witness were very persuasive and very powerful. I remember first seeing Hill's testimony and remarking to my wife that Thomas was done. But, after Thomas's spirited response and after the witnesses for Thomas were heard, Hill pulled her other witnesses and backed away from the whole thing. Even with all the pressure put on her by Nina Totenberg!

2) Sexual harrassment was not alleged as I remember -- this term crept in to use later after Anita Hill started making the speech circuit -- and as I remember -- after Bill Clinton had real sexual harrassment problems. The original term used by Hill and everyone else in testimony was "inappropriate behavior". Lkoler (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your points are absolutely correct. This page is repeatedly being corrupted by the inclusion of false statements in this section. The perpatrators have taken out any mention of those whose testimony refuted Anita Hill's. They also insist on stating that Angela Wright testified before the committee which is absolutely false. In fact there is an ongoing debate about why she did NOT testify and how it might have affected the proceedings. How do we stop these lies from being included in this article? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I'm just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference one way or the other on the article content, but do have some suggestions on how to proceed:

• Keep all communications civil
• Keep discussions focused on the article content, and not on the contributors
• Keep discussions based on reliable sources. Never speak from personal knowledge, speak only from what is already published and can be verified
• Don't engage in revert wars. Simply edit-warring to try and get a preferred version of the article, is never effective.
• Build consensus on the talkpage. Produce sources, engage in good faith discussion with other editors. If necessary, request comments from other editors.
• See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other suggestions on how to resolve the dispute. Remember, the ultimate goal is to produce a high-quality article, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Wikipedia.

Hope that helps, --Elonka 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Approach to Oral Arguments POV

The article states that Clarence Thomas is famous for being silent during oral arguments... because he spoke a different dialect when younger? This seems like a stretch. Even the quote from his book offers no insight - many people, including other Justices, were quiet children, became excellent "listeners", and now participate vigorously in the oral give-and-take. Also, this sentence: "Thomas is uncomfortable in the rapid pacing of oral argument discussions, the supposition being he prefers a more cerebral, quieter environment in which to carefully contemplate matters of constitutional law." The footnote goes to the SCOTUS blog, and isn't searchable, and thus the whole statement - or "supposition" is utter conjecture. Much of this paragraph reads like pro-Thomas political spin.

Compare it to the "analysis" section and criticism mentioned in the entry for Justice Anthony Kennedy: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy)

"Conservatives have generally been critical of Kennedy's Supreme Court jurisprudence, with some calling his rulings poorly-reasoned." "Conservative commentator Rich Lowry called Kennedy the Supreme Court's 'worst justice', writing that his written opinions 'have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution', and amount to 'making it up as he goes along.'"

And no such opprobrium cited for Thomas? Even though "clarence thomas" + "worst supreme court justice ever" gets over a thousand distinct hits on Google? If Justice Kennedy's alleged unpopularity is open territory, certainly the antipathy for Clarence Thomas deserves mention. Ecstasy426 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett

Angela Wright Sukari Hardnett never testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This article has contained false statements about their role in the process for two years, and it's time to finally correct the record.

Here's an interview with Wright on NPR. You'll notice the FACT that she didn't testify is discussed. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/100907.wright.html

Here's a government website detailing all the witnesses and the documents submitted during the Clarence Thomas nomination process. You'll notice that Angela Wright never testifies. Instead her phone interview by Senate staff is included in the record. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html

Here's another blog discussing what could have been if Wright had been called to testify. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Graves/Graves.html

Here's an article discussing what COULD have happened if Angela Wright had been called to testify and speculating why she wasn't. http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/womens_rights/003490.php (Wallamoose (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

The article doesn't say Wright formally testified. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:29, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Now it doesn't. Please stop putting false information in this article. I've been kind enough to provide you with several sources substantiating the fact that Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett DID NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. So why would you continue to try to include false statements about their role in his nomination? Clearly discussion of allegations made by people who never testified at the hearings doesn't belong in this article. There is a long witness list of people who DID testify and no mention of any of them is included in this article. Please stop abusing your edit privilges.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

The wiki article never said Wright formally testified. She told committee members; she didn't formally testify.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The version of the article you are trying to maintain says she "told" the committee AND says she "testified". Neither statement is true. She was INTERVIEWED over the phone by SENATE STAFF and a transcript included in the record. That is the extent of her involvement in the nomination process. Why would you want to include information about her in an article that doesn't say anything about any of the witnesses that actually testified at the hearings??? Also, please don't delete my comments from the discussion page. I haven't deleted any of yours.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

OK, the Wright section doesn't use the "T" word anymore. That's fine. You could have changed that yourself, but instead you tried to nuke the whole section, which is partisan and dishonest. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your own citation shows she was interviewed on the phone by Senate staff. She was never called as a witness. She never testified before the committee. She never spoke with committee members. And there is no reason she should be talked about in this article, especially with gross mischaracterizations about her role. There is no mention of any of the witnesses that gave sworn testimony before the committee.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright is completely on topic for the section on the allegations of Thomas saying those things to Anita Hill and Angela Wright. Her interview with senators belongs there and is backed up with many sources. If you want to add further information about Thomas's appointment, I believe you could add the info here, or even on the specific article for that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted any mention of the fact that Wright was fired by Thomas. Furthermore, several witnesses testified under oath before the committee that Angela Wright was fired for misconduct. Evidence was also presented that she had a history of misconduct at other employers. This is why she was never called as a witness. This is why she played no role in the actual hearings. I understand you have a personal bias against Justice Thomas as is made clear by your comments, but this is an encyclopedic entry about his career. Not your personal soap box. There is no discussion of any witnesses that actually testified at the hearings on Thomas's behalf. There is no place for discussion of tangential allegations by persons whose credibility issues prevented their being called as witnesses.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Your own allegations are entirely untrue. I added a sentence about Thomas's firing Wright; one did not exist there before today. If you have further information that could be added to the section, then add it in a contrary paragraph. You do not have the right to nuke the parts of the article on Hardnett and Wright. Wright's employment history is not at issue in the article; she is relevant only insofar as she is one of the many women in Thomas's life, from different stages of his life, who had to suffer his inappropriate remarks and actions. Furthermore, I have no personal bias. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected page

I have protected the page for three days. Please discuss the potential changes here rather than reverting them back and forth on the article. Useight (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that you've "protected" this page may be technically true, but what you've done is allowed personal bias to be maintained in an official entry on an important government official. I don't mean to be nasty or difficult, but why on earth would discussion of allegations by persons never called to testify at the hearings be included in an article about Clarence Thomas when there is no discussion of any of the many witnesses who actually testified on Thomas's behalf. Other users have posted in the discussion section and tried to address this bias, but our efforts have been unsuccessful.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright's interview with Judicial Committee staff is entirely relevant to the section on allegations of Thomas's sexual misconduct. The interview is in the government record and belongs in the article. If you wish to add more information about other witnesses, you should do so, but that doesn't mean you can wipe out the info and citations about two women and their allegations in regard to Thomas. What we have in this situation is a pattern of misbehavior by Thomas, over years of his life, at different employers, and that news did get out. Just because Wright did not officially testify does not mean she does not deserve mention. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know I have added this information repeatedly and you've chosen to delete it. But I'm happy you have agreed here that you will allow this information to be included in future edits. I trust you will keep your word.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

You "added" the information by deleting evidence of Wright and others' statements and making assertions without citations. That passes no standard. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

False Statements in this Article

Angela Wright and Sudari Hardnett

The information on Angela Wright and Hardnett should include the fact that neither one ever testified and they weren't called as witnesses because of their credibility problems.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The wikipage doesn't say they testified. As for alleged credibility problems, do us the favor of pointing to the relevant page in that massive opinion piece. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

p.9 (the page the link is to) paragraph one. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The word "credibility" is not even on that page. You are dishonestly smearing these women. We agree that they didn't testify, though the relevant interviews are in the record.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose Jourdain

"Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." Rose Jourdain never testified.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ybf2u/Thomas-Hill/part3.html (witness list)

This is a personal page and is not a reliable source. If I were a student at UVA, I could have my own personal page up there saying that even you testified. RafaelRGarcia(talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record. Rose Jourdain never testified, as I suspect you are already aware.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove or alter the sentence, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment" in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section to indicate that Rose Jourdain never testified. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.

It would be dishonest and wrong to remove the sentence. Jourdain did not testify, but the article states she corroborated the statement and would do so publicly if necessary. Jourdain was interviewed by Senate Committee staff, and though the Hill occurrences predated the time period where the phrase "sexual harassment" gained popularity, Thomas's behavior is clearly consistent with the popular conception of the term. On pages 15 and 16 of www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/512-559.pdf Jourdain speaks of Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior" and Wright's becoming "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved." I will be adding these details to the article when it is unlocked. It is true that Jourdain did not "testify" formally; that is not the right verb. But she did relay and corroborate the story to Senate staff of Thomas's sexual harassment of Anita Hill. I am removing the editprotect template until you come up with a version of the paragraph that gains consensus. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As your statement makes clear there is no disagreement that Jourdain never testified. The sentence should be corrected to reflect this fact. Please don't remove my editprotect request again(Wallamoose (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

You are not following the Wikipedia rules. You have to have a specific request; ie, you have to rewrite the sentence. I am clearly disagreeing with you, so there is no consensus here. I removed the editprotect template and will continue to do so as needed. Rewrite the sentence in a way that achieves consensus. Removing the sentence is not agreed on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As you state in you edit 0:49, 16 Sept., "Jourdain did not testify". So there is no dispute over this issue. Please state the edit needed to remedy the article so we can move forward and end this edit war. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

We can just change the verb "testify" to say that she was interviewed and said.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute over why witnesses were never called

"Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony."

There is no evidence Biden stopped anyone from testifying. This is an allegation he denies. And there is an ongoing argument about why certain witnesses were never called and who made those decisions. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/440.pdf (Letter sent from Biden to Wright that details the agreement by all parties (including Wright) that the subpeona be vitiated. "I wish to make clear however, that if you want to testify at the hearing I will honor that request.- Jospeh R. Biden"(Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove the sentence, "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony" from the allegations of sexual abuse section as it is not true. See above.

You are misusing the editprotect template, as you have not achieved a consensus. Wright signed the document but it seems she did not do so freely. You are only presenting one side of the issue, and you are being dishonest. In this interview with NPR, Wright says more about not getting to testify. I will get back to this issue tomorrow. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate that you removed my editprotect request. You've only chosen to comment now after the editprotect request was made. And your argument doesn't support keeping the sentence in the article as written. While you provide Wright's argument that she claims she wanted to testify, I've provided verifiable court records that say otherwise. As we've discussed previously, I know there is a controversy about why Angela Wright (and others) never testified. That's why I've repeatedly tried to change or modify the statement that says Joe Biden made the decision. He refutes that. The letter from the trial refutes that. And nothing in what you've said changes the fact that there's a controversy over why certain persons were never called to testify and it's factually incorrect to say "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony".

