Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Suggested edit(s) to Judicial Philosophy section, specifically subsection Voting Alignment

This subsection in particular references Justice Antonin Scalia in the present-tense multiple times, as though he were still alive, when in fact Scalia died in 2016; these should be changed to past-tense to reflect this. Additionally, and especially given that the subsection seems to have been written within the chronological context of Scalia being still alive, it would be beneficial to add date context, at least the year, to the "observations" and opinions of various authors as mentioned within this subsection (especially since any statistics presented may only have been accurate up to the time of their publication, and potentially not all the way up to the death of Justice Scalia or beyond).

There may be other such issues of tense regarding living or dead persons, or chronological context missing, in other sections or subsections, but I have not yet thoroughly read the article to see. In fact I had to read the subsection here twice to be sure I had noticed the tense issues correctly, which prompted a third reading when I realized the context issues.76.170.99.57 (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The Box opinion

Hi, fellow Wikipedians. I am filling a blank reference-- a reference consisting only of an empty pair of brackets "[]". I'm putting in a link to the case under discussion, which includes the text of Thomas' concurring opinion. I am also adding a couple of interesting facts about the opinion: 1. He quoted Margaret Sanger's description of abortion as a "horror" in the same category as "infanticide", and, 2. He referred several times to a book by Adam Cohen, who subsequently published a blistering criticism of Thomas' opinion, saying that Thomas didn't understand his (Cohen's) book, or the history of eugenics, at all. I'm trying very hard to respect NPOV by saying only what Thomas and Cohen actually wrote, but if I'm not succeeding, I rely on you all to make appropriate adjustments. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2020

an originalist and textualist approach Originalist123 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Originalist123: Read the last paragraph of the lead.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Most senior vs longest serving.

Currently the first paragraph says this:

He is currently the most senior associate justice on the Court following the retirement of Anthony Kennedy. Thomas succeeded Thurgood Marshall and is the second African American to serve on the Court. Among the current members of the Court he is the longest-serving justice, with a tenure of 28 years, 70 days as of January 1, 2020.

Is there a difference between most senior and longest serving? If not, one of these sentences should be removed. If so there should be a link to an article or a note that explains what "most senior" means. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Among the Associate Justices, not that I'm aware of. The Chief Justice is always considered the "most senior", and the associates follow in order of appointment. Also not sure if the bit about Anthony Kennedy preceding him as the most senior justice is really necessary. Agree it should be restructured to omit redundancy. Kalethan (talk) 16:11, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Change “textualist” to “originalist”, since textualism does not allow the consideration of the original meaning at the time of writing 2A01:CB1D:49D:C300:D585:D3FE:DDE6:AF66 (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Darren-M talk 23:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

2019 Term opinions

Justice Thomas wrote several concurring/dissenting opinions that expounded on several notable aspects of his legal views. At least some of these should be added to the article, possibly including:

• Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (view on the Establishment Clause)
• Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (view on separation of powers and overturning Humphrey's Executor)
• June Medical Services, LLC v. Russo (reiteration of his opposition to Roe v. Wade)
• Chiafalo v. Washington (federalism, particularly the centrality of the 10th Amendment to his reasoning, unlike the other justices)
• Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam (view on the Suspension Clause)

I currently don't have the time to add these opinions to the article (hence, why I'm posting here), but Thomas expounds a lot on his legal views in these cases (and possibly others both from this and previous terms), and we should consider adding them. If I get the time later, and they haven't been added yet, I might. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Infobox Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Chair succession

Though it is true that Clarence Thomas was the permanent successor to Eleanor Holmes Norton as Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, there was more than a year between her leaving office and Thomas taking up the post. During that time J. Clay Smith Jr. was acting or interim chair and I wonder of the infobox should reflect this? At the moment a casual reader might assume Thomas immediately replaced Holmes Norton. I would note that the infobox for Gilbert F. Casellas, who became chair in 1994 after another long period of of an acting chair, notes both his permanent predecessor as chair, Evan Kemp, and Tony Gallegos who held the acting role in 1993 and 1994. I think this might be a better way to go for this article, but would welcome wider opinions. Any change should also be applied to the infobox in Eleanor Holmes Norton's article which has similar issues with Thomas as her successor and Lowell Perry as her predecessor, when again an acting chair - Ethel Bent Walsh - held office for a year after Perry resigned in 1976. Dunarc (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Usually, we don't mention Acting preceding/succeeding agency leaders in the articles of permanent agency leaders. We only mention the "acting" heads on the articles of other Acting leaders, and on articles of the position itself. I don't know if this is an official policy, but it's standard practice. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I did wonder, but there does seem to be some inconsistency on this like the Gilbert F. Casellas article I mentioned and also on the article for Trygve Lie who was the first Secretary-General of the United Nations where his acting predecessor Gladwyn Jebb is recorded, though that could be argued to be a special case. Dunarc (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Please change "with a tenure of 28 years, 285 days as of August 3, 2020." to "with a tenure of 28 years, 288 days as of August 6, 2020." Leliach (talk) 18:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That automatically updates. Purge your cache if you continue to see it outdated. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:16, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hill's Credibility

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Anita Hill's credibility in the Senate confirmation hearings was undercut by the fact that she followed Thomas to her second job with him, in fact aggressively pursued a second job under Thomas, after he had already allegedly harassed her at the Department of Education? It was a contradiction that she later attributed to bad judgment based on the appeal of employment at the EEOC. In addition, Thomas felt that Hill was pursuing a sexual relationship with him, which he declined. Moreover, during the hearing, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch implied that "Hill was working in tandem with 'slick lawyers' and interest groups bent on destroying Thomas' chances to join the court" due to his conservative political philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Possessive of Thomas - Thomas’ or Thomas’s ?

I noticed we are using the extra "s" so I did some research and discovered the division which exists on the question. I thought you all would get a real kick out of where my research took me. Check out this link: "Kansas v. Marsh" (PDF). Hoppyh (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

This leaves open the question presented. Hoppyh (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Hoppyh: I did find that funny! And to answer your question, I checked and MOS:POSS wants us to use the extra s and I don't think we are supposed to care about Thomas's preference. Currently 35 of the 50 possessives of his last name in the article do; I'll fix them but feel free to object. mossypiglet (talk) quote or something 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mossypiglet: Glad you saw the MOS answer, but I’m just as glad I missed it! Hoppyh (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Order of precedence

How come the entries for "Preceded by" of the footer concerning the order of precedence do actually not correspond to the official Office of the Chief of Protocol list? There it says that "Ambassadors Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of foreign diplomatic missions to the United States" precede SCOTUS justices, in fact.--Hildeoc (talk) 20:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note this sentence, occurring twice on p. 12 of the official document linked to above, under the heading "Additional Guidance regarding Order of Precedence": "Although ambassadors at Post traditionally outrank other Cabinet-level ministers who might represent their countries as the head of delegation, out of courtesy for the subject-matter and Cabinet-level diplomat, the ambassador will drop down in rank as a member of the official delegation for that official visit." This may explain some of the discrepancy. I think it is better, though, to stick to the list itself here, and mention any additional guidance in the article United States order of precedence.  --Lambiam 09:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

In 'Stare Decisis' paragraph, change "Court of appeals" to "Supreme Court" as title for Amy Coney Barrett 161.43.78.174 (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To avoid misunderstanding, I suggest:

"In 2005, while Assistant Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School, Amy Coney Barrett wrote that ...".

