Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 1

message: This article is a mess.  The Anita Hill section has all of the accusations against Thomas and a list of accusers but nothing about Thomas's many defenders and no mention of the contradictions and other problems with Hill's testimony.  (Wallamoose (talk) 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NO, NO, NO!!!!  This is absolutely wrong.  Dear NoahB:  if you have constructive changes to the article, by all means make those changes, but to just come along and mark the whole document non NPOV that's way outside of the spirit of Wikipedia.  YOU are to be the EDITOR, not the judge.  What do you think you are going to do???  Just mark it non-NPOV and then sit back and wait for others to make changes and then when YOU are happy then you will remove the non-NPOV???  That is is completely one-sided and not within the spirit of Wikipedia.  Make the changes that you have suggested above and then others will come along and decide if those changes make sense.  But a blanket comment that the article is non-NPOV and then you walk away is not Wikipedia.-----Keetoowah 22:23, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: Part of it borders on original research and part of it is just poorly sourced. Let's look at it:
::In an interview published in Reason magazine, conducted when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Thomas expressed his sympathy with libertarianism. Clarence ThomasBill Kauffman, Reason, Novermber 1987 
:What he actually said in the interview:
::Reason: So would you describe yourself as a libertarian?
::Thomas: I don't think I can. I certainly have some very strong libertarian leanings, yes. I tend to really be partial to Ayn Rand, and to The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. But at this point I'm caught in the position where if I were a true libertarian I wouldn't be here in government. 
:This does not justify a separate section called Libertarianism.
::In particular, Thomas's philosophy is profoundly influenced by African-American libertarian economist Thomas Sowell http://douglassarchives.org/thom_b30.htm  and Objectivist Ayn Rand http://prodos.com/archive077valliant02.html .
::According to FindLaw columnist Edward Lazarus: "It is said that Thomas's favorite movie is "The Fountainhead" - a film based on the Ayn Rand novel.... Indeed, Thomas's allegiance to this story is so strong that, each year, he requires his new law clerks to attend a screening that he hosts."Will Clarence Thomas Be the Court's Next Chief Justice? Edward Lazarus 
:This is relevant and has been moved up to the personal life section with a proper reference.
::On the bench, although Thomas is usually conservative, he occasionally displays a libertarian streak, especially on his vociferous dissent in cases such as Gonzales v. Raich and Kelo v. City of New London.Jan Crawford Greenburg on Clarence Thomas Ilya Somin, Volokh Conspiracy January 28, 2007 
:The Volokh Conspiracy is simply not a credible reference for an encyclopedia article about a living Supreme Court Justice. The burden of evidence is not on editors who remove questionable content. It's on editors who put it back in. So please find a more reliable source. We can say that Thomas admits to having some "libertarian leanings" because that's a direct quote from the Reason article, and I have no problem adding that in the appropriate location with the appropriate reference (which I will do). MoodyGroove 18:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Libertarianism section

message: I added the sections that you mention.  Are you disputing the facts involved?  It certainly seems indisputably factual, for example, that the women who worked for Thomas and with Hill came forward to support Thomas, while Hill's supporter (Angela Wright) had been fired for calling another employee a "faggot." So it wasn't just a simple matter of "he said, she said."  Isn't it intellectually honest to consider these women's testimony for whatever it's worth?  If the situation were reversed -- if all these women had come forward to testify, "Yes, Thomas was a pervert, he was always harassing me as well" -- wouldn't that be worth including?  Well, then, why not here?  
As for the contradictions in Hill's testimony, well, again the facts speak for themselves.  If anyone can identify self-contradictions in Thomas's testimony, feel free to add those as well.
:Please don't. That would constitute original research. All negative comments about living persons must be both notable and reliably sourced. MoodyGroove 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Random, speculative 'heard it someplace' pseudo-information will be deleted on sight per WP:V and WP:BLP. MoodyGroove 20:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hill's supporters later insisted that relevant testimony from Angela Wright, a PR director for the EEOC and a witness to the alleged offensive conduct, was suppressed, even though the Democrats controlled the Senate. Democrats were reluctant to call Angela Wright as a witness after Thomas testified that he had fired her for calling another employee a 'faggot.' [10]
text like "even though the Democrats controlled the Senate" is clearly POV that's attempting to discredit the facts even as they are introduced.  furthermore, the cited reference does not appear to substantiate the "Democrats were reluctant to ..." claim.  it simply says that she got "cold feet", along with one *Republican* senator (Simpson) asserting that she was discredited.
Benwing 04:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're right.  I've removed what looked to me like the biggest BLP violations from that section.  I was surprised to find this section in such bad shape given how high-profile the issue has been lately.  I also suggested in an edit summary that we get rid of the whole David Brock paragraph; I think his claims are tangential to the case and better suited for the article on Brock.  The only other sentence in the paragraph is unsourced opinion.  --Allen 01:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anita Hill POV