The factual truth is not established. With some quick googling, I found other sources saying that Biden did pretty much block the testimony. We have to reach consensus on the edits to be made. You are misusing the editprotect template. That is obvious. I am not able to respond to your comments immediately because I am a dual-degree student at top law and business schools; I am busier than you are. The fact that you added editprotect has nothing to do with it. Do not add another template again until you've reached consensus. This is impossible until tomorrow evening, when I'll be more free to participate here, as I have no class on Wednesdays.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state your suggestion to correct the sentence so we can move forward to fix the article and end this edit war. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Deletion of any mention of Thomas's witnesses and evidence

The record is absolutely clear that no one ever testified alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas except Anita Hill. In fact Clarence provided documentation and numerous credible witnesses refuting any and all such claims, but the editors of this page have refused to allow any of this information in the article.

You have not tried to shore up Thomas's side of the issue; instead you have consistently tried to nuke the sections. As a result, your edits were reverted, not just by me.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html "...the fact that the four women who came to Washington to corroborate Hill's story were never called to testify..." and "What we know for certain is that Hill was left as the sole accuser".

The wikipage does not say other women formally testified. Thank you for the source on four women corroborating sexual misbehavior; I will add it to the wikipage in a few days. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is false. No one ever testified that they could corroborate any of Hill's allegations. And no one ever testified that they had been harassed by Thomas. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The article you cited clearly states that four women went to DC to corroborate the story. They were not called on, but they still corroborate. I will add this to the article when it is unlocked. Thank you.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article states, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." But I'm glad you agree that it shouldn't so we can have this misinformation removed.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

problems with heresay and refusal to act

"Additionally, Ellen Wells, John W. Carr, Judge Susan Hoerchner, and Joel Paul testified that Hill had discussed Thomas's actions at the time she worked for Thomas and that she had characterized them as sexual harassment." Yet none of these professionals advised Hill to keep a record of the incidents. No evidence was ever provided to support her allegations and she contradicted herself on the stand. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Your partisan assertions are meaningless without citations. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My citation is the court record. It's been cited repeatedly. How many times do you want me to cite it? (Wallamoose (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

My own standard is to cite every single sentence I add to Wikipedia.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hill continued contact with Thomas after leaving job

It is an undebatable fact that (a) Hill had called Thomas a dozen times over the years, including one time when she left a message containing her hotel room number, and that (b) Hill originally tried to deny that these calls were made, but was forced to concede that they had happened. Now imagine the situation in reverse: Imagine that Hill had alleged that Thomas called her a dozen times at her apartment, that Thomas had denied doing so, but that phone records had then been produced showing that Thomas had definitely made those calls, and that Thomas basically had to admit that he was lying. Wouldn't that be exceedingly relevant in judging his credibility? (Wallamoose (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't see any citations for these assertions.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Court transcript. Are you kidding? If you want to dispute the official court records please cite your sources.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I didn't say I was disputing; I said I didn't see any citations. Every sentence added to the article should be cited. Just saying the words "court transcript" is not enough either.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Testimony in support of Thomas

Nancy Altman from the Department of Education testified: "I consider myself a feminist. I am pro-choice. I care deeply about women's issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for two years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters, I could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once." She continued, "It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with -- dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues -- without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

This is fine, but should be shortened to a line or two. It is too long for Thomas's general article.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

contradictions in Hill testimony

Anita Hill initially denied any knowledge of a news report that Senate staffers had told her that "her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that would quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name." Senator Arlen Specter said that after consulting with her lawyers, Hill "flatly changed" her testimony "by identifying a Senate staffer, who she finally said told her that she was told that if she came forward, [Thomas] would withdraw . . . ." Senator Specter went on to say that "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury and that she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."

Another issue arose with respect to Hill's treatment of the phone logs that Thomas's secretary had kept for him at the EEOC. Those logs showed that Hill had called Thomas about a dozen times since leaving the EEOC for a career as a law professor, including one time when Hill called Thomas's office to notify him that she was visiting D.C.; in that message, she had left her hotel room number and phone number with Thomas's secretary. Hill initially told the Washington Post that the phone logs were "garbage," and then implied in her opening statement to the Senate that the phone logs had mostly represented the times when Hill had called to speak to Diane Holt, Thomas's secretary.

Under questioning, however, Hill admitted that "I do not deny the accuracy of these messages." Moreover, Diane Holt testified that if Hill had ever called to speak with Holt, that call would not have been recorded in Thomas's phone logs. Holt further testified that the phone log represented only the occasions when Thomas had been unavailable to take the call. In fact, Hill had additionally called Thomas on several other occasions that were not recorded in the logs because Thomas took the call.

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Hill also contradicted herself in attempting to explain the reasons for having called Thomas. At one point, she claimed that "the things that occurred after I left the EEOC occurred during a time -- any matter, calling him from the university, occurred during a time when he was no longer a threat to me of any kind. He could not threaten my job. I already had tenure there." But later in the same session, Senator Simpson asked her, "if what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name, when he left his position of power or status or authority over you, and you left it in 1983, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?" Hill responded, "That's a very good question. And I'm sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction. That is one of the things that I have tried to do today. I have suggested that I was afraid of retaliation. I was afraid of damage to my professional life."

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I think most of this material would be better off in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination . If you really like Thomas so much, you should lengthen the material on his jurisprudence; it's awfully thin. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I like Thomas is irrelevant. I think it's important that a biographical article about a sitting Supreme Court Justice not serve as a political propaganda piece for those who opposed his nomination or disagree with his judicial philosophies. There is a lot of information on allegations against Thomas (many made by persons who never testified at the hearing), but no mention of the testimony, evidence and witnesses supporting Thomas and refuting the allegations included in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

None of the language in the article rises to a propaganda piece, and it hurts your credibility to make such brazenly dishonest claims. You are free to add other testimony, but you are not free to wipe out one side of an argument. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state what evidence and testimony refuting Anita Hill should be included in the article to remedy the inherent bias of presenting only allegations. Let's end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I see that you've largely copied your text in this section from this website: http://www.upto11.net/generic_wiki.php?q=clarence_thomas . If this was really the past state of the Wikipedia entry, then I can see why a separate article was created; all this material is far too long to include in Thomas's article. You have to create an abbreviated set of facts for this article that you can expand on in the nomination article. I am only interested in this particular article on Clarence Thomas in general, so you can edit like crazy over there.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Edits Needed in Allegations of Sexual Harassment section

The section goes into great detail about allegations made by persons who never testified at the hearings, but includes none of the tesimony or evidence refuting these allegations. Also, there is already an entry for the Clarence Thomas Nomination so this isn't the place to retry the JusticeWallamoose (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that many of the details you've supported including in the article are more properly put in the Nomination wikipage, which is separate. However, any supposed bio page on Thomas himself would be remiss to avoid at least mentioning the allegations, so of course they should be included. You are free to add information on testimony refuting the allegations, but instead all you have tried, and continue to try, is to remove the allegations, or to improperly remove sentences wholesale. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I will respond to all of this tonight. Why don't you write the paragraphs you want to add for starters and then we can do this efficiently? Every sentence should be cited, though. I will write some stuff too when I am free tonight.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• This article used to be fairly balanced. I remember a comment from the talk page that expressed wonder that such a fair article had been found on Wikipedia. However, this discussion has gotten my interest, and I just re-read the article. The section on the sexual harassment allegations is now way too big (in conflict with undue weight) and entirely one-sided (does not have a neutral point-of-view). I'll be interested in looking at the suggested new paragraphs. --Paul (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section on Anita Hill and Co. is too big; it's just that everything else in general is so small. Thomas fans would do well to shore up what is such a thin article. I'll get around to it eventually myself but have been more in love lately with the justices of the 60s and 70s. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reply that the balance problem with the article does not lie with the undue weight placed on the Anita Hill affair but is instead related to the paucity of other material is a remarkable claim which is easily refuted by looking at the articles for the other sitting Justices. The Thomas biography is the second-longest article of all of the sitting Justices and fully one-quarter of this article is devoted to "Allegations of sexual harassment" (926 words). Here are the stats:

Justice	Word Count	% of avg
Stevens	3190	117%
Scalia	3956	145%
Kennedy	2592	95%
Souter	1939	71%
Thomas	3528	129%
Ginsburg	1757	64%
Bryer	1808	66%
Roberts	3496	128%
Alito	2366	86%

The problem with this article is clearly that the Anita Hill section is too big in proportion to its importance in life of Justice Thomas. Indeed, I believe that this material causes the Thomas article to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standards where editors are cautioned to not let criticism or praise overwhelm the article. My opinion is that the "Sexual harassment" section needs serious pruning. The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination article covers this material in great depth, so the level of detail we have here isn't needed per Wikipedia summary style. Cutting out about 90% of this material will fix the policy violations without losing any material.--Paul (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this argument about length of discussion doesn't take into account Thomas's unique situation. We should be thankful that most Supreme Court justices DON'T have sexual scandals surrounding their appointments; Thomas did. It still colors how people see him; I saw Anita Hill talked about in relation to Clarence Thomas on CNN just two weeks ago. Furthermore, other Supreme Court justices who have lengthy controversies surrounding them also have plenty of space devoted to their troubles. For an example, look at the article for Hugo Black, who was on the Court for decades.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that the sexual harassment section is too big. If the people mentioned therein did not testify against justice Thomas, then their inclusion should be minimal. Additionally, if another article exists covering this topic in more detail, then that article should be linked here, and, again, the sexual harassment section shrunk.Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the section is too big in the context of history and the man's legacy. One quarter of the article, actually, relatively speaking, is not bad. The sexual harassment issue was the major issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in his nomination fight, and, I am afraid, the one thing most persons of my generation recall about Justice Thomas. It was major issue in the 1992 elections for the US Senate and the presidency, which first elected a large class of females to the senate ("The Year of the Women") and, arguably, was the tipping point for the election of the Clinton-Gore ticket. The issue was recalled lately in Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House and the nomination of Joseph Biden for vice-president. Sadly, as an attorney and full-time law professor, I can not name a single one of his judicial opinions off the top of my head. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

What about ABORTION? Many people who followed the events are convinced the whole Hill scandal was leaked and fabricated to sink the nomination because liberals didn't want a court that might overturn Roe v. Wade. Also there is: Affirmative action. The issue of qualifications. Bar ratings. Civil Rights. Etc. Etc.User:Wallamoose|Wallamoose]] (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

If the present biographical article on Thomas was the only article containing the Anita Hill material, arguments about undue weight would be less persuasive. However, there is an entire article devoted to the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which is where the details of this matter belong. The Thomas biography should contain only a summary. The Encyclopedia Britannica covers the Hill matter in 90 words, one-tenth the size of what we have here.--Paul (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be shortened considerably. It is in contradiction to WP:BLP and also provides undue weight to an admittedly important part of his life. However, as a supereme court justice and a lightening rod of judicial controversy, I find it hard to defend the position that after all of his controversial and important deicisions from the bench, and all the relevent history he has, that this one scandal should account for 25% of the article. Perhaps someone can start a new article on the "Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Scandal" and write there to their heart's content, leaving a brief summary here.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a political dispute, and it seems that we have a Bush v. Gore situation here in terms of how votes are coming out. Political feelings are dictating voting whether to make the section long or short. I'm going to expand on the rest of the article as soon as the lock is removed, and then it won't be such a disproportionate part of the article. Arguments about word counts in the Encyclopedia Brittanica are irrelevant without knowing how large their entire article on Thomas is. Also, the fact that Wikipedia does a poor job with Supreme Court justice biographies, leaving them thin and sparse on information, isn't a reason to cut down on a section that's actually fleshed out. As it is, right now we're only spending two sentences on Sukari Hardnett and a few on Mayer and Abramson. Anita Hill and Angela Wright also only have a few sentences each. There isn't an overflow of information here. Conservatives not taking the time to add parts on refutations is not a reason to cut down the accusers. And the current length of the section is concordant with sections on other justices who have had controversy surrounding them.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I am something of a latecomer to this controversy, but RafaelRGarcia asked me to put in my two cents. I think that the section on sexual harassment in this article should be shortened, and the remainder of the properly sourced material should be moved to the article on the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. This appears to be a superior compromise solution. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the need for a disputed section or unbalanced section tag?