(The proposed change could be interpreted as meaning that this is an opinion she stated in the capacity of a justice of the Supreme Court.)  --Lambiam 09:51, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 03:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Wife's Activities

I feel sure that Wikipedia doesn't allow Twitter threads as a sources but it seems like it might be worth someone finding a good source and adding Thomas' wife's activities to his "personal life" section. (I haven't checked hers yet but this is kind of big news... opposing the result of the election and supporting insurrection.) https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1347395084527017985?s=20 Just a thought --gobears87 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Section on Anita Hill allegations

The section states, "Main article: Anita Hill § Allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas." This links to the entry on Anita Hill. I tried to change the section sign to an ampersand, but it no longer links when you do that, so I did not make that change. I also tried to change the section sign to "and," with the same result. Does anyone know how to correct this? By the way, "Allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas" is a subhead in the Anita Hill entry.Maurice Magnus (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I just got it. The section sign is not an error; it is stating what I stated above: that "Allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas" is a section (what I called a subhead) of the Anita Hill entry.Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

"Kate Ambush" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Kate Ambush. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 28#Kate Ambush until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 September 2021

with a tenure of 29 years, "326 days as of September 14, 2021". <- this is asinine. What's the point of this? Audiacloud (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. It's done with a template to keep it current and updated. with a tenure of {{ayd|1991|10|23}} as of {{FULLDATE}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Tenure Edit Request

• Specific text to be added or removed: CHANGE with a tenure of 29 years, 332 days as of September 20, 2021 TO with a tenure of 29 years, 335 days as of September 23, 2021
• Reason for the change: To accurately state the length of Justice Thomas's tenure
• References supporting change: https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx states Justice Thomas's term began 10/23/91 which was 29 years and 335 days ago.

 Done, I think. It's a template that auto-updates, just needed the cache purged. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Another example of Wikipedia editors bias

It is quite suspicious that Ruth Bader Ginsburg article is protected and that one isn't.. The last edit is shockingly racist and it is just incredible that no one have removed it yet..

I agree it should be protected. Im trying as hard as i can to remove those comments, but the trolls just come and undo them right away

I have contributed small amounts to Wikipedia. However I recently read an opinion page that said Wikipedia is biased to the left. Then I saw clear evidence of that in the article on Clarence Thomas we are his wife Virginia was said to have “touted” some thing and “called herself” an ambassador. These are clearly words that mock. Gettysburg21 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The UPI source said Virginia Thomas "has opened a consulting firm and CALLS HERSELF [emphasis added] an ambassador to new U.S. Congress members and the Tea Party." https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/02/05/Justice-Thomass-wife-turns-to-lobbying/99181296885303/ Wikipedia was using information as given in a reliable source.

Comparing it to the Ruth Ginsburg page in terms of bias is inappropriate. Marty Ginsburg was a law professor, and Virginia Thomas is a pundit, lobbyist, and political consultant. One teaches and professes, the other opines and touts. It's the nature of their jobs, not an insult and not reflective of bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamoatlarge (talk • contribs) 06:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2021

delete "because four votes are required to hear an appeal,"

because it out of place and unnecessary and also because it is not true--as a matter of CUSTOM and PRACTICE the WHOLE COURT generally certifies an appeal when at least 4 justices would grant it, but any action of the Court (other than emergency acts that are left to the Circuit Justice or the Chief, who can then refer it to the whole Court) requires the presence of a quorum (7) and requires a majority of those present, hence, when the usual 8 or 9 are present, 5 justices not 4. Also, it may be that the Chief Justice on their own can certify an appeal. That has never been tested because, as a practical matter, if the CHIEF wants to hear an appeal, three other justices are usually forthcoming. Lamoatlarge (talk) 06:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Heartmusic678 (talk) 14:25, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Seditionist wife Virginia

Now is the time to state Clarence’s wife, Virginia, as a radical right wing seditionist. 184.23.236.250 (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added the story about his wife's texts. Perhaps controversies relating to his wife and potential conflicts of interest should have their own section, as this probably goes beyond "personal life". Endwise (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sexual harassment history

Thomas is a highly controversial person, and the most hated justice on the court, before and after his nomination. There should be a "controversies" section in this page.

Similar to Kavanaugh, Thomas's appointment was controversial due to a history of sexual misconduct. There is a page dedicated to that process.

Thomas's history of behavioral problems in his personal life is important to understanding his character and opinions. It should be featured more prominently in this article. 2604:CA00:10C:3FC7:0:0:E61:A7C1 (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia should have no WP:CONTROVERSYSECTIONS anywhere, if I can help it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022

Thomas has been the senior associate justice, the current longest-serving member of the Court, with a tenure of 30 years, 157 days as of March 29, 2022.

- Request to add current to showcase that he is not the longest serving ever, but the longest serving current member. Asabiyya (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done. William O. Douglas served over 36 years. Cullen328 (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit needed

This should read:

"An April 2022 Quinnipiac poll found that 52% of Americans agree that, in light of Ginni Thomas's texts about overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election, Thomas should recuse himself from related cases."

"in light of Ginni Thomas's texts about overturning the results of the 2020 presidential election" should be a parenthetical clause. 74.215.26.196 (talk) 07:24, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Anita Hill is not mentioned!

Add information about Anita Hill! 2601:603:5082:A500:0:0:0:5 (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead plus a whole section Anita Hill allegations. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Court's staunchest opponent of individual liberties"

The statement that "he is the Court's staunchest opponent of individual liberties and has called for the Court to seize from the people most civil liberties recognized by the Supreme Court in the last century" appears to be biased in favor of Justice Thomas, and has been flagged for neutrality issue. In addition, the sentence cited the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization as the citation for such statement, which does not directly nor neutrally support the claim made in that statement.

–SoupI (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I've deleted the content in question. It's a clear violation of WP:NPOV and the rule against original research. MrThunderbolt1000T (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SoupI (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

"Uncle Clarence" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Uncle Clarence and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 27#Uncle Clarence until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2022

Please change the infobox syntax from X to Y.

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

X

Assumed office

October 23, 1991

Nominated by…George H.W. Bush

Political party…Republican

Y

Assumed office

October 23, 1991

Nominated by…George H.W. Bush

Political party…Republican

(Notelist)

24.23.196.80 (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I would agree with you here. While Thomas did hold some partisan offices (Chair of the EEOC and Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office for Civil Rights) and I would support the inclusion of his political party, I have nevertheless not been able to find any source describing him as a registered member of the Republican Party, nor any other political party. -- Politicsfan4 (talk)

Description of Thomas' legal philosophy badly outdated

The sources are all 9 years old or more - the single one from 2020 doesn't make new statements, but refers to older ones. Thomas' legal philosophy has shifted to a considerably more radical position than originalism in the past years, and newer sources describing his legal views are required to keep this article up to date. 82.176.221.176 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I will admit to not being an expert in the area, but as far as I can see many newer sources still refer to him as an originalist (e.g. Saul Cornell, Slate, June 6, 2022; Michael Pack and Mark Paoletta, USA Today, June 21, 2022). This is not to say there has not been been a lot of recent criticism of this (e.g. Joshua Zeitz writing about the court's "faux 'originalism'" (Politico, June 26, 2022) or Jesse Holland saying Thomas is a hypocrite for not including Loving v. Virginia in his concurring opinion) – but a lot of these criticisms seem very similar to ones which are already included in the article, and I am not sure which ones would be due for inclusion. —QueenofBithynia (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, he's still an originalist and most sources I've seen refer to him as such. It's just that most people (myself included) think this is the logical path to his originalism 92.10.13.209 (talk) 19:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States courts and judges § RfC on the political party field in the infobox of SCOTUS judges. Endwise (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Capitalization of "assistant attorney general"

A clause in the main description states: "In 1974, he was appointed as an assistant attorney general in Missouri and later entered private practice there."