I don't think it's fair that the disputed section of the article is being presented as is without any notice to readers. I suggest an unbalanced, or disputed section tag be added until it is remedied. It's not right that because of one editor's busy schedule and refusal to compromise with other wikipedia editors that fixes are held up indefinitely (see the above discussion for just how long and difficult it is to get even a simple change on a single sentence) while a section that's been vigorously disputed at least since March remains without any notice provided to readers. Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who's reversed you, so I'm not the only person you need to reach a consensus with. You've also hampered progress for days by insisting on being completely one-sided, which just doesn't help anyone.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The way to balance the section is to find reliable soruces regarding Justice Thomas's defense - for example, statements by Republican senators. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I am adding the following facts to this or the Nomination article as needed:

Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, reporters for the Wall Street Journal, concluded in an investigative book on Thomas that “the preponderance of the evidence suggests” that Thomas lied under oath when he told the committee he had not harassed Hill. Mayer and Abramson say Biden abdicated control of the Thomas confirmation hearings and did not call Angela Wright to the stand. They report that four women traveled to Washington DC to corroborate Anita Hill’s claims.

According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas’ interest in and use of pornography, which "far exceeded what the public had been led to believe." However, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, the Washington Post dropped the story.

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the many editors that have requested the Allegations section be balanced and made more concise. Please fix what you've already added before adding additional edits. Also, not every accusation by every author is worthy of inclusion in an article on Thomas. Maybe you should start pages for these authors and include their allegations there! I will be removing your "Early Years" sections as it has only one source and is biased. I will post it here on the talk page so you can fix it and then return it to the article. You also need to fix the other problems we've identified and discussed extensively here before adding new material. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

What Early Years? Anyway, no, you can't remove whatever you want, or you're just going to start off an edit war. Just because you're unhappy with something doesn't mean it's biased. Reporters from the WSJ are a reliable source.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it seems you mean Early Reputation. That was taken from a book by a conservative news reporter, Jan Crawford Greenburg, and she's also a reliable source. You can't remove it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm going to remove the instance of "allege" and all its variances from the article, as it's an official Word to Avoid.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to add in such material, although it should be balanced by the contemporaeous evidence on his behalf. 2008 is past the statute of limitations to re-try the 1992 sexual harassment case. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this article refers to the same Sukari Hardnett? I trust you will investigate and add any information that is appropriate. Thanks! http://www.courts.state.md.us/opinions/coa/2008/40a06ag.pdf (Wallamoose (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Protected

I have protected the article for one week. I counted 13 edits from Wallamoose and 16 from Rafael in just over an hour. I went through the events (kind of skimming, it was a lot to cover), and it looks like it is an edit war regarding (mostly) the location of a paragraph about Diane Holt and about a few citations. Let me first say the the location of that paragraph must be discussed on this page instead of warring on the article. As for the citations, Rafael says here that Wallamoose doesn't know how to cite properly. Well, he's trying to get the citations in there properly and if he did it incorrectly, WP:SOFIXIT, don't just undo each other's work. Rafael also claims here that Wallamoose is adding fact tags wantonly, apparently referring to this and this, but he does it himself here. Wallamoose, look carefully at what Rafael is doing with his edits. He was moving the contents of the disputed paragraph instead of simply removing it. A whole bunch of extra edit warring was done because of adding and removing information that was already in the article.

So, here's what has to be done. Wallamoose has presented some sourced information (and possibly some unsourced info, I haven't checked the citations). The sourced information should be added to the article after it is decided on this talk page which info is verifiable and should only be written in a neutral tone of voice. It must then be determined which location is best for the info. This is to be determined on this talk page. Include the citations. If Wallamoose can't do it correctly, then Rafael should do it. If neither can or wants to add them, place a fact tag instead. Useight (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I added fact tags because Walla cited an index page of many different testimonies. Walla, however, added citation tags for stuff that was already properly cited - newspaper articles and individual testimonies.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he add a tag to that citation for a pdf page 442-511? An exact page number would be really helpful there. Useight (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourced information refuting Hill's allegations is taken directly from the Senate hearings and needs to be restored below Hill's claims where it belongs. RafaelGarcia needs to be banned. He refuses to compromise with the many wikipedians who responded to the RFC and have asked that the section containing allegations by persons who never testified and were never questioned by the Senate committee, should be greatly reduced or excised completely. RafaelGarcia has continued to abuse his edit privledges and has repeatedly removed the portions I've added that have been discussed (see above discussions) and which were not objected to. See edits (00:41) and (00:48) for example and has removed the unbalanced tag (01:02) unilaterally. He also removed my ref tags (00:46) These are just a few examples of his abusive activities. He has also refused to fix his citations which have been tagged for months.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Tagged for months? What are you talking about? You just tagged them yesterday. The only person who merits banning is you. You're crashing through Wikipedia like a bull in a china shop, making nothing but partisan edits. "Many" wikipedians did not respond to the RFC. I removed the "unbalanced" tag because you added info refuting the allegations - so why should it stay forever? I removed your ref tags because you need to cite to the specific documents, not to the html page that lists tons of different testimonials. I've already explained this to you, but you're complaining again to cause drama. Your edits are sloppy and you should take some time out to learn a few things. It's also standard practice to present one side of something, then the other. That's why I moved your new paragraph about Diane Holt. I didn't delete anything and I was following standard procedures.

Your citations are just way too unspecific. A reader coming across the article who sees a link to your html index page doesn't know which PDF to click on or which is relevant. I wasn't about to spend time looking for the PDFs and the pages myself. Furthermore, for citations that are already to the proper documents, if a page is missing, you should add the page number if you need to complain about it - not obliterate the citation entirely. This is dishonest, makes statements seem unsourced when they aren't, and makes more work for everyone else.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose obviously needs to be blocked from editing. He rampages through Wikipedia making nothing but partisan edits. He copies info from other websites wholesale; he's done so with Barney Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests) and his first edits to Clarence Thomas were similar. Pretty much any article he touches, he causes conflict (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gwen_Ifill). When he noticed citations to a book about Justice Blackmun by reporter Greenhouse, he rushed to look up articles about her to smear her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Linda_Greenhouse). He thinks Bill O'Reilly is a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests). He also refuses to learn the most basic formatting and protocol rules, which creates work for all of us. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your post is a clear indication that you are a troubled stalker. The information refuting Hill must go after the information about her in the article, not after a dozen paragraphs of your biased edits about persons never called to testify and with no balance or refutation of their claims. Several wikipedians have suggested cutting this section down and balancing it (see RfC above). Your citations have been tagged for more than a month as I stated. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about, tagged for a month? I am asking for clarification, not for reiteration and lies, which is what you have been giving us. On second thought, please, do everyone a favor and just go watch more FOX News instead of wasting our time here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the article page you will see a broken citation tag. I didn't put it there. It's been there a long time. The broken citations have also been discussed here on the discussion page, as I recall, as has the lack of balance and need to condense the information you've added to the allegations section. My suggestion to you would be to stop interfering with my edits, and focus on improving this or some other article. I don't interfere with yours, except to correct factual errors which I have explained with posts here and properly sourced. You've eventually been forced to correct you errors, but it's a grueling process as you refuse to ever admit your mistakes. If you need to bring up an issue you can discuss it here or as a last resort add the appropriate tag (without deleting what's already there. Since the information I'm trying to add has been discussed ad nauseum here and been universally supported it seems your only problem is that this information contradicts your warped view (as you've indicated by repeatedly and inappropriately referring to Thomas as a Perv) as well as trying to include misquotes and improperly sourced material. I would point out that this edit war started with you removing my entire edit wholesale when you failed to realize that I hadn't taken anything of yours out of the article. But even after I corrected you, you continued your abusive edits and harassment. Please stop. As far as your inane claims that I plagarize from other websites, my entire post is sourced from the Senate hearing, unlike the smears and opinion you've added.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

The edits you've made to this article you brought in from a right-wing website wholesale, without changes; that site cited the Senate page and that's the only reason you know about it. You've since deleted the citation to that page, because you deleted all talk comments you made that you later realized were wrong. Every citation you tagged yesterday, I checked to make sure was still there. They all were, so your behavior is inappropriate. As to this issue that's supposedly been around for a month, I still don't know what you're talking about. Anything you deleted the citation for yesterday is actually still there. For my part, every single sentence I've added to this article has been cited with a reliable source, if not double or triple-sourced. I only used books (which don't become broken, and in general in every article I've edited or created I've almost always used books exclusively), except for last month, at which point I only cited the websites that came up in our discussion (hint: this means it is impossible that something I cited has been broken for months). I didn't delete any edits you made; I moved them. I don't see the need to continually argue with you and point fingers. Anyone who looks at your edit record will see what a partisan hack you are. From this point forward, I'll be happy to report your behavior to administrators, but I will only be discussing the article with you from now on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at (00:41) and (00:48) deleted my addition in its entirety. The rest of your conspiracy theories aren't worth discussing. My edit at 01:50 added citation tags to references that do not include links, page numbers, sources or referred to 50 pages of text (as I noted in my edit description). This contrasts with your removing my references completely in edit (00:46) and removing the unbalanced tag (01:02). I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies. Mind your own business and stop harassing me.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia was doing just fine without you, actually. I did delete your addition for a second, but only to move it. Not everything can have a link to it. Not all books or newspaper articles are online. That doesn't mean they're not valid sources. Your fact tags were simply invalid, and I won't allow such practices to continue. Remember, you're supposed to fix things, not just wipe out citations. I removed the unbalanced tag because once you make additions, I figure it's not so unbalanced anymore. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

00:41, 7 October 2008 Undid my addition of information. That's a funny way of moving text. Lie much? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Do we really have to go over this again? I restored it in a different location a few seconds later. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it after you deleted it. And your next edit was 4 minutes later at 00:45 where you attempted to move the paragraph, that you had previously deleted, to the very bottom of the section where it didn't belong. Do you ever get tired of lying? (Wallamoose (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Mediation

Since you (RafaelRGarcia and Wallamoose) came to my talk page I suppose you want me to help you to resolve the dispute? I can offer informal mediation. Do you agree? Ruslik (talk) 18:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I can fully participate in the mediation process starting one week from today, after my business school quarterly finals, so I ask that you not take edits from Wallamoose until then. I am completely willing to work through changes and do accept edits like Wallamoose's added paragraph, but Wallamoose runs crying to five admins at once (you, Useight, Bearian, Lihaas, etc.) if anyone disagrees with him.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Rusilik0 for your generous offer. It was I who came to you seeking suggestions. At the time, I did not realize that Garcia was stalking me or watching your page, so I apologize if I've put you in the middle of the conflict. I am happy to engage in any process that would help resolve this situation. As you can see from the extensive discussion on this page (by many Wikipedians) and the RfC (with every editor agreeing except RafaelGarcia) my efforts to address the bias and lack of balance in the article have always been met with malicious obstuction. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

That is a blatant lie. Other editors have reversed you, and some even ridiculed you the first time you complained about the article on the noticeboard. In any case, I'm off to study, as I have more pressing matters to attend to. Go edit all the other political articles you've been editing in the meantime. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Since you accepted my offer I going to propose sort of a roadmap for achieving a consensus. Some information about me: I am not from US and know little about this scandal. I also hold no particular position about Justice Thomas. So I consider myself a neutral party here, and I am in no harry to accept edits from anybody.