Should "assistant attorney general" be capitalized as "Assistant Attorney General"? GuardianH (talk) 20:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No. See MOS:JOBTITLES. General Ization ^Talk 20:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. GuardianH (talk) 22:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:OVERCITE

The last sentence in the main paragraph states: "Since 2011, Thomas has been widely held to be the Court's most conservative member. "

I'm wondering whether or not 5 citations is really necessary in order to reinforce this viewpoint. I think it is generally accepted, even among originalist legal scholars (and perhaps even Thomas himself), that he is the "most conservative" member on SCOTUS. GuardianH (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

GuardianH (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. GuardianH (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Prefixes

@Politicsfan4 You removed the prefixes for SCOTUS justices that I put in. Is there a particular guideline regarding prefixes for SCOTUS justices? I believe officeholders can be assigned a prefix, and Justice is one. GuardianH (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@GuardianH: - Prefixes aren't usually included in infoboxes for judges, at least for American ones. I suppose it is similar to the fact that members of the U.S. Senate aren't given the honorific "Senator" in their infobox. The "honorific prefix" is typically reserved for awards and titles such as "The Right Honourable" instead. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Legal Education Original Research

The section regarding affirmative action at Yale Law School in the 1970s doesn’t mention Thomas. It stands as WP:OR original research and has no place in a biography of a living person. 2600:1008:B166:578B:C561:F02D:C0BF:3575 (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's original research as much as WP:SYNTHESIS since the reference doesn't mention Thomas. I have removed it accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Anita Hill Credibility

The article seems to take Hill's testimony at face value. Shouldn't it be mentioned that her credibility in the Senate confirmation hearings was undercut by the fact that she followed Thomas to her second job with him, in fact aggressively pursued a second job under Thomas, after he had allegedly harassed her at the DOE? Could it be Stockholm Syndrome? She later said she did so because the job at EEOC was so attractive. Really? She pursued a man who harrased her in order to get a civil service government job for peanuts pay? To make things worse, Thomas felt that Hill was pursuing a sexual relationship with him, which he declined, and perhaps she was a "woman scorned"? Moreover, during the hearing, Republican Senator Orrin Hatch implied that "Hill was working in tandem with 'slick lawyers' and interest groups bent on destroying Thomas' chances to join the court" due to his conservative political philosophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.137.86 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

minor edit request

In the Undisclosed gifts section of the article, there is this:

Thomas accepted various trips to Bohemian Grove, and Crow's private resort in the Adirondacks, as well as vacations at luxury resorts in Indonesia that included including private jet travel and superyacht island-hopping.

Please remove redundant language. Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. –CWenger (^ • @) 20:53, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Calls for impeachment related to undisclosed gifts?

Should the calls for impeachment be mentioned in the article, or is it too early or WP:UNDUE? Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:43, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's probably early. Many Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have called for his impeachment over the years, and these seemed to have picked up after Dobbs, where some argued that the majority (excluding Roberts) lied under oath at their hearings. I think it would be hard to differentiate between the general negativity/criticism of Thomas and the other members of the conservative wing with the allegations of impropriety regarding his recusal of cases involving his wife. Die Kunst Der Fuge (talk) 18:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I was talking more precisely about the more recent calls regarding his undisclosed gifts, rather than about his non-recusal in cases. But I agree with you - we'll see in the following days if anything happens and if this materializes into an actual attempt at impeaching him, for now it's probably too early. Chaotic Enby (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that the Republicans hold a narrow majority in the House, which would have to vote to impeach, and the Democrats hold a very narrow majority in the Senate, which requires a 60% vote to convict, this is so unlikely that I see no point in mentioning it at this time. Things can change but probably not before January 2025 at the earliest. Cullen328 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree, I was thinking that since it's a corruption case it would not necessarily be partisan, but no point in predicting the future - let's not mention it before anything actually materializes. Chaotic Enby (talk) 10:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

I would argue that it is more likely he gets arrested for said corruption. 2600:1702:9F0:D140:D8C:A726:4DCC:424E (talk) 09:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Why would the standard for including information be whether or not there is an attempt at impeachment? SC impeachments are extremely rare. Impeached or not, a supreme court justice failing to uphold the law would seem to be material. It is not a fringe or minority view that these were violations, as WP:UNDUE cautions against. 142.189.17.248 (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The 15-cent sticker

Seeking consensus per WP:CYCLE to remove direct quote of primary source.

I removed this quote of Thomas's memoir In his 2007 memoir, Thomas wrote, "I peeled a fifteen-cent sticker off a package of cigars and stuck it on the frame of my law degree to remind myself of the mistake I'd made by going to Yale. I never did change my mind about its value." and was reverted with the edit summary that the anecdote is an appropriate facet of the subject (his law degree).

He changed his mind. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Using a Dennis Prager podcast as a source, removing mention that Thomas has used affirmative action when he applied to Yale

Seeking consensus per CYCLE.

This edit reverted this edit (mea culpa for duplicating the remaining sentence), which rephrased the following text and moved it into the Clarence_Thomas#Race,_equal_protection,_and_affirmative_action section.

Thomas has said that the law firms he applied to after graduating from Yale did not take his J.D. seriously, assuming he obtained it because of affirmative action. According to Thomas, the law firms also "asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated".

Rephrased version: Thomas, who had asked Yale Law School to take his race into consideration when he applied to the school, has said that he went on several job interviews with "one high-priced lawyer" after another and the attorneys treated him dismissively. "Many asked pointed questions, unsubtly suggesting that they doubted I was as smart as my grades indicated." He calls affirmative action reverse discrimination and says it stigmatizes "the 'beneficiaries' (a word Thomas puts in quotation marks)."

The cited source for the first sentence is a link to an announcement for an interview on the Dennis Prager radio show. I don't think that's a reliable source, and, even if we could listen to it, it would be a primary source. My rephrased text uses reliable secondary sources. The edit summary of the rvt says that "an entire clause regarding Thomas' opinion about his degree was removed." That's not the case. The rvt also removed the information that Thomas had asked Yale Law School to take his race into consideration when he applied to the school without giving a reason for the removal in the edit summary. Seems relevant to me, considering Thomas's stance on affirmative action. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Prager is unreliable and shouldn't be used Andre🚐 15:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Moira Smith allegations

Antiok_1pie, this edit fails WP:IMPARTIAL. "Although Blair acknowledged that he was in the kitchen most of the time so, if the incident happened, he wouldn't have seen it, he was also "skeptical ..." That's editorializing, quite aside from Blair's speculations. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And the graphic description is a tad much, no? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)\

I don't see how that's editorializing, it's literally what Blair said. As for the description, see WP:UNCENSORED. I wouldn't mind trimming it a bit, but we should devote two or three sentences to the details of the accusation. Antiok 1pie (talk) 21:23, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My objection isn’t about "content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍" (WP:UNCENSORED), it’s about details that are unnecessary. WP is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I don’t see that we need more than Thomas groped her buttocks at a dinner party in the preceding sentence and then Thomas’s denial, per WP:QUOTEUSE, WP:QUOTEFARM, and WP:LONGQUOTE. Blair and Stevens are guessing that Thomas wouldn't have had the opportunity to cop a feel. Blair's reason for his guess (With a number of people floating around—probably 16 or so of us—in three rooms) also works for the opposite assumption. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, your text (She alleged that she was alone with Thomas "when he reached out) is somewhat misleading, IMO — makes me assume that they were alone in a room or somewhere secluded. Quoting the National Law Journal: Smith said she remembered helping with the last-minute preparation of hors d’oeuvres, setting the table and opening bottles of wine. Buckley recalled helping Smith set up that night. Thomas, Smith said, was sitting in the middle seat of the rectangular table with his right side facing the kitchen. Alone with Thomas, "I was setting the place to his right when he reached out, sort of cupped his hand around my butt and pulled me pretty close to him." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

What's misleading about it? Smith says that she was alone with Thomas and our text says that they were alone. Blair's statement was relevant enough to be included in the Politico article and in several other WP:RS regarding the acccusations, so it should definitely be included here too. Saying that his words work "for the opposite assumption" sounds a bit like OR. Also, as I said before, I dont mind trimming the quotes a bit, but as per WP:QUOTEUSE: When dealing with a controversial subject[...]biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. So it's better and simpler to attribute Smith's (and Blair's) statements in quotes. Antiok 1pie (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I moved the lengthy direct quote into the footnote. OR — nah. All I'm saying is with that many guests and help none of them are likely to have seen what everyone else did at all times. Host Blair said that 16 people were "floating around in three rooms" while the widow Stevens said that "the dining area was at one end of the living room, not a separate room, and the dining room table was in full view through the kitchen door where Louis Blair and his assistant were cooking." The second guest of honor (the one Stevens doesn't remember at all 10 years later) "said he does not remember seeing anyone at the dinner other than his family, Blair and Thomas—not Smith, not any Truman scholars. He particularly remembered how charming Thomas was to his parents." Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Crow paid for private school for a relative Thomas said he was raising “as a son”

New ProPublica article:

https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-harlan-crow-private-school-tuition-scotus

In 2008, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas decided to send his teenage grandnephew to Hidden Lake Academy, a private boarding school in the foothills of northern Georgia. The boy, Mark Martin ... had lived with the justice and his wife in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Thomas had taken legal custody of Martin when he was 6 years old and had recently told an interviewer he was “raising him as a son.”