I think this edit-war partially resulted from misunderstanding and impatiance of the participating editors. Some edits were undone needlessly. For instance, when one editor tried to move content their edit was often reverted by another. An additional problem was imprecise citations. Ruslik (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Principles

I think, as the first step, the involed editors should agree on basic principles that need to be followed in order to write a good article. There are four of them:

1) Verifibility (WP:V) is a core policy of wikipedia. It means that all information should be supported by reliable sources. In context of this dispute it means that every statement attributed to a particular witness must be confirmed by exact citation with a page number.

2) Another core wikipolicy is neutrality (WP:NPOV). In context of this dispute it means that editors should not delete information that they do not like.

3) The last core policy is No Original Research (WP:OR). It means that editors should avoid making any conlusion from the facts themself, even if the conclusion seems plausible.

4) It should not be forgotten that this is a biography of a living person and as such is the subject of a separate policy (WP:BLP). BLP is complimentary, not contradictory to the three core polices and in context of this dispute it means that special care must be taken in order to avoid adding questinable information even with precise citation. The policy actually says that "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives."

So I am asking you Rafael and Walla, do you agree with above principles? If you agree, we will proceed to the next phase. Ruslik (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm all for making this article better as my RfC, edit history, and the time I've taken to discuss the changes needed indicate. Bring on the next phase!(Wallamoose (talk) 19:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

I understand, however I cannot participate until Tuesday night, Eastern Standard Time. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Phase two

I propose you to write two versions of the Allegations of sexual harassment subsection (see below). I think current section is too long (~1000 words). I propose you to write a short summary not more than 500–700 words. Since Rafael indicated that he cannot participate until Tuesday night, I will wait until the end of the next week.

I also think that this subsection should be mainly about the hearings (testimony of Thomas, Hill and Holt), and what happened immediately after them (including claims made by Specter). Please, also include something about claims of Hardnett and Wright. I think it is unreasonable to write much about events that took place long after the appointment including Mayer and Abramson investigations. This information should be moved to a separate article (or at least to a separate section). Do not forget about precise citations (I will check them). Ruslik (talk) 10:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I object to excluding Mayer and Abramson. It is critical to include them. Their investigative journalism led to the finding that Thomas was most likely guilty and lied under oath. I will therefore include them in a separate section immediately following. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well include them into a separate section. Ruslik (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If interjecting out of order is improper please correct me, but I'd be reluctant to encourage a new section that will simply expand on the content that's already disputed in the exisiting article. Mayer and Abramson belong in the nomination article, not in Thomas's biography. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Also, I suggest that we use an "opposing sides" format, so that one side presents its story, and the other presents its. That way, each author won't be trying to maximize his side/minimize the other side, and each side gets equal words. That's what caused the complaints in the first place. So I should only write 350 words or so about accusers, and Wallamoose should only write 350 words in defense, and each not touch the other's side. How does that sound?RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that each side should show good faith by endeavoring to write 500 words as balanced and neutral as possible. That is much more likely to produce a consensus than presenting two completely opposed views.--Paul (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the 700 word limit will have to be used to fit in all the material. You conservatives complain about too much time being spent on one side versus the other, so let's get rid of that factor. 350 words each side, while still being NPOV. I know I'm not going to like how Wallamoose tries to minimize the accusations, and he knows he's not going to like how I present Thomas and others' defenses. Letting each author write one side of the story is the fastest way to consensus. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 13:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, I am going to add a sentence about Anita Hill to the lead of the article, as it's a major part of public perceptions about Clarence Thomas.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

If I can interject here, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The introduction to the biography is very short as it is. No one is disputing that there should be a substantial section in the article devoted to allegations of sexual harassment (there's also another article detailing this information). I move that we save that discussion for another day. I don't think it needs to be added to the introduction as it stands now, but would be willing to consider such an addition in the future, as part of a more general effort to improve the introduction. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Disagree. And you should respect the comments of your mediator. Let's not play "hide the ball" with the readers of Wikipedia. If investigative journalists from even a rightist paper like the Wall Street Journal concluded that Clarence Thomas most likely lied under oath and said those perverted things to those women, then that is necessarily relevant to his Wikipedia article. Your objection here reveals your partisanship in crying for "balance" in the article: you don't want balance. You want to exclude damaging information. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be so kind as to point to where I haven't respected the comments of the mediator? Don't you think that's a bit of a strange comment coming from you?

With regard to the proposition of Hill being mentioned in the Introduction: 1) Wouldn't it be better to resolve the section we're working on rather than initiating a conflict over another section? 2) If you read my comments carefully you'll notice that I did not reject this idea out of hand, but suggested it would be inappropriate as the Intro stands now, and would need to be discussed as part of a more general revision of that portion of the article.

As your tone and attacks, as well as your stalking behavior, continue; I am now revising my position to oppose the idea completely as another attempt on your behalf to get your way and impose your will on this article without regard to the collaboraitve efforts of other Wikipedians. I suggest you consult the Wiki section on "ownership" and immediately revise your approach to dealing with me and other Wikipedians. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Wallamoose giving a lesson on civility and decorum is like Tony Soprano giving a lesson on morality. I haven't attacked you, but readers of Wikipedia can find out just how much you've attacked me and others at the Wikiquette alert filed against you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Wallamoose

As Bearian and the mainstream media of this country can attest, the Anita Hill hearings are a major part of public perceptions of Clarence Thomas, and a sentence in the lead is absolutely necessary to fully and completely present Thomas's story. His sexual misconduct shouldn't just be hidden in a section of his article. That section is large enough to merit a sentence in the lead.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you initiate a dispute resolution process on this issue, because I am opposed, and I have explained why, Bearian's legal expertise notwithstanding. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

I know you're opposed. If you had your way, Anita Hill wouldn't be mentioned in the article at all. Your opposition is irrelevant. Ruslik should provide input on this issue. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why bug Rusilik. I haven't seen any sign that you are willing to abide by his input. How about you finish what you started before putting more on your plate?(Wallamoose (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

Because we're already in mediation and lockdown now, so I'd like to get this taken care of so that the page isn't locked down past the 15th. It's not like you've written your draft already.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

For reference here is what Britannica has to say about this matter in their article:

Thomas seemed headed for easy confirmation until a former aide stepped forward to accuse him of sexual harassment, a subject that dominated the latter stages of the hearings. The aide, Anita Hill, an African American law professor at the University of Oklahoma who had worked for Thomas at the EEOC and the Department of Education, alleged in televised hearings that Thomas had made sexually offensive comments to her in an apparent campaign of seduction. Thomas denied the charge and accused the Senate Judiciary Committee of engineering a "high-tech lynching."

It is balanced, and it doesn't inappropriately re-fight the confirmation hearings, detailing all of the allegations and denials like the Wikipedia article does. Such a fight and such details belong in the confirmation article, not the biography. --Paul (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a good summary, but it can not be used here directly due to obviuos reasons related to the copyright law. A new summary should be written instead.

However my experience tells me that lead is the last part of any article that neads to be written. The reason is simple: lead is just a summary, and it could be only as good as the main text is. So I urge you to focus on creating you own versions of the section that is under dispute. If consenus can be reached here, the writting the lead will not be especially problematic. Ruslik (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Ruslik, to clarify: I presented the Britannica example to show what the entire content devoted to the Anita Hill matter is in their article. I was not suggesting that something similar be put in the lead here, I was using this example to show what Britannica thinks the appropriate weight should be for this matter in an encyclopedic biography. Since the Britannia article on Thomas is shorter than the Wikipedia article, their example is too short, but it seems to me that 350-400 words is probably the appropriate length here.--Paul (talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when Rafael is ready to present his section proposal and we will put them up.(Wallamoose (talk) 19:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-header First two sentences, as is: "Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, information was leaked to the press from an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC. On October 11, 1991, Hill was called to testify during the Senate confirmation hearing." That's 49 words.

Then, just under 250 words for the women: "Anita Hill testified at the Senate hearings that Thomas had harassed her, that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct. Hill said Thomas spoke of scenes of bestiality, rape, and group sex in pornography films he had seen. Hill said Thomas bragged many times of his sexual prowess. Hill said Thomas brought up pubic hair on one occasion, and also referred to the pornographic actor Long Dong Silver.

Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC, told staff of members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates. Wright said that Thomas made comments about her and other women's anatomy "quite often." Wright told several senators' staff that Clarence Thomas asked her the size of her breasts, and that after she turned down Thomas for a date, Thomas began to express discontent with her work and eventually fired her. Rose Jourdain said that Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events. She said Wright became "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved" at Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior." Jourdain spoke of Thomas's comments on Wright's bra size and legs, and of how Thomas once "had the nerve" to come to Wright's home.

Sukari Hardnett, another former Thomas assistant, told the Judiciary Committee that 'if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive, and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.'"

Then 250 words for Thomas's defense. The ungulate and friends can write that.

Then 86 words nobody should dispute: "After extensive debate, the committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination.

On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court."

Total's about 635 words. There is no new information, so I didn't bother to repost citations; they're as they are.

Then, like Ruslik said, there should be a section about Mayer and Abramson's book, which is after the fact. If conservatives like, they can add an equally long section about Clarence Thomas's new book, or other follow-up info.

Here's the line I suggest for the lead: "Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, Thomas's controversial confirmation hearings led to the nation's increased awareness of sexual harassment." Then the line about judicial philosophy.

The lead should be two paragraphs, but we could expand to that later; the article is too thin right now. Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-header Toward the end of the confirmation hearings with the nomination expected to be successful, a new conflict arose. Information was leaked to the press from an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the Equal Employment and Opportunity Commission from 1981-1983. On October 11, 1991, Hill was called to testify during the Senate confirmation hearing.

Hill accused Thomas of inappropriate and harassing comments of a sexual nature (the term sexual harassment was used at the hearing, but was not in common usage at the time the behaviors were said to have happened). The allegations led to a media frenzy. Thomas denied the allegations, and a heated dispute over who was telling the truth ensued.