Tuition at the boarding school ran more than $6,000 a month. But Thomas did not cover the bill. A bank statement for the school from July 2009, buried in unrelated court filings, shows the source of Martin’s tuition payment for that month: the company of billionaire real estate magnate Harlan Crow.

The payments extended beyond that month, according to Christopher Grimwood, a former administrator at the school. Crow paid Martin’s tuition the entire time he was a student there, which was about a year, Grimwood told ProPublica.

Crow also paid for a second boarding school. If he paid for all four years at the two schools, the price tag could have exceeded $150,000, according to public records of tuition rates at the schools. And Thomas has never reported these tuition payments for his family member or made related financial disclosures. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

typos

The last paragraph of the nondisclosure section has two typos of paid as payed. 2601:246:5B81:9980:7C98:18A4:450B:B4E3 (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this has been corrected, thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Nondisclosure of gifts, real estate sale, and wife's income

Seeking consensus per WP:CYCLE to move to Supreme Court tenure section.

I moved the section from the personal life section to the Supreme Court tenure section in this edit. The nondisclosure of gifts etc. is directly related to his tenure on the SC. It wouldn't be a problem for Clarence Private Citizen. The move was reverted with the edit summary that "it doesn't belong with the legal aspects of his supreme court tenure". It wasn't a subsection of the Judicial philosophy section, however. It was a subsection of "Supreme Court tenure" (after the removal of "tenure" as "unnecessary specification" now named Supreme Court), just like Public perception and the aforementioned Judicial philosophy. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been so many revelations on the supreme court's corruption this year it should have its own dedicated article at this point 75.174.94.188 (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Nominations to Appeals and Supreme Courts

The language regarding GHWBush’s nomination of Thomas to the US Circuit Court of Appeals is at best confusing, at worst defamatory. There was no controversy in that particular confirmation regarding Anita Hill’s claims of harassment, and indeed, she did not make them until well

into the Senate’s consideration of his nomination to the Supreme Court.  Therefore, the sentence about the confirmation hearingS being bitter and intensely fought should be changed to the singular and clarify that this was only for his nomination to the Supreme Court.  If there is evidence of any controversy regarding his appellate court nomination, that needs to be separately described and footnoted. 2600:4040:4908:1B00:E988:16F8:F0C8:B1 (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

America's Blackest Child

Shouldn't Clarence Thomas's childhood nickname, ABC, for America's Blackest Child, when he was in Pinpoint Georgia and Savanna Georgia be included in this article? it seems that leaving this out distorts the roots of Thomas's upbringing and the shaping of who he is today. Clarence Thomas had failed the so-called 'brown bag test' and was continuously mocked growing up, as a result of prejudice in his own community. Shouldn't this be included in this article? PBS Frontline documents this, as do other sources on Thomas. Stevenmitchell (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

In Popular Culture

I started an 'In Popular Culture' section but it was reverted immediately by GuardianH. The explanation was that my section wasn't long enough, Thomas himself wasn't famous enough, and thirdly "popcult sections are generally omitted for justices". I disagree. For example, a sizeable minority of chief justices have an "In Popular Culture" section: William O. Douglas, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, RBG, etc. Mebden (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

RBG's popcult section is largely because she was uniquely influential to feminist movements and had an uncharacteristically large amount of media attention for a justice. Scalia's popcult section is just reserved for two operas (which both have Wikipedia articles), and is otherwise blank. Also worth mentioning is that when the article for Scalia became a FA, it never even had the section.

Thomas doesn't really have the star-status in culture that RBG had, nor did he have any notable media dedicated to him like Scalia did (I guess Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words might count, but there's no article on that yet and its also a book which he himself contributed highly to). Anything that would be put in a popcult section for Thomas would just be passing mentions of minor satiric portrayals, etc. — a repository of obscure cultural references like a lot of other popular culture sections, which I don't think is necessary given how much work this article needs as it stands. GuardianH (talk) 17:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree with GuardianH, but more because it was unsourced. If a reliable secondary source mentioned the Clarence Thomas reference in Jerry Maguire then I'd be inclined to include it. But without this requirement, editors will add every obscure mention of him until it becomes a hodgepodge of random trivia, which I don't think is what we want Wikipedia to be. –CWenger (^ • @) 19:42, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There's much more than passing mentions. Thomas was portrayed in an award-winning film (Confirmation), etc. In fact, browsing the other justices' "In Popular Culture" section, Thomas has an edge on most (not all) of them. To me this article is overdue for that section to be added. Mebden (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support adding that section as long as it's well-referenced, I just objected to the section with a single pop culture mention and no reference. –CWenger (^ • @) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, CWenger. I found a credible reference (Janet Maslin) and a couple other items to get the ball rolling. So I'll have another go at this section and would be glad to see where it goes. Mebden (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Thomas is also the last remaining U.S. Supreme Court justice who first took office during the Rehnquist Court. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The article already states that he is the longest-serving member of the court; what you propose strikes me moreso as a piece of trivia rather than noteworthy information. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 14:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

When he leaves the office of the Supreme Court in 2034, or maybe nearly or over 43 years, which in the future, he will be the first Supreme Court justice ever to actively serve in the position for over 40 years, add that he is the last sitting justice to serving during the court of William Rehnquist. 24.46.59.173 (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2023

Change “pro-abortion” to “pro-choice” under the “Nomination to the Supreme Court” tab, in the second paragraph in reference to the National Abortion Rights Action League. 74.129.243.17 (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: changed to "abortion-rights" as it looks like past discussions at Talk:Abortion-rights movements prefer this over pro-choice and definitely over pro-abortion Cannolis (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

"Pro-choice" and "pro-life" are terms that fail MOS:EUPHEMISM and should be deprecated throughout Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that! I knew there was something in the MOS relevant to this but couldn't remember what it was when I was replying. Cannolis (talk) 00:01, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Clarence Thomas’s $267,230 R.V. and the Friend Who Financed It – The New York Times

Relevant sections of this recent article from The New York Times:

His Prevost Marathon cost $267,230, according to title history records obtained by The New York Times. And Justice Thomas, who in the ensuing years would tell friends how he had scrimped and saved to afford the motor coach, did not buy it on his own. In fact, the purchase was underwritten, at least in part, by Anthony Welters, a close friend who made his fortune in the health care industry.

He provided Justice Thomas with financing that experts said a bank would have been unlikely to extend — not only because Justice Thomas was already carrying a lot of debt, but because the Marathon brand’s high level of customization makes its used motor coaches difficult to value.

He would not say how much he had lent Justice Thomas, how much the justice had repaid and whether any of the debt had been forgiven or otherwise discharged. He declined to provide The Times with a copy of a loan agreement — or even say if one existed. Nor would he share the basic terms of the loan, such as what, if any, interest rate had been charged or whether Justice Thomas had adhered to an agreed-upon repayment schedule. And when asked to elaborate on what he had meant when he said the loan had been "satisfied," he did not respond.

While the terms of Mr. Welters’s loan to Justice Thomas are unclear, rules governing loans of more than $10,000 between friends and family are not.

Loans can be reclassified as gifts or income to the borrower, either of which would have to be reported by the justice under court disclosure rules, if any portion of the debt is forgiven or discharged as uncollectable. But even if a lender does not take those steps, a loan can still be considered a reportable gift or income if it doesn’t meet certain standards.

Some mention of this should perhaps be made in the relevant Nondisclosure of finances section of the Wikipedia article. Thank you. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool, I see that some info about this has been added. Thanks. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 03:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Harlan Crow corruption allegations

It seems like this scandal is significant enough to mere mentioning in the lede. — Red XIV ^(talk) 02:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I think one sentence combining Crow corruption allegations along with the controversies surrounding Thomas' wife would be due for the lead. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

A single-sentence mention in the lead seems exactly right. — Red XIV ^(talk) 16:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. Supreme Court Justices' lede is usually reserved for jurisprudential information — their judicial philosophy while on the Supreme Court along with some biographical details as to how they got there. That's what their known for after all: being a figure in their respective legal movements. The section dedicated to the Harlan Crow allegations also need some serious cleanup, as it has too much reliance on primary sources. GuardianH (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Your disagreement needs to be based on policy. It doesn't really matter if you believe that "Supreme Court Justices' lede is usually reserved for jurisprudential information ..."