The hearings were largely partisan, and were seen by Republicans as part of a broader dispute over changes to the court that could move it to the Right and in the direction of overturning Roe v. Wade precedence on abortion. For others, especially Democrats and feminists the hearings highlighted the issue of sexual harassment and aggravated concerns over Thomas's views on gender issues and civil rights. Because of the issues involved, there was an added intensity and heightened emotional quality to the hearings and media coverage.

Hill's testimony included lurid details, and aggressive questioning by some Senators. Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings that Thomas had harassed her or engaged in inappropriate conduct, but several people testified that Hill told them about the harassment. There is a dispute over whether the timeline of these statements and whether the harassment discussions had to do with Thomas or a lawyer at her previous employer. Statements alleging similar improprieties were also entered into the record on behalf of Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, and Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant.

Several witnesses testified on Thomas's behalf. Diane Holt testified that in the years after Hill left for another job, Hill called at least a dozen times. Nancy Altman who worked with Hill and Thomas at the Department of Education testified that, "It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with -- dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues -- without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something." Senator Specter said that, "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury", and that "she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."

Thomas denied all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual impropriety by Hill and the other accusers. Of the committee's investigation of the accusations, Thomas said: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree."[32]

After extensive debate, the committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52-48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.[33] The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans (Jim Jeffords (R-VT) and Bob Packwood[34] (R-OR)) voted to reject the nomination.

On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

The debate over who was telling the truth continues, and numerous books and articles have been written about the original hearings and testimony that could have been presented. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill have both written autobiographies that include their takes on the hearings. The conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings are still vigorously disputed by both all sides of the debate. Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer

Thanks for your work, I will read your versions tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Article Length

RRG has now suggested to another editor that the article be lengthened so he can add material to the sexual allegations section. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this doesn't seem consistent with Wiki guidelines of fair play. Here's his quote, "if the Clarence Thomas article's length is doubled or so, then the confirmation section can't really be said to be of excess length".(Wallamoose (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually any article can be expaneded if there are reliable sources and the information is relevant. Biographies of living persons require a special care, of course. I am not an expert, but in this article the section about Early career needs to be expanded. The "Judicial philosophy" section does not mention the line of cases that started with Apprendi v. New Jersey (Apprendi is only briefly mentioned in the last section). The latter is a big gap, in my opinion. There are may be other gaps in "Judicial philosophy" section. Ruslik (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't oppose any expansion of any part of the article that needs it. But expanding other parts in order to justify expanding a section for which there is a consensus to cut it down, seems to be an effort at gaming the system.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

There's no effort to expand the section; rather, the proposition to expand the rest of the article to justify the current length of the appointment section was a response to the argument that the appointment section is too large relative to the rest of the article. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, RRG, it's not about word count. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose

I'll thank you not to change the content of the cited material to something it doesn't say. If you want to assert that other recent Supreme Court appointees had as little court experience as Thomas did when he was appointed, I ask you to cite such an assertion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, tag it with a citation needed. (Wallamoose (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2008 (UTC))

Stop deleting whole paragraphs and the link to the main confirmation article. I am restoring that material.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Please be more attentive to your spelling and grammar. Just today I've had to repeatedly correct your dropped periods, incorrect verb tenses, and misspelled words. And while we're on the subject, the possessive of "it" is "its," not "it's." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

May I ask you to wait for a few more days and not make any changes ? Ruslik (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Moose, about judicial experience: the page you cite is not about arguing cases; it's about being a judge.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Addition to Further Reading

I propose to make the following additions to the Clarence Thomas entry under Further Reading. I do not wish to include the text of the additions but only the hyperlinks to them. I do not wish to make any changes in the text of the Clarence Thomas article. I would like to add to the Further Reading section the following articles by Professor Donald E. Wilkes, Jr., of the University of Georgia School of Law.

1. STRANGE CRUEL JUSTICE 2. TOO FEW VOICES HEARD IN CHOICE OF THOMAS 3. OPEN LETTER CONCERNING THE INVITATION TO JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS TO SPEAK AT THE UGA SCHOOL OF LAW GRADUATION CEREMONY 4. EMBARRASSING JUSTICE 5. I ACCUSE YOU, CLARENCE THOMAS! 6. A RODENT IN ROBES (JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS)

These articles by Professor Wilkes were added to the Further Reading section of the Wikipedia entry on Justice Thomas on October 8 and they were deleted the same day they were posted. I am not sure who has protected the page to prevent edits or who deleted the material I added. However, I would appreciate an explanation of why this material was deemed inappropriate and was deleted. The articles by Professor Wilkes that I wish to add to the Further Reading section were written by a legal scholar who is familiar with Justice Thomas’ judicial career. They are based on scholarly research and are not insulting or defamatory. They are certainly not pieces of vandalism. They only provide additional reading materials for interested persons who wish to consult them. The fact that they criticize Justice Thomas is no valid reason for deleting them. The Justice Thomas entry is supposed to be informational, not a Justice Thomas Appreciation entry. Please allow these additions, which I am now reposting to the Further Reading section. If anyone intends to interfere with this I ask them before taking any action to first contact me and explain their objections. Again, please allow these additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ap4dw (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You've added Wilkes' works to various articles. The "DW" in your user name raises some questions due to this. If you don't mind my asking, do you have a connection to Wilkes? Not asking for any personal info, just wondering if you may be crossing into conflict of interest here....... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.100.108 (talk) 22:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I support adding links to academic work, but could you provide full links to the documents you're talking about? I do remember seeing that someone removed your links, but I hadn't bothered to read them. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Phase three

I attempted to merge you versions and created the text below. I tried to take the best pieces from your texts. I omitted " titillating claims" and POV statements. You can comment below if you disagree with something. Ruslik (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, information was leaked to the press from an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC. On October 11, 1991, Hill was called to testify during the Senate confirmation hearing. At the Senate hearings Anita Hill said that Thomas made inappropriate and harassing comments of a sexual nature, and that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct. She said Thomas bragged many times of his sexual prowess. Hill's testimony included lurid details, and she was aggressively questioned by some Senators. Thomas denied all allegations of sexual harassment and sexual impropriety by Hill and the other accusers. He said at the hearings: "This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree." Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings against Thomas. However statements alleging similar improprieties were made by Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, and Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant. Angela Wright said in the telephone interview that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates. Rose Jourdain said that Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events and became "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved" at Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior." Sukari Hardnett, another former Thomas assistant, wrote in the letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee where she claimed that 'if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive, and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.' Several witnesses testified on Thomas's behalf. Diane Holt testified that in the years after Hill left for another job, Hill called at least a dozen times. Nancy Altman who worked with Hill and Thomas at the Department of Education testified that, "It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with—dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues—without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something." After the hearings Senator Specter said that, "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury", and that "she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted." After extensive debate, the committee sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation either way. Thomas was confirmed by the Senate with a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. However the debate over who was telling the truth continues and several books have been written about the original hearings and testimony that could have been presented. Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill have both written autobiographies that include their takes on the hearings. The conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings are still vigorously disputed by both all sides of the debate.

Looks great to me. Thanks for your efforts Rusilik. Yeoman's work, as they say. I think the dates of Hill's employment with Thomas is worth including. But other than that it looks very reasonable. I would note that if another editor wants to add in his POV, then we're back where we started because I'm going to want to rebalance. I also take issue with a good part of the material RRG is now adding to other sections of the article, as it seems like another attempt (having not gotten his way here) to impose his personal POV and to defame Thomas.(Wallamoose (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

Please focus on the content, not on the authors. If you have issues with specific material, please post about it here on the talk page. Let's avoid another edit war. Your way is no more important than my way, and I've been working hard on the article.

Ruslik, I like your draft, but I would prefer if we include the Rose Jourdain quote about "increasingly aggressive" behavior, and also I think Mayer and Abramson are critical for inclusion as a section afterward. If they don't get a short follow-up section, they should get at least a couple sentences. They're investigative reporters from the nation's most respected rightist publication, so I'd say their conclusions are pretty important. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not the nomination article. The authors of that book are no more relevant than the other authors and article writers who all have opinions. Rose Jourdain didn't testify. And for the record the authors Garcia is mentioning work for the New Yorker and some other left wing paper. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

That's not true, Moose. http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/strange-justice-by-jane-mayer-and-jill-abramson-8375 Jane Mayer worked for WSJ for twelve years. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/contributors/jane_mayer RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Please consult dictionary for difference between work and worked. (Wallamoose (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC))

Moose, apparently you can't do math; maybe you should edit some of those articles instead. Mayer was still at WSJ when she wrote the book on Thomas. Anyway, let's get back to more constructive work. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

What quote do you mean?

As to Mayer's book I think it should be left for a different section. For instance, "Books about Justice Thomas". I think that this subsubsection should be focused only on nomination itself—after all it is a part of the subsection called "Supreme Court appointment". A lot of books and articles have been written after the appointment, and it is unreasonable to mention them all directly in the text of the subsection, which is already quite long. Another option is to add a footnote to the last paragraph of my draft. Ruslik (talk) 14:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any sort of POV on this event either way, but I am reading the ABC News articles from a year ago regarding Thomas-- I believe the first time he really spoke to the media-- and none of this is included in the article oddly enough, so I'm adding information as I go along. The Sexual Harassment section did not give any sort of equal time to Thomas at all, so I added one sentence about how he says he promoted another lawyer over her for a top job and she never agreed with him politically. I think it gives the section a more neutral stance since there is a POV tag.--Gloriamarie (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I added Clarence Thomas's How to Read the Constitution; it's an excerpt from the Supreme Court Justice's Wriston Lecture to the Manhattan Institute in October 2008. Asteriks (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Is This Article about Jeffrey Toobin?