Please remember that the WP:LEAD should follow what is included in the body of the article, based on due WP:WEIGHT etc. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I think so too. A significant percentage of news about Thomas specifically (not just the Supreme Court in general) is about just that, justifying inclusion in the lead. Cortador (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Request that a controversies section be added

Currently we have "Moira Smith allegations" and "Nondisclosure of finances" buried in the "Personal Life" section. At the very least the "Nondisclosure of finances" are only noteworthy in relation to him being a supreme court justice, and don't seem to belong in a "Personal Life" section.

I would suggest both of these subsections be moved under a new "Controversies" top level heading. Kryptec (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

The current organization is preferred over a separate section as per WP:CRIT, although I agree 'Nondisclosure of finances' is a bit of an odd fit under the 'Personal life' section. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

How about moving "Nondisclosure of finances" to it's own section then, and possibly rename it to "Nondisclosure of finances allegations"? "Personal Life" just seems like the wrong place to put this stuff. Kryptec (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to put make it another top-level section, but it could be moved into the Supreme Court section right? –CWenger (^ • @) 00:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution to me. It doesn't look like I'm able to edit this page myself, so I would need someone else to make the edit though. Kryptec (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH, you are very active on this page. Any thoughts? –CWenger (^ • @) 23:27, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@CWenger A controversies section, especially in the Supreme Court section, wouldn't comport with the rest of the article. For one, there is a very big difference between Thomas's controversy in the political sphere, and his controversy in the legal sphere — his judicial conduct, and his personal conduct. His controversial legal views and the myriad of legal scholarship concerning them is what belongs in the Supreme Court section, as does the entirety of all other SCOTUS articles and FAs. There is a very large, reputable amount of academic scholarship on Thomas as a legal subject, while the popular image of Thomas — that which is published in The New York Times, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal — is encapsulated in an entirely different sort of publication that does not focus on the lasting effects of his constitutional legacy.

If we were to reserve a section for Thomas's controversies, it would be wrong to exclude any of these two controversies: legal and personal. I just don't see how Thomas's radical views on stare decisis, the Chevron doctrine, or the Nondelegation doctrine is going to be condensed with Ginni Thomas, the finances scandal, and Moira Smith's sexual assault allegations without ballooning into large, big, and awkward dump.

I actually think the finances section in Thomas' personal life is pretty fitting; things like Thomas's investments, finances, and gifts have nothing to do with his legal views but everything to do with his personal life and public image. GuardianH (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree a separate controversies section is not ideal. But moving the 'Nondisclosure of finances' section into the Supreme Court section makes sense to me because it would not be notable if he wasn't a federal justice. A public image section would be a better fit than personal life, but we don't have a public image section. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:23, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Agree that the notability of Thomas' financial issues and allegations of corruption are more significant than just "personal life issues", especially considering the fact he holds power as a Supreme Court judge (and has possibly violated some of his obligations to the Court and the American people) – this section should therefore be situated in the article accordingly. 72.14.126.22 (talk) 14:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH, @CWenger Brett Kavanaugh's page for instance has his attempted assassination in his 'Supreme Court' section, because I assume the attempt is directly related to his position, similarly to the question here.

I have noticed some of the other supreme court justices have something like a 'Legal philosophy' section (Gorch and Barrett), so maybe the legal controversies @GuardianH mentioned would be better off in that type of section?

In any event I think it would be nice to have this harmonized across the supreme court justices pages.

- Kryptec (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2023

Change the photo caption "Thomas speaks with Akhil Reed Amar at the Constitutional Accountability Center in 2012" to "Thomas speaks with Akhil Reed Amar [of] the Constitutional Accountability Center in 2012" or "Thomas speaks with Akhil Reed Amar at the National Archives in 2012" — "National Archives’ William G. McGowan Theater" for the most detail. source: https://www.theusconstitution.org/events/the-constitution-at-225-a-conversation-between-professor-akhil-amar-and-justice-clarence-thomas/ PorousWhale (talk) 22:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Went with the first option because who he is talking to seems more important than where they are talking. –CWenger (^ • @) 00:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2023

Change John Edward Sununu hyperlink in the section of District of Columbia Court of Appeals to John H Sununu, who was White House Chief of Staff at the time, as the hyperlink incorrectly links to his son, the Senator of New Hampshire. KnowledgeSeeker44 (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. Thanks for noticing. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:13, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Dinand Library

If I ever have a Wikipedia page don't put the PCL on there. That would be brutal!

The image of Dinand Library is WP:UNDUE and, more importantly, not helpful or informative. WP:IMGCONTENT: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. And this photo is not serving that purpose. Dinand Library is not mentioned at all in the prose of this article and, for the sake of verifiability, it's unclear if Thomas has ever stepped foot in the building, much less has it been established that it's significant enough to him to have an image in this article. By seeing this image, we aren't learning anything about Thomas himself or even much about his educational pursuits -- Thomas' education can not be represented in a photo of an on-campus building. It would be different if it was a grad photo or perhaps a picture of Thomas himself on campus, but that is not the case here. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH:. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 08:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Your argument is based on two points: that the image is not helpful or informative, and that the photo of the library is unverifiable in its connection with Thomas and its notability with him is dubious.

Thomas' time as an undergraduate were the most formative years of his education, and five paragraphs of the section are dedicated to his time there. Most people are familiar with Yale University, so I opted to place an image of Holy Cross instead, which most readers are unfamiliar with. So the point of the image is to illustrate Holy Cross, where Thomas received his formative undergraduate education. The most integral and recognizable part of a college is usually its library, and that was the case here, so as a visual representation the college library is the most appropriate. The image also shows what kind of school Thomas went to — as is mentioned earlier, HC is a elite Catholic New England college, and the pretentious neoclassical architecture embodies that perfectly (this is more of a stylistic thing).

The second thing why I chose to place the image is that the college's library is the building with the closest direct association with Thomas (the possible exception being Kimball Hall, the dining hall of the library where Thomas worked as a dishwasher, but that had nothing to do with his intellectual upbringing). He spent a large portion of his days as a student studying there every year he was a student until he graduated. This is mentioned in Diane Brady' Fraternity and Meyer and Abramson's biography, but I just cited the former so now the sourcing issue is fixed. An additional benefit of the caption is that it has a sort of fun fact effect like "hey, this is where he studied as an undergrad".

For these reasons I think the image fulfills the criterion of WP:IMGCONTENT quite nicely. GuardianH (talk) 01:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH:I think we merely a difference of opinion here regarding the degree in which this photo is informative. The facts you say are largely true (not sure about saying his undergrad career was the "most formative years of his education", as that is subjective) but I disagree that that these facts establish significance for this photo. Do yo want to do WP:3O? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Well is there anything in particular you disagree with? This discussion about the image is really a non-issue, it's one of the oldest standards/edit gimmicks to put an image of the institution where a person was influenced at to illustrate the section in question (without the subject of the article in the image). This also goes for subjects in general; some FA examples are Matthew Quay, Oppenheimer, Wiley Rutledge, and others in a list that would be too extensive to put in this message.

Before getting a 3rd opinion, we've barely even had a discussion over the particular aspects you disagree with and should sort out those first. Like I said though, this is really a trivial matter. GuardianH (talk) 19:29, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I removed the image. it's one of the oldest standards/edit gimmicks to put an image of the institution where a person was influenced at — according to whom or what? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x See the FA examples which I gave above. GuardianH (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Iamreallygoodatcheckers that the reasons you gave fail to establish relevance per WP:IMGCONTENT, i.e., increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter. Where do the featured articles you mentioned use "edit gimmicks to put an image of the institution where a person was influenced at to illustrate the section in question (without the subject of the article in the image)"? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Witnessing the Civil Rights Movement at his Catholic schools

@GuardianH: Here you misrepresented the cited source. I removed the clause I bolded because it is not supported by the cited source. Your text: He sent Thomas to be educated at a series of segregated Catholic schools, where Thomas would witness the Civil rights movement. As racial unrest led to widespread protest and marches in Savannah, Anderson used his wealth to bail out demonstrators and took his grandchildren to meetings promoted by the NAACP.

The source (Foskett, page 54-55): Clarence spent next nine years in Savannah’s segregated Catholic schools, under the stern eye of white nuns and priests. The schools offered the best education possible for a black child in Georgia and equipped Thomas to thrive in successively more difficult school environments. More fundamentally, perhaps, they became the filter through which a young Clarence Thomas experienced race and class, the two external forces that molded his evolving worldview.

Thomas’s march through adolescence coincided with the quickening of the civil rights movement in Savannah and the South. … Myers Anderson became a key player in the struggle, using his property holdings to bail out jailed demonstrators, and he regularly brought his grandsdons to meetings sponsored by the NCAAP.

But the Catholic church insulated Thomas from much of the trauma that other black southerners encountered in the day-to-day dealings with white people and isolated him from the civil rights activism of many black Baptist churches. The Catholic churches of Savannah were never as deeply invested in the civil rights movement as the black Baptist churches for the same reason that made them unique: They were governed and ministered by whites. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x This isn't a misrepresentation at all; Thomas viewed the civil rights movement during his time in segregated Catholic schools. My writing incorporates both parts of Foskett's text. It might be more represented by saying "[from which] Thomas would witness the Civil rights movement". GuardianH (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

"Coincided" and "insulated" don’t support "he would witness", whether preceded by "where" or "from which". Also, how do you witness a movement? The cited source says that Thomas's grandfather bailed out demonstrators and took him to NAACP meetings. You'd need sources saying that Thomas witnessed demonstrations, incidents of civil disobedience, etc. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Gift Motor Home loan not taxable as income

The Internal Revenue Service notes that in general, debt to a commercial creditor should be reported as ordinary income and is subject to income tax, but the IRS includes in exceptions to cancellation of debt income: "Amounts canceled as gifts, bequests, devises, or inheritances" suggesting that Thomas's windfall is not taxable under current rules. 71.37.0.67 (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

And my understanding is that if it was a gift, the donor should have paid gift tax. And there are statutes of limitations which might apply. And a lot of other stuff I'm not aware of. But I am not a tax lawyer. And in any case our figuring out the issues would all be Original Research or Synthesis or whatever.

We are Wikipedia editors. As the reliable sources report this story, the fuller range of possible tax consequences or non-consequences will come out. -- M.boli (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Overly detailed tag, "Nondisclosure of finances" section

GuardianH, you added the tag here without an edit summary, I removed it here with the edit summary that "[i]t's a section detailing the various nondisclosed gifts" and added subsection headings. You then reverted both of my edits with the edit summary that the "problem isn't the sectioning, it's the WP:DUE detail". Other editors cannot remove the purported undue details if the editor flagging them doesn't say which ones are undue and why they are undue. So, per WP:WTRMT, #3, which ones of the details do you consider to be undue and why? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH: Still waiting for a response. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Considering the length of the article and the high amount of attention that Thomas's financial dealings got, the length and detail of the section strike me as appropriate. Since GuardianH hasn't bothered to explain what issues they have with the section, I'll remove that tag. Cortador (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

"Controversies" section?

Given the extensive and various nature of the controversies described in the article, I think it might improve the article's clarity and content to have a "Controversies" section with subsections for the Anita Hill controversy, Moira Smith allegations, Harlan Crow nondisclosure controversies, and other nondisclosure controversies. Graxwell (talk) 20:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. It would likely become a magnet for negative content, violating NPOV as described at WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graxwell: This was also discussed previously here. –CWenger (^ • @) 21:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for linking the above. I agree that a controversies section would probably not improve the article. I still feel that the "Nondisclosure of finances" sub-section shouldn't be under "Personal Life" section. The fact that he did not disclose gifts as required by the Ethics in Government Act means that the section is just as relevant to his job as a Supreme Court Justice as it is to his personal life, or more. What about a "Public Image" section, as CWenger suggested in the previous discussion? Graxwell (talk) 04:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Graxwell I do agree that the section is currently misplaced. The corruption and misconduct allegations Thomas faces are tied to his job, and should either be in their own section, or under the Supreme Court section. I think a "Public image" section would only be appropriate of we had something else to include as well. Cortador (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Should the ProPublica sources in the "Nondisclosure of finances" section be considered primary sources?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is a clear consensus that this is a poor or invalid RfC that should be closed. Participants stated that it does not adequately resolve the prior disputes that lead to the creation of this RfC. Nobody participating in this RfC has supported either of the two options provided. There is a consensus against including a {{Primary sources}} section tag for Clarence Thomas § Nondisclosure of finances. There is no consensus about including any {{Primary source inline}} tag(s).
The majority seem to agree that the ProPublica sources should be evaluated individually, based on current policies such as WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARYNEWS, which state that a news source that uses a combination of analysis, interviews, and interpretation of primary source material is not a primary source, but a secondary source. It was also noted that the fact that a source is primary is not necessarily a reason to remove it. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

There has been a discussion on whether or not the ProPublic sources used in the "Nondisclosure of finances" section should be considered primary sources. Please see that section for arguments made for and against considering ProPublica as a primary source, and vote/comment below.

Option A: the ProPublica sources used in that section do constitute primary sources.

Option B: the ProPublica sources used in that section do not constitute primary sources. Cortador (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

BIA 2001:16A2:FD3F:7400:6D27:A120:8194:1536 (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Background

ProPublica analyzed, evaluated, interpreted, and reported on evidence taken from primary sources such as state tax forms, deeds, financial disclosure forms, written statements by Thomas and other parties involved. The three reports cited in the Non-disclosure of finances section:

References

Editor GuardianH tagged the section on May 8, 2023, without an edit summary explaining which sources they considered to be primary. Since then, three editors have removed the tag, and GuardianH reverted the removals.

• tag removed by me May 13. Edit summary: There is one primary source in this entire subsection, and the WP text does not rely on it. It’s the bank statement the secondary RS for the sentence discovered in court record. The RS also contains and talks about it.
• tag reinserted May 14: "primary source being [news company article] reported that... [direct citation to said news company article].) Edit summary: there are actually 10 primary sources in the section, including the citation to the documentcloud (297). primary source being [news company article] reported that... [direct citation to said news company article].)
• tag removed by editor SWinxy on Aug 5: Only one of these refs was a primary reference, which could already be found in another ref)
• tag reinserted Aug 5: Edit summary: rv, this was discussed previously - it uses the raw news source (news org said... [cite org article]) which is WP:PRIMARY).
• tag removed by me Sep 23. Edit summary: Rmv tag. The section contains one primary source, a document published by ProPublica in their article on Crow paying the private school tuition for Thomas's ward)
• tag reinserted Sep 24. Edit summary: This has been discussed before, a primary source is a first-hand account, basically "[news source article] says... [citation to said news article]"). I started the discussion on this talk page by asking where I could find the previous discussion. I was referred to the history of the main page and told that "the onus is on the investigator to find evidence".
• tag removed by editor Cortador Nov 17. Edit summary: addition based on misunderstanding of what constitutes a primary source
• tag reinserted Nov 18.