I understand that Toobin is an important reference, but doesn't Toobin's analysis have excessive prominence in this article? It's hard to consider The Nine an authoritative source, on Thomas at least. Joseph N Hall (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The Nine's credibility is well established. Toobin is named only because some insist on constant attribution. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

While the book may or may not be credible, I struggle to understand why, prior to my edits today, so much of this article rested on attributions to Toobin (and Greenburg, whose credibility is certainly established) rather than quotations from and citations to actual cases. I also found it bizarre to read your observation that some users insist on constant attribution - indeed, insistence on pinciting to a ludicrous extent strikes me as having been your attitude in the abortion section of the article earlier today, and I see it in other articles you've edited, too (e.g. Thornberg).Simon Dodd (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would say the book is credible, and has been better-reviewed than Greenburg's book, and Toobin is easily more prominent than Greenburg, too. Citations were to books instead of cases because I was reading the books, and added info to WP as I went along. This was easier than hunting down cases constantly. RE: citations - yes, I cite a lot, because I have seen other conservative users like you remove things on the basis of lack of citation, just because they want to hide information. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

States' rights v. federalism

Rafael, since you claim to be a 2L, you will be familiar with Younger v. Harris, so I shouldn't need to spell out the difference between federalism and states' rights. If you concede that there is a difference (as you must), the burden falls on you to explain why Justice Thomas should be identified by this article as being in favor of the latter, despite the fact that so far as I know, he has never used the term "states' rights" and has frequently referred to federalism. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've provided reliable sources showing that Thomas is an ardent defender of "states' rights," which is a more specific term than federalism. The word "federalism" can't be subverted to mean "what the conservatives on the Supreme Court" believe in. Most everyone in the US supports federalism; conservatives like Thomas are in favor of strengthening those boundaries - they support states' rights. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What you provided was some sources saying that federalism and states' rights are sometimes used coterminously (despite Younger making clear that this is false and flawed; no one would accuse Justice Black of being for "states' rights"), and a review of a book that says Thomas is for states' rights (a review, mind you, on newsmax.com - Good lord! hardly a reliable source, as I imagine I would scarcely need to tell you in any other time). What you have not provided is any source or published opinion demonstrating that when Thomas has talked glowingly of federalism in cases such as Raich, he meant to say states' rights, or that he views them as being the same thing. That the New York Times doesn't understand the difference is hardly a surprise, by the way, and proves nothing.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Nixon did not have to say he was a "crook" for the public to conclude that he was. If reliable sources say Thomas is for states' rights, then that deserves mention here in WP, despite your partisan objections. You should stop talking down to me. I'll be editing the article again tonight, after work.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed your assertion about Thomas not supporting states' rights in opinions. You need to cite a reliable source that says Thomas has never endorsed it in an opinion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't ask people to prove negatives. If you think Thomas has endorsed it in an opinion, the burden is on you to cite an opinion that does so.Simon Dodd (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You can't assert anything, negative or positive, without a citation on Wikipedia. Saying he's never said the phrase is original research.--[unsigned edit by user:RafaelRGarcia]

I think you have seriously misunderstood Wikipedia policy, and this argument has become unproductive. I have referred it to Medcab.[2] Simon Dodd (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, and you continue to add uncited claims and original research to the article. This is not helpful. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true. And for you to continue editing this page after a mediation request has been lodged demonstrates total bad faith; I am reverting your edit and will be file a page protect request in addition to the mediation request if you do so again.Simon Dodd (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only reverting your reversions; you are ignoring the established policy of how changes are made to WP articles. When disputes arise, you can't force your edits through via multiple reverts; you have to establish consensus on the talk page. Only the latest uncited edits by you are being reverted away. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Given your history of imprecise and bad-faith edits - not to mention the insane and inconsistent insistence on overcitation - I see no reason to think you have the slightest interest in consensus. As far as I can tell, you're interested in asserting ownership of this article, and ending up with a distorted article that inclines the reader towards your dislike for Thomas, in total contravention of WP's NPOV, IAR and Living Persons policies. Simon Dodd (talk) 03:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Please remain civil. You are free to add information to the article, but that information should be cited. You should not remove cited information from reliable sources just because you don't like its truth. You should not add original research or arguments from personal feeling, or your own speculation. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You ceased to be civil when, instead of accepting mediation, you continued to edit war (with the result, by the way, that you are now in violation of WP:3rr.[3]). What you are doing is distorting the article by a misplaced reliance on an (in any event flawed) interpretation of wikipedia's groundrules that cuts strongly against NPOV, IAR and Living Persons.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken, repeatedly ignore established Wikipedia policy, and have also broken 3RR. Please stop bickering with me and wait for MedCab. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how much of a prick you're coming across as? Quite apart from your vaporous arguments about the content of this article, this most recent comment is preposterous. I am not mistaken: you have broken 3rr. You are mistaken: I have not. And your suggestion that we "wait for medcab" cannot be taken in good faith when that was precisely what I proposed earlier and you continued edit warring anyway. If you're studying to be an attorney, your conduct here suggests you might want to rethink your career path, or get ready to feel the sharp end of rule 11. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Instead of resorting to calling me names, perhaps it would be best for you to take a break, and/or find citations for your claims. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

More bad faith. Duly noted.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) The question of whether to use the term “federalism” or “states’ rights” is not an easy thing to resolve in a neutral way. The way it’s done now in the article (saying only that Thomas supports "states’ rights") is obviously unacceptable, however. The term “states’ rights” is clearly a pejorative term, and using it exclusively to describe Justice Thomas is not neutral.

So, what’s the solution? There are two options, IMHO. The first is to go with how the subject self-identifies. This is what’s invariably done at the abortion-related articles, so people are referred to as pro-choice or pro-life, rather than pro-abortion or anti-abortion or anti-choice or anti-life. The principle that self-identification is important also is evident in this draft guideline language: “When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.”[4]

The other neutral option is to always use both terms. For example: “The United States v. Morrison decision was seen by the press as part of the Rehnquist Court's series of federalism or states' rights decisions, mainly because of the Court's previous federalism or states' rights holdings in Lopez, Boerne, and other decisions.”[5] This is kind of a clunky solution, and I prefer the self-identification solution in this instance. But whichever solution is chosen, it must not be the current solution which exclusively uses the pejorative term.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken that the term is "clearly pejorative." It is in wide use, both in mainstream publications and in rightist ones. See the medcab page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I think you're mistaken. In the United States, not all power belongs to the federal government, and this is the essence of the terms "federalism" and "states' rights". However, the latter term has become much more stigmatized: “states’ rights became increasingly identified as a synonym for segregation.” See George Mason, Forgotten Founder by Jeff Broadwater. Thus we have statements like this from well-known legal scholars like Kurt Lash: "By embracing the term 'federalist', I bear the burden of overcoming the pejorative associations of the term with the dark historical legacy of 'states' rights' rhetoric." See "On federalism, freedom, and the founders' view of retained rights: a reply to Randy Barnett", Stanford Law Review (01-FEB-08).

Your cited examples mostly corroborate that the term "states' rights" is very pejorative and associated with racism. For example, you cited a book review in the New York Times which stated about Thomas: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia." You also cited an opinion piece by Hardy Brown which says: “Where were you Mr. Clarence Thomas when it was legal under states rights that a Black man could not even sue or testify against a White man?…. Don’t you remember Justice Clarence Thomas when it was legal under states rights laws to jail or lynch a Black man or White woman if they were to marry in the south?” Obviously, neither of these sources that you cited support your view that the word "states' rights" is not a pejorative term. There is a horrible tendency at Wikipedia for people to state an opinion, and then append a bunch of links or diffs to make the opinion seem more authoritative, even if those links and diffs actually say something else entirely.

Likewise, you also cited a 2005 LA Times piece by John Yoo that says: "Rehnquist himself is a good example of how it can be inhibiting to be chief. As a younger associate justice, he advanced revolutionary theories calling for a reversal of the court's approach to race, states' rights, abortion, religion and free speech. After becoming chief justice, however, he left behind his lone-dissenter role." This quote doesn't say or imply that the term "states' rights" is either pejorative or not pejorative. As I see it, the only source you cited that uses the term "states' rights" in a non-pejorative way is the cite to Laura Ingraham, which seems vastly outweighed by all of the other cites on this issue, such as the ones mentioned above, as well as the following excerpts from an article titled "Federalism and the Double Standard of Judicial Review" (51 Duke L.J. 75, 143-9 (2001)):

“The revival of federalism as a constitutional force in 1995 with the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Lopez has spurred renewed efforts to link ‘states’ rights’ to the discredited aspects of the Court’s pre-New Deal jurisprudence....The historical linkage of states’ rights to slavery and segregation tends to obscure the fact that federalism is largely irrelevant to those issues under current constitutional law....The notion of states’ rights today continues to suffer mightily under the weight of its association with a particularly tragic period in American history. To many, it stands for an anachronistic (and immoral) preference for the race-based denial of essential individual rights that required the Civil War and much federal law to remedy....Thoughtful arguments in favor of the recognition and enforcement of states’ rights therefore are often viewed as thinly veiled pleas for a return to the race-based inequality of the antebellum or Jim Crow South.”

Ferrylodge (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you have very aptly pointed out that "federalism" is the conservative euphemism for "states' rights." But the latter term is still in use, and you aren't showing that the phrase is pejorative. Rather, you're bringing up historical associations behind the phrase. The NYT book review doesn't show that "states' rights" is pejorative - it points out the inconsistencies in Thomas's position. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The NYT book review was written by a Harvard sociology professor who knows very little about the law. Justice Thomas joined the following opinion endorsing Loving v. Virginia several years ago:

The objection is made, however, that the antimiscegenation laws invalidated in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 8 (1967), similarly were applicable to whites and blacks alike, and only distinguished between the races insofar as the partner was concerned. In Loving, however, we correctly applied heightened scrutiny, rather than the usual rational-basis review, because the Virginia statute was "designed to maintain White Supremacy." Id., at 6, 11. A racially discriminatory purpose is always sufficient to subject a law to strict scrutiny, even a facially neutral law that makes no mention of race. No purpose to discriminate against men or women as a class can be gleaned from the Texas law, so rational-basis review applies. That review is readily satisfied here by the same rational basis that satisfied it in Bowers-society's belief that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," 478 U.S., at 196.

See Lawrence v. Texas. Likewise, contrary to what the Harvard sociology professor says, Justice Thomas has also endorsed Brown v. Board of Education.[6]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you and Simon should be more careful about the elitism you show in attempting to disqualify people from commenting on the law, lest you disqualify most of the people who agree with you, or perhaps even yourselves. It's funny to see you citing an anti-gay-rights dissent as grounds for your argument. Thomas has upheld state laws he has disagreed with before, on the basis of his states' rights beliefs. Raich. That is the tension that the professor is pointing out. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The sociology professor wrote about Thomas: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia." That is a false and ignorant statement. I'm sorry you agree with the sociology professor, and I regret that you wish to join the professor in this absurd attempt to paint Justice Thomas as a racist states' rights supporter. This BLP would be much simpler and less controversial if we would simply stick to facts, and leave opinions out of it. And, incidentally, Thomas's dissent in Lawrence v. Texas specifically said that he opposed the Texas law in question, and thought it was a "silly" law, so your attempt to paint him as anti-gay-rights is mistaken as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I replied to this below. Thomas distanced himself from the law but did not vote against it. He was not willing to stand up for gay rights, so his vote was, in effect, anti-gay rights. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If in good faith he could find no constitutional warrant to void the law he disagreed with, what would you have him do? Just as I suppose one could strain to characterize Justice Scalia's vote in Johnson as being "in effect pro-flagburning," I suppose one say Thomas' vote in Lawrence was, in effect, athwart the gay rights movement. But the implication - that finding no warrant in the Constitution to strike down the law in Lawrence, or a requirement in the Constitution to strike down the law in Johnson, means that Scalia and Thomas themselves are for flagburning or against gay rights - fails. What you're doing looks a lot like projecting: it seems that you believe that a judge should follow their conscience and thus assume that judges are doing that. Not everyone believes that. I don't. I don't think Ferrylodge does. And Scalia and Thomas don't, either. There are more things in law, Rafael, Than seem dreamt of in your philosophy.Simon Dodd (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose Rafael also thinks the U.S. Supreme Court is in effect pro-genocide seeing as how SCOTUS is unwilling to order a stop to the slaughter in Darfur, and is in effect pro-poverty for not being willing to order Bill Gates to give billions to the folks in Appalachia, and is in effect pro-global-warming for being unwilling to order people to stop driving their cars.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And yet this is the same editor who, below, accused you of having "editing patterns ... indicat[ing] that it is highly unlikely you are a lawyer"! I wonder if WP has an article on that?Simon Dodd (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is this article locked up?