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Added the three ProPublica sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:59, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

As detailed and expanded on below, "Primary" is not even a reason to remove a source. North8000 (talk) 19:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

!Voting

Discussion

• Strong disagree with RfC. It's patently ridiculous to label all the Propublica articles in that section primary sources — some come after the event in question, and indisputably synthesize and report on preceding events. Per WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, the articles that could be considered primary sources should be identified in compliance with the relevant policies, like those that are breaking news. GuardianH (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment, impossible criteria. I want to comment that this RfC addresses something completely different from the earlier discussions on this talk page. The RfC options label all the Propublica sources as primary (Option A), or all the Propublica sources as non-primary (Option B), which was not the issue being discussed previously. In previous discussions, what was discussed is whether the section's reliance on sentences like "In 2011, Politico reported that Crow gave $500,000 to a Tea Party group founded by Thomas's wife and that Thomas had failed to report her income on his disclosure for more than a decade." and then citing the mentioned Politico article as a source would mean that the sentence relies on a primary source. GuardianH (talk) 22:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
• Disruptive @Cortador This RfC doesn't address the issue regarding the previous discussions, and forces participants to vote all the sources as primary (which is wrong), or all the sources as nonprimary (which is also wrong). It should be closed. GuardianH (talk) 22:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  In this edit summary, you stated that the section included ten primary sources at a time where the entire section only had thirteen sources to begin with. You seem to somehow consider almost any source used primary, and since you never bothered to tag individual citations and repeatedly reinstated a general tag for this section, here we are. Cortador (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not every source is primary, and I never said so in any of the discussions. Space4Time3Continuum2x and some other editors made some expansions and changes to the section; I don't see how using an old version of the section applies to the current one. GuardianH (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  To add to this, the article uses three ProPublic articles as sources. All three are by the same authors (Joshua Kaplan, Justin Elliott and Alex Mierjeski), and their use is always prefaced by "ProPublica reported", and you specified above that you consider including "[X source] said something" and then citing the source as a use of a primary source. I can't see how you can now claim that this RfC is "disruptive" because it is about all ProPublica sources if said ProPublica sources are used in the exact same fashion. Cortador (talk) 23:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not every use of the Propublica sources is prefaced. Look at the last sentence of the section's first paragraph. GuardianH (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

  The RfC is not disruptive. It's pretty clear that the discussion, as well as some others on this Talk page, wasn't going anywhere, so we need a few more eyes on the question whether ProPublica's articles are primary sources. If the consensus is that they are, we may or may not need another consensus on the "excessive use of primary sources" tag. I've added a couple of categories for publication. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's where I'm at. Since the entire section unhelpfully has a tag (instead of individual citations being tagged), and the ProPublica has been explicitly been challenged in this context, we should determine whether those sources are primarily sources in this context, and go from there. Cortador (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

• Invited by the bot. This is a narrow question that is entangled in broader debate, (as described later in the post) has a false premise built into the presumed action that it is promoting, and so is removed from context and so I'm not going to answer it, and I suggest that it is not a good RFC. I will note that removal of a source based on it being primary is not correct. Wikipedia sourcing requirements (including where it defines primary and the limitations and sometimes unsuitability) are rules on whether or not the sourcing is suitable/sufficient to fulfill the verifiability requirement for the material which cited it, NOT whether or not the source is allowed to be in Wikipedia. So using "primary" as a reason to remove a source is not correct. If is source is not suitable or sufficient to support challenged material which cited it, then the issue is that the material is not suitably sourced, not presence of the source. North8000 (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
• Quit it with the section tagging - I'm not going to comment on the overall question here. I will note that the slow motion tagging edit war doesn't seem super helpful. User:GuardianH should quit tagging the entire subsection. Use in-line tags (e.g. Template:Primary source inline) if you really have a problem w/ the propublica stuff. NickCT (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
• @Cortador: It’s been a week now without !votes on the options. NickCT supports removing the section tag, and I’m not sure where North8000 stands on the issue. My suggestion is to end the RfC per WP:RFCEND, remove the section tag, and see whether GuardianH tags the alleged primary sources inline. Opinions? (I, for one, wasn’t familiar with the primary sources template, thanks for pointing it out, NickCT.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Response: Distilling my post, it is a faulty RFC because it has a false implied premise ("primary" = removal of the sources) in it. The sources should stay. If the don't fulfill wp:ver, then more sources of suitable type would be required. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

The RfC isn't about the removal of source, it is about whether a subset of sources should be considered primary or not. Cortador (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I support removing the section tag because it's not helpful. If GuardianH still thinks that there's too many primary sources, they should tag them individually. Cortador (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment A news article that analyzes primary source documents, interviews several people, and reports the facts is not a primary source. Even if they were, tagging them as primary is not helpful because the reporting is being attributed to Pro Publica in the article. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
• Invalid RfC -- The RfC poses a false dichotomy. Not every ProPublica publication is secondary, but most are. We need to follow policy here, and WP:PRIMARYNEWS urges just such caution. For the cites that seem to excite the most controversy in this article, they are clearly a secondary source due to depth, analysis, and review of other (primary and secondary) sources. They do, however, also offer things that fall clearly under the 'news' category which remain primary when they simply report on an event or statement. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

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

Primary sources tag, "Nondisclosure of finances" section

@GuardianH: Where do I find the previous discussion you mentioned [here]? I went through the archived discussions but didn't find any discussion about the alleged primary sources. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:04, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Space4Time3Continuum2x It's in the edit log. GuardianH (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Please cite the diff. That's common courtesy when referring to the history, especially in this case with hundreds of edits without edit summary. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, with hundreds of edits in an edit log I obviously don't remember what the diff is — the onus is on the investigator to find evidence. If my memory serves, it occurred no more than 2 months ago. GuardianH (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

GuardianH, I'm not an investigator, I'm a fellow editor. I'm not looking for evidence, I merely want to read a discussion you say took place. You [added the tag on May 8 and, since then, at least two editors (myself twice and editor SWinxy once) removed it, explaining that the section contains only one primary source. You reinserted the tag three times.

• tag removed by me May 13. My edit summary: There is one primary source in this entire subsection, and the WP text does not rely on it. It’s the bank statement the secondary RS for the sentence discovered in court record. The RS also contains and talks about it.
• tag reinserted May 14: "primary source being [news company article] reported that... [direct citation to said news company article].) Your edit summary: there are actually 10 primary sources in the section, including the citation to the documentcloud (297). primary source being [news company article] reported that... [direct citation to said news company article].)
• tag removed by editor SWinxy on Aug 5: Only one of these refs was a primary reference, which could already be found in another ref)
• tag reinserted Aug 5: Your edit summary: rv, this was discussed previously - it uses the raw news source (news org said... [cite org article]) which is WP:PRIMARY).
• tag removed by me Sep 23. My edit summary: Rmv tag. The section contains one primary source, a document published by ProPublica in their article on Crow paying the private school tuition for Thomas's ward)
• tag reinserted Sep 24. Your edit summary: This has been discussed before, a primary source is a first-hand account, basically "[news source article] says... [citation to said news article]")

ProPublica would be a primary source if they reported on ProPublica. When they publish reports on people or institutions their journalists investigated, i.e., researched documents, interviewed witnesses, etc., they're a secondary source. The primary sources in this case are the documents the journalists looked at, the people they interviewed, the written response they received from Crow's office, etc. There are also numerous other secondary sources cited in the section (Washington Post, New York Times, LA Times, Dallas Morning News, Business Insider, etc.). Please, remove the tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

GuardianH, see Reliable sources/perennial sources: "There is a strong consensus that ProPublica is generally reliable for all purposes because it has an excellent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is widely cited by reliable sources, and has received multiple Pulitzer Prizes." The section contains three factual reports from ProPublica, 13 news articles published by other reliable news sources, and two primary sources (one DocumentCloud document, one PDF with Thomas's 2022 financial disclosrure report). Where does the section rely excessively on references to primary sources? Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Your bit on ProPublica being a reliable source has nothing to do with what I said; I never doubted the reliability of ProPublica. The problem is when a statement says that [X source] said something, then cite it with [X source], that [X source] is a primary source to that statement. For example, if it says that "A CNN article stated [X]" and the citation to the sentence is [said CNN article], then that source is a primary source. Not sure why this is controversial — this is basic primary source stuff of the type one learns in high school. GuardianH (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

(Unarchived — discussion to be continued, considering RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC))

@GuardianH: So, if I understand you correctly, the problem isn't the reliability of the source or our attribution to the source, it's your understanding that ProPublica's reports are primary sources? ProPublica analyzing, evaluating, interpreting evidence taken from primary sources such as state tax forms, deeds, financial disclosure forms, written statements by Thomas and Crowe, etc., does not make them a secondary source "at least one step removed from an event" per WP:SECONDARY? That would mean that we should tag large sections of most AmPol articles. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Read what I said again; you have a misunderstanding of what constitutes a primary source. Basically, if there is a sentence that states "the fox said that the dog killed the cat", and the citation for that sentence is words from the fox, then that makes the fox a primary source to the sentence... GuardianH (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the undue tag. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:40, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Not WP:UNDUE, and there has been no finality to the discussion nor any consensus to remove it. Per WP:BRD, going to revert this WP:BOLD edit for discussion to determine inclusion. GuardianH (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed this tag, since its addition is based on a misunderstanding on what constitutes as a primary source. Cortador (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

You are confusing attribution with primary sources. Including "Source X stated that" does not make source X a primary source, it merely attributes a bit of information for a specific source, which is done on Wikipedia in cases where it's important to know what the source is right there in the article text. Cortador (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Attribution can be primary, e.g., all primary sources are attribution but not all attribution is primary. You have a misunderstanding of the subjects regarding primary sources. Primary sources are not those limited to just the article's subject, but rather can also extend to the subjects of sentences. If we take it from WP:PRIMARYSOURCE, original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved.

Specific to this article, what is also relevant is that For Wikipedia's purposes, breaking news stories are also considered to be primary sources.

So a sentence like "In 2019, Propublica reported that [X] said [Y]." ([Citation to the Propublica Article])

The subject is Propublica's reporting. So the citation is:

Original material Y

An account written by people who are directly involved (Propublica writer) Y

Insider's view of an event (Breaking perspective from the writer(s) at the time) Y

= A primary source to the sentence Y

GuardianH (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if this were applicable here - it isn't, as this was neither breaking news nor Pro Publica being insiders - the claims that the section "excessively" relies on primary sources is odious. Cortador (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Some of the citations used are the breaking Propublica articles — that is inherently insider information, since Propublica were the ones who went and uncovered the information pertaining in the reporting. GuardianH (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

No. The primary sources would be the documents they report on. Cortador (talk) 21:51, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources don't just extend to the article's subject; I just explained this. GuardianH (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

@GuardianH@Space4Time3Continuum2x I started a RfC on this, as this doesn't seem to be resolvable otherwise. Cortador (talk) 22:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Adequacy

It would appear that when someone edits an article heavily they could be likely to make mistakes. I don't feel the material was "covered in the body" of the article. Summerdays1 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

You may not feel it, but it's there — we have a paragraph and then some addressing it.

Thomas has been called the most conservative member of the Supreme Court, though others gave Scalia that designation while they served on the Court together. Thomas's influence, particularly among conservatives, was perceived to have significantly increased during Donald Trump's presidency, and Trump appointed many of his former clerks to political positions and judgeships. As the Supreme Court became more conservative, Thomas and his legal views became more influential on the Court. This influence increased further by 2022, with Thomas authoring an opinion expanding Second Amendment rights and contributing to the Court's overruling of Roe v. Wade. He was also the most senior associate justice by that time.

GuardianH (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

GuardianH (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Those citations are not the ones being referenced.Summerdays1 (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

See MOS:LEADCITE. The lede repeats information already sourced in the body, so the citations are covered in the body, rather than the lede. GuardianH (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You're not clear. I could put only the references in the article but you will remove them. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You placed unnecessary citations in the lede, when it already has sourcing in the body – I went over this not too long ago. GuardianH (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Confirmation hearings - divided scholarship

Additional eyes/opinions needed on this editing conflict. GuardianH first added the disputed text to the article on August 2, 2023: The confirmation would become a focus of divided scholarship, with authors who revisited the event reaching varying conclusions. The source for the disputed sentence is an essay on Thomas written by Susan N. Herman and published in the 2013 anthology "Justices of the United States Supreme Court : their lives and major opinions". Quote:

Thomas was sworn on October 23, 1991, joining a court that already begun the work of the term several weeks earlier. Since that date, numerous books and articles have revisited the Thomas confirmation hearings, often claiming to have discovered critical new evidence that, had it been revealed at the time, might have established that Thomas was not being truthful, or might have changed the result. Some authors claim to now be able to prove that Hill was lying; others that Thomas was. Still others declare that what happened between Hill and Thomas remains an enigma.

1. The word "subsequently" added two hours later.
2. Wording disimproved on August 16: After the confirmation hearings had ended, the event subsequently became a focus of divided scholarship, with authors who revisited it reaching varying conclusions.
3. I challenged the text on November 20 with the editsum that it's vague and not part of the hearings.
4. GuardianH reverted the same day with a confused/confusing editsum.
5. I rephrased the sentence on November 21 per WP:WIKIVOICE
6. and added the opinion of Corey Robin, professor of political science at Brooklyn College, who wrote in 2019 that the evidence gathered by investigative journalists made it clear that Thomas had not told the Judiciary Committee the truth when he denied having sexually harassed Hill.
7. Reverted the same day as WP:UNDUE and WP:CSECTION.
8. I readded the opinion with three additional cites (articles by journalists and jurists saying "he lied").
9. GuardianH reverted on November 22 with the editsum that the additional cites don't mention Robin.
10. And on December 18, GuardianH reverted the text with the editsum: restore back to og - WP:INTEXT].

Bibliography

• Robin, Corey (2019). The Enigma of Clarence Thomas. New York: Metropolitan Books. ISBN 9781627793841.

References

If we're going to mentions opinions on the confirmation hearings, then we shouldn't use a vague and unsourced "focus of divided scholarship" in Wikivoice, we should attribute any text to the cited source, Herman, who doesn't say that the authors of the numerous books and articles were scholars. If the authors are divided on whom to believe, then the majority of the opinions published more recently than 2013 appear to favor Hill. I added several but was reverted. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Just saw this (I left to work on some other projects, so lost tabs on this tp). Much of the scholarly discourse over Clarence Thomas and his 1991 confirmation hearings has definitely slowed down. This isn't unfounded of course, because there hasn't been a bombshell report resulting in any paradigm shifts, so a big factor has been personal views and so on. That's why Herman is useful — because what she said as president of the ACLU then is still true. What's most important is that what she said isn't incredibly novel or contested, hence why her voice isn't in WP:INTEXT.

Because of this, there are obvious flareups about Thomas and, by extension, his confirmation hearings whenever he is in the news. A lot of the more recent academic and scholarly sources appear to favor Thomas, actually. Recent news reports are more critical by contrast. This contrast should be treated with care like WP:RECENTISM, which is also why Herman is so important because she is writing with an aim toward a long-term, historical view. GuardianH (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Related — scholars and researchers on "high-tech lynching speech"

The second hearing section quotes Thomas's "high-tech lynching" speech at length in a quotebox. The third paragraph of the section said that Scholars and researchers later wrote that Thomas's "high-tech lynching" speech saved his nomination by placing the focus of the Senate hearings on race and racism and away from sexual harassment..

1. GuardianH deleted the text on December 18 with the editsum that "scholars and researchers" was unsupported,
2. was reverted,
3. then removed two cites (Tate and Massie) with the editsum "unsupported in these sources"
4. and added "from the University of Missouri" to the text with the editsum "clarify".
5. I reverted the last two edits with the editsum that it wasn't just some scholars and researchers at the University of Missouri.
6. I was reverted and accused of WP:SYNTH and cherry-picking sources.

Is it SYNTH? Massie writes that allegations of racism against Thomas derailed the conversation about Hill's accusations in the moment and With [the high-tech lynching speech], Thomas set the terms of the conversation. Sitting in front of an all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee, he strategically changed the focus of the hearing from sexual harassment allegations against him to alleged racist politicking from the Senate. Tate writes that In the final 52-48 vote, a number of his swing Southern Democratic backers in the Senate attributed much of their decision to Thomas's strong support in the black community and that Thomas's "lynching" remark made the actual substance of Hill's charges seem irrelevant just as attention to the urgent plight of black men has shifted public focus from the multiple economic and social problems black women also face. Thomas's impassioned opening statement during the second round of the judicial hearings, in which he accused the Senate of participating in a "high-tech lynching," was pivotal for his majority-black support. Opinions? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:41, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yep. It's synth, since there's no explicit support for any scholarly consensus. You added the paragraphs, which had no mention about scholars and researchers, so the claim was unsupported. GuardianH (talk) 03:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

References