Unless I'm mistaken, the controversy is about the following sentence in the lead: "PBS has referred to Thomas as the leading conservative in America and says that his 'decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority.'[7]" If you look at the source, it doesn't seem reliable, and in fact the quoted sentence from the source includes an obvious misspelling: "He [sic] decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority." Additionally, I don't see where in the source it says that Thomas is the leading conservative in America.

A much more reliable source would be the Harvard Law Review in my opinion. See “The Statistics,” Harvard Law Review, volume 121, page 439 (November 2007):

Dissents:
Kennedy (2 dissenting votes)
Roberts (8 dissenting votes)
Alito (9 dissenting votes)
Scalia (15 dissenting votes)
Thomas (16 dissenting votes)
Souter (19 dissenting votes)
Breyer (20 dissenting votes)
Ginsburg (21 dissenting votes)
Stevens (28 dissenting votes)

Thomas seems to be right in the middle, as far as the number of dissenting votes is concerned. Therefore, I support removing the sentence in question from the lead. Ferrylodge (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Those statistics are from one year of the Court only. Yes, Thomas has been in the dissent less often lately because of how politicized Court appointments have been. But in the grander scale, he's dissented a lot, and writes separately quite a bit. If you want to include those statistics in the article, that's fine, but you have to specify that it's only for one year.

As for PBS, I didn't add that to the lead, but it seems pretty straightforward, aside from the typo. The source is PBS, which is reliable; it's not up to you to discredit the source based on your personal feelings, and a quick Google shows plenty of other places calling him the leading conservative. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Please do not assume bad faith. I have never commented at this article before, so please give me the benefit of AGF. As you must realize, I did not discredit the source based on any personal feelings. I discredited the source based on the fact that the quoted sentence has apparently not even been proofread by the author or by PBS, as evidenced by the poor spelling. The source also does not have any footnotes or references to indicate what the quoted sentence is based upon.

The statistics I gave above were for the 2007 term. The statistics for the 2006 term are very similar. See “The Statistics,” Harvard Law Review, volume 120, page 372 (November 2006):

Dissents:
O’Connor (0 dissenting votes)
Roberts (6 dissenting votes)
Kennedy (9 dissenting votes)
Scalia (9 dissenting votes)
Souter (14 dissenting votes)
Thomas (15 dissenting votes)
Ginsburg (15 dissenting votes)
Breyer (18 dissenting votes)
Stevens (21 dissenting votes)

Unless you provide a better source, I continue to support removing the sentence in question from the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It should come as no surprise that the Bush appointees have moved the Court significantly to the right in the past couple years, and that as a result Thomas is less often in the dissent lately. I've seen you try to discredit sources on other political articles, so while I do normally assume AGF, I have some idea as to your tactics. The support for Thomas being both a frequent dissenter and the leading conservative is numerous, and if you'd do some quick research on the subject, you'd find plenty of support on your own; you don't need me to convince you. For example, here is something from the Duke Law Review: www.law.duke.edu/shell/cite.pl?58+Duke+L.+J.+139+pdf Remember not to be guilty of recentism, which is what you're doing by zeroing in on the latest two years of Court terms. More characteristic of Thomas's career is years when he was the most frequent dissenter, like here: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F05E4D7153AF932A35754C0A9659C8B63&fta=y And see here: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Mar12/0,4670,ScotusMukasey,00.html , where even FOX News admits that Thomas is a big dissenter. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with you if the cited PBS source says nothing about Thomas being "the leading conservative in America"? If you want to re-draft the sentence in question, then I'm sure that both myself and other editors would be delighted to read what you come up with. Please note that there is a difference between being "a" leading conservative on "SCOTUS" versus being "the" leading conservative in the entire continent of "America".

Please also note that this Wikipedia article is phrased in the present tense: "frequently disagree." That is simply incorrect. Thomas does not presently disagree with the Court majority any more than several other justices do, and that has been true for many years. The present sentence as it now stands should be removed, for the reasons I have described. But you are free to try re-writing it.

Incidentally, since you refuse to assume good faith on my part, I will also assume bad faith on your part.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Can't you read? The phrase "leading conservative in America" is in the second-to-last paragraph in the PBS page. And plenty of other reliable sources use it. I'll add more citations to the wiki page later, but there are no grounds for removing the line (which I did not, by the way, add originally). RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Why, yes, I suppose if you're going to assume bad faith, you may as well be mean and rude too. I won't be mean or rude to you, but I will assume bad faith, as described above.

What the cited source says is: "Thomas has been referred to as the leading conservative in America." Thus, PBS has not referred to Thomas as the leading conservative in America. Some unnamed and anonymous person has done so. I'm sure that Justice Thomas has been referred to as a lot of things by a lot of people, but that is hardly notable here in this Wikipedia article.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I think something attributed to you would count as attributable to someone "unnamed and anonymous," but the material on the PBS page is not anonymous at all. It's clearly a page in a set of pages for a PBS series, and the architect of the series is even named. Please read material before responding next time. And here is a TIME article using the same phrase: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,91427,00.html . It's not a dubious phrase to use at all. Certainly, there are grounds for naming other people, like Rush Limbaugh, but Thomas is a decent choice, thanks to his role in forming the law instead of just commenting. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article: "PBS has referred to Thomas as the leading conservative in America....”

PBS: "Thomas has been referred to as the leading conservative in America."

You really believe that the statement in this Wikipedia article is supported by the cited source? It obviously is not. If we change it to "Supporters have referred to Thomas as the leading conservative in America" then we run into WP:Weasel. Which supporters? When? Why?

If you are mentioning the TIME article because you realize the present sourcing is deficient, then good for you. Except that the TIME article is not calling him the leading conservative in America, but rather is citing some unamed and anonymous "supporters" who say that.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not at all a case of weasel wording. The idea that he is the leading conservative is presented uncritically by PBS and TIME, and the key issue behind weasel words is a lack of attribution. The Weekly Standard also called him that: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/weekly/standard082699.asp . In that case, he made the cover of their magazine with that phrase, in no uncertain terms. I don't see what your problem is, exactly. Would you prefer a partisan publication like TWS be named over PBS? RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If the New York Times says that Barack Obama has been referred to as a grave threat by some people, then we cannot say in an article about Barack Obama that the New York Times has referred to Obama as a grave threat. Same principle here. As for my main problem with this sentence in the Wikipedia article, it's that we provide a false present-tense description of the dissents by Justice Thomas.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, to be fair, he may in good faith not understand the difference. I can give two examples of his sloppy work that imply as much. I posted statistics compiled by Tom Goldstein that showed Thomas and Scalia agreed in full only 74% of the time; Garcia changed the text, attributing the figure as a statement by Goldstein: "Goldstein says the two agreed in full only 74% of the time." [8] (subsequently corrected: [9]). More recently, Garcia misrepresented Justice Thomas' position in Edmonton by omitting a crucial prefatory line from a quote. He insisted that because the "line was a straight quotation ... [there was] no room for mischaracterization." No kidding - see [10]. If this is taken in good faith, we must assume that Garcia cannot comprehend the difference between what Thomas actually said ("[t]aken together, our decisions in [two previous cases] ... stand for the proposition that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops. I am not convinced that [those cases] ... were correctly decided"), on the one hand, and saying that "[i]n Indianapolis v. Edmond, Thomas wrote 'that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops.'" He may simply not realize what he's doing, and while Wikipedia ha a policy of assuming good faith, it doesn't offer much in terms of guidance when the choice is between assuming that the editor is dumb but acting in good faith or smart and acting in poor faith. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• I withdraw that last sentence and apologize, per Wikipedia:CIVILITY.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Garcia is very smart.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the NPOV phrasing of "Goldstein says" because that's what his measure arrived at. Pretty simple. Your edits were improper in that they privileged Goldstein's number over Greenhouse's, casting doubt on the latter, without a good justification. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• You used the phrasing of "Goldstein says" incorrectly, because you attributed to him something he didn't actually say. He compiled statistics; one of the things in those statistics was the number I mentioned. It is not correct to characterize that as "Goldstein said."Simon Dodd (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
• There isn't a good justification for preferring Goldstein's number over Greenhouse's? Are you kidding? Goldstein compiled and published comprehensive and verifiable statistics about the term, and you don't think that's a better source than one demonstrably misleading abstract statement published in a newspaper column without any kind of supporting evidence? Really? You don't get why statistics are a more reliable source than a New York Times story? Really?! Simon Dodd (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Goldstein uses a different methodology. "Goldstein says" the numbers are different. RE: Greenhouse - unless you know of a retraction the NYT published, I consider this matter closed. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• n.b., although the article is locked, if we can reach consensus on any particular disputed point, we can have an admin change that point while the article remains locked, provided clear consensus has been reached. Simon Dodd (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gullah

There seems to have been some recent controversy here at this article about Justice Thomas’s use of the "Gullah" dialect as a child, and how that may have helped him to develop the habit of listening. [11] The present article says:

Later in life, Thomas began to acquire an enthusiasm for his heritage, writing about it in the December 14, 2000 issue of The New York Times: "When I was 16, I was sitting as the only black kid in my class, and I had grown up speaking a kind of a dialect. It's called Geechee. Some people call it [Gullah] now, and people praise it now. But they used to make fun of us back then. It's not standard English. When I transferred to an all-white school at a young age, I was self-conscious, like we all are... So I...just started developing the habit of listening."[96] The New York Times casts doubt on Thomas's Gullah explanation.[97]

This seems extremely misleading to me, because there are two separate New York Times pieces being discussed here; one is from December 14, 2000 and the other is from June 17, 2007. We’re discussing this as though two New York Times pieces seven years apart are one single article.

Additionally, we do not include any footnote for the first article. The footnote we have is not to the New York Times piece, but rather is to a definition of the word "Gullah". Why can't we cite to the New York Times, like so: "The 43rd President; In His Own Words," The New York Times (2000-12-14)? And, obviously, Justice Thomas did not write this New York Times article in 2000, contrary to what we say in our Wikipedia article. We should also drop the uncited snarky comment about Justice Thomas beginning to "acquire an enthusiasm" for his heritage "later in life". The cited source says nothing of the sort, as far as I can tell.

Furthermore, the second New York Times piece is not a news article, but rather a book review, written by a professor of sociology at Harvard. We should not attribute what he writes to the newspaper. There are other problems with this material, but fixing these items would be a good start.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

We can specify "NYT book review," as the NYT editors do have oversight over book reviews, as they do in any newspaper; we could also name the professor. The quote looks like it's from an interview, so just change the verb or something. Yes, the citations should be fixed. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

A book review seems analogous to an opinion piece in a newspaper. A neutral article would be preferred as a source.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are cited all over Wikipedia, and they are attributed. We can change it to naming the professor. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Pieces that rely heavily on personal opinion are questonable sources.[12] Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources should normally not be used in a BLP.[13]

The burden is on those who wish to include opinion material in a BLP to prove that it is not questionable or dubious. To the extent that opinion material is used, explicit opinion pieces in newspapers and magazines need to be assessed in relation to the overall balance in an article, in line with WP:NPOV, and again the burden is especially great in a BLP for the editor wishing to include such material to prove that it is properly balanced in the article.

I think we would do much better without opinion material in this article, but we can include it if the burden is met.Ferrylodge (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a problem if we name who the professor is and where he's from. I don't have other information showing that the professor is of questionable academic merit; do you? And the information is not uncorroborated; Toobin wrote about the same issue in his book on the Supreme Court. The writing passed muster with the NYT editorial process and with a major book publisher; we couldn't reasonably allege that it's questionable or dubious. Reading the WP policy page you linked to, I don't see any reason to cast the source here as questionable. The NYT does not have a poor reputation for fact-checking. Nor does it rely heavily on rumors or personal opinions. Nor is this piece promotional, extremist, or pseudoscience.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about sources that corroborate or give credence to what Thomas wrote? Are you saying that every reliable source is basically calling Thomas a liar about the effect of his "Gullah" background on his tendency to listen more than talk during oral arguments? It's your responsibility as a Wikipedia editor to include all sides, and not just include negative stuff about Thomas. Additionally, this article excludes the other reasons that Thomas has given for not asking a lot of questions during oral arguments (see the 2000 NY Times article).Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I know the other reasons Thomas has given. I mostly left that section untouched except for adding the Toobin quote; no one editor is responsible for maintaining the balance of an entire article. And conservatives are happy to keep an article unbalanced - for example, the article on Anthony Kennedy is loaded with conservative vitriol about the justice, and not much in terms of praise. Who keeps THAT in order? Anyway, if you count the lines, Thomas has a good number of lines in that section dedicated to his own defense, in his own words. The Hillsdale College speech does a good job of expressing his view. The whole section shouldn't be the justice's own words, and I think there is already a good mix of things. As for how reliable sources treat the issue, I think mostly they just report what Thomas said. BLP pages are not just supposed to echo what the LP says.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited the article on Anthony Kennedy, and know nothing about it. The fact that other crap may exist is no reason to create crap here. Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another way to look at the question of including opinion pieces: is the person who wrote the opinion piece notable? We wouldn't dream of including every opinion expressed about Justice Thomas in the article, or even just those that are published in a verifiable source. Perhaps, then, the threshold for the inclusion of an opinion piece should be that the author is notable in the sense that they meet WP's criteria for having an article here. Thus, an opinion piece by Jeff Toobin (his are all opinion pieces) might merit inclusion (depending on whether it said anything useful), but a piece by Joe Bloggs of whothehellcares community college that made it into a slow day in the Tribune would not. Any mileage in this?Simon Dodd (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The most important thing is to weight the pro and con in this article according to the pro and con in the real world and the mainstream press. Who we pick to represent the pro, and who we pick to represent the con, seems less important. If someone at podunk community college says something just as well as some Harvard bigwig, then I don't see any need to discriminate between them.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

But nobody's tried to remove anything from a Podunk community college speaker. And this particular Harvard bigwig has also written other pieces for NYT. He passes muster on notability. Do a little research before opening your mouths. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

He's a sociologist, writing out of his area of expertise. As documented elsewhere on this talk page, he's written stuff about Justice Thomas that is plainly false. I wish I could enjoy seeing all the trouble you'll get into with that attitude of yours, Rafael.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're incorrect that he's written false things, and you're also incorrect that he's writing outside of his area when he talks about Thomas and Gullah. Read his bio. Honestly, you should take time to think about things and do a little research before snapping off a reply. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The following sentence that this sociology professor wrote is not only false but also malicious: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia."[14] This sociology professor is entitled to his opinion but not his facts. Fact #1: Justice Thomas has endorsed the holding in Loving v. Virginia.[15]. Fact #2: Justice Thomas has also endorsed Brown v. Board of Education.[16] This opinion piece by a sociology professor does not belong in this article. He obviously knows nothing about oral arguments, and nothing about the law.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, Patterson passes WP:NOTE for one reason and one reason alone: he holds a named/personal chair appointment. See Wikipedia:Notability (academics). But for that, I'd nominate his article for deletion on grounds of notability right now. More to the point, as Ferrylodge notes, he is writing about something about which he has no expertise: An article by Steven Hawking about black holes is notable; an essay by Steven Hawking about gay marriage is non-notable. Another thing that amuses me - and I tried to point this out in the article until you whined it was OR, is that Patterson patently doesn't get it. His complaint about Thomas' claim for why he doesn't talk much at oral argument is based on a ridiculous and unnatural interpretation of Thomas' actual explanation: the theory that Thomas doesn't speak because his accent still embarrasses him, as opposed to not speaking because he learned that habit at a time when it did. Work like that isn't to be taken seriously.Simon Dodd (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're not to be taken seriously. You're purposely misreading the article, in completely bad faith. The prof isn't saying that Thomas is still embarrassed by his accent. He's saying that Thomas developed the habit of listening, thanks to that childhood experience. It's basically the same thing Thomas said, but not in Thomas's own words. The prof casts doubt on Thomas's flimsy explanation, with good reason, because as the prof points out, Thomas really HAS gotten rid of his accent. Ferrylodge - you're wrong, and I already explained why. Please stop repeating yourself. The prof is notable and reliable, and so is NYT, as much as that fact may irritate you.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This comment of yours did not begin to explain why you agree with the sociology professor that Justice Thomas would uphold anti-miscegenation laws, or why you agree with the professor that Justice Thomas is a hypocrite for being married to a white woman.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel your comments are being made in bad faith. I never even suggested agreement with any proposition that Thomas is a hypocrite. And the professor did not call Thomas a hypocrite. The comment in the book review pointed out that Thomas's belief in states' rights could lead him to making rulings that make him look bad. I pointed out that this HAS happened - Thomas voted in favor of the marijuana law at issue in Raich, but distanced himself from marijuana use considerably in his opinion. Please read up on your law. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The sociology professor, whose opinion piece you want to rely upon in this BLP, falsely accused Thomas of being a racist and a hypocrite in these words: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia." The opinion piece ought to come out of the BLP for about a hundred different reasons.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong, and your reading of the article seems to me to be in bad faith. The professor is saying that Thomas's usual stance of states' rights would lead to these face-losing votes. I hope you won't repeat yourself. Again, it's not up to you to remove reliable, notable sources. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The professor is not a lawyer, and the fact that you agree with him indicates that you aren't a lawyer either. The Equal Protection Clause was not mentioned in Raich at all, and thus Raich is irrelevant to the holdings in Loving and Brown. The opinion piece by the sociology professor is not reliable, it's not written by anyone familiar with law, it's not balanced by opposing opinions cited in this Wikipedia article, and it's your burden to prove that it should be included in compliance with Wikipedia policies, not my burden to prove that it should be removed. This is a BLP.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If editing Wikipedia required a JD, a lot less time would be wasted arguing with other editors. It seems you continue to misconstrue what people write, probably because you lack knowledge of the cases at issue. Your editing patterns also indicate that it is highly unlikely you are a lawyer. The point about Raich is that Thomas's extremist views, especially his passion for states' rights, lead him to positions in support of things he's against, which in that case was the California medical marijuana law. Aside from that, the professor is notable and reliable, NYT is notable and reliable, NYT wouldn't let a book review for a law-related book be published without the necessary oversight, and it is not your prerogative to decide what can be cited and what cannot be. That is dictated by Wikipedia policy, which clearly states that NYT is a reliable source. As for balance, Thomas gets a big amount of the section for his own words. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

News articles in the NYT are considered a reliable source; letters to the editor, advertisements, and diatribes by ignorant sociology professors not so much, especially when the sociology professor is writing about a subject outside of his field of expertise. If your idea of neutrality is that a Thomas quote "balances" an attack on that quote, then I don't quite agree with you. Again, I urge you to just let the facts speak for themselves, and not turn this article into a platform for critics to paint Thomas as an extremist. Additionally, the sociology professor didn't mention Raich, and the issues in Raich are very different from the issues of racism and equal protection that the sociology professor raised. So, I don't think Raich is pertinent here, and I wish you'd stop bringing it up repeatedly. Thomas is not only against racism; he's also against the losing legal arguments in Loving and Brown, contrary to what the idiot sociology professor would have us believe. Even if you continue to want this article to rely on that sociology professor, you must realize that the burden in a BLP rests on those who wish to include, not those who wish to exclude.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you repeatedly mischaracterize what I or what the psych prof says, doesn't mean that becomes what we say. What was meant was that, if those cases were brought to Thomas today, and he followed his states' rights position (which he usually does), Thomas would be voting on the losing side in those cases. I brought up Raich because that's an example of Thomas voting against himself or his own beliefs, which you're suggesting he'd never do. And I don't have to paint Thomas as an extremist; plenty of sources do it for me. Oh, I consider the issue of citing this NYT piece settled; see the MedCab. It's clearly a reliable source. Besides which, conservatives with far dimmer credentials have opinion pieces cited all over Wikipedia.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

Rafael, what criteria are you using to determine who should be invited here?[17] See WP:Canvass.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, interesting! That looks dangerously close to Wikipedia:Canvass#Votestacking, doesn't it? Aaawk-ward! Simon Dodd (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You are both wrong. Gloriamarie is the only editor I've seen who really added substantially to this article since I started watching it, so I messaged him/her to weigh in here, as his/her edits are among the material being discussed. He/she changed plenty of the material I added; I don't know anything about his/her views. And I think it's funny that two conservatives with apparently carbon copies of each other's views would accuse me of anything. It seems you probably just canvassed each other in a private manner. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't know Simon was here at this article until I got here myself. I didn't accuse you of anything, merely asked a question. But your answer really complicates things, because there have been LOTS of other editors editing this article since you started editing it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but from what I could see, Gloriamarie made more substantive contributions than anyone else. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I have now taken a brief look at the edit history of this article, and I do not believe your explanation. You first edited this article on August 9, 2008. Since then, Gloriamarie has edited the article as follows: [18][19][20]

Many, many other editors have also made very substantial contributions since you started editing here, including Wallamoose, Elonka, Mokru, Paul.h, EmilyWolff, Walkel01, and Milesnfowler. Some of these editors severely criticized you in their edit summaries, and you reverted some of their edits. I believe you have specifically canvassed an editor with whom you had no substantial disagreement.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong. You are challenging Gloriamarie's edits, and Gloriamarie has made some useful additions here and elsewhere, so I posted on the talk page for that user. Walkel01 left Wikipedia. Wallamoose was banned. I don't recall the rest. Frankly, stop whining. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not challenging Gloriamarie's edits. What I am challenging is your choice not to invite people like Paul.h who have edited this article more than Gloriamarie, but not in a style that agrees with your preferences. Wallamoose and Walkel01 may be gone, but the others are not, AFAIK.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually you are, because GM added the PBS line. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And so did you.[21] Much of the material in this article has been edited by multiple editors.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I re-added it after the attempt to move it, yes. Changes to the intro are pretty serious and shouldn't be done unilaterally. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Including stuff unilaterally would definitely be a problem. Removing stuff unilaterally is no problem at all in a BLP, absent a consensus that the stuff complies with Wikipedia policies.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)