message: ===DOE not introduced before abreviated===
The DOE reference here is not previously referenced in full.  It should then have words before (intials). Is it Department of Energy? --Mokru 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the existing section is too large at present. The incident has dominated Thomas' life story. However I think it could be expanded and an expanded section may be too large. The incident is coverred in more detail in Anita Hill, and it certainly dominates that article. In sum, I'd say that if folks want to add more info on the incident that an article devoted ot it would be the best place, but that we shouldn't reduce the coverage already in this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that the incident has "dominated" Thomas' life story is clearly a vast overstatement.  Thomas is a Supreme Court justice with a long law career.  That's like saying the Monica Lewinski scandal, which is arguably much more prominent, has dominated Bill Clinton's life.  I strongly support creating a new page to discuss the controversy, cutting down the section here and at Anita Hill and then linking the truncated section in both articles to to new page.  It would give the page its proper due, without overemphasizing it here.  Good idea, Remember.  --Jdcaust 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anita Hill incident dominates Thomas' life story because he has been the subject of so little other coverage. Prior to his nomination he was a virtual unknown, and he has been relatively quiet on and off the bench since his confirmation. Is there any profile of Thomas that doesn't mention it? I don't think the existing material is excessive, and if it were split out it would probably grow much larger. I think it's better to keep it short, like it is now, and in its existing place.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Upon review I think we can shorten the section by cutting down the long quote from Thomas.  The famous "high tech lynching" line is the key part that we should quote, the rest can be summarized briefly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument should have been, what do people think of creating an article on the Anita Hill Controversy.  It was a big event that still has large ramifications within the US and deserves its own article.  Obviously there is not enough material right now to support the page, but I believe that we could put together a good article that could document the controversy. Remember 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anita Hill Controversy" would be a POV title since the controversy involved both Hill and Thomas. I agree that the controvery did have large ramifications, and that is why I don't think the section in this article should be reduced further even if a separate article is created to address the controversy alone.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions for an alternative title, perhaps "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy?" Remember 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "controversy" in the title is not ideal, since it prejudges the matter to some extent. Based on a more recent event, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, I'd say the most neutral title would be "Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination". That makes it clear it's not about Thomas, but about the nomination and all that it entailed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any good words that lack a negative connotations for something as combatative as a sexual harrassment accusation?--Mokru 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Edit 

message: The DOE reference here is not previously referenced in full.  It should then have words before (intials). Is it Department of Energy? --Mokru 21:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DOE not introduced before abreviated

message: Does Clarence Thomas not have a middle name? --unknown user --Mokru 22:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Name? 

message: The Washinton Post just did an article on Thomas's history that I thought might have some interesting facts if anyone wanted to add them to the article.  The article can be found here Washington Post article about Thomas Remember 23:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New WaPo article on Thomas 

message: What do people think of creating a new page to discuss the Anita Hill controversy?  Otherwise, I feel that this page may eventually be unfairly dominated by that aspect of Thomas's career. Remember 16:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that the existing section is too large at present. The incident has dominated Thomas' life story. However I think it could be expanded and an expanded section may be too large. The incident is coverred in more detail in Anita Hill, and it certainly dominates that article. In sum, I'd say that if folks want to add more info on the incident that an article devoted ot it would be the best place, but that we shouldn't reduce the coverage already in this article.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To say that the incident has "dominated" Thomas' life story is clearly a vast overstatement.  Thomas is a Supreme Court justice with a long law career.  That's like saying the Monica Lewinski scandal, which is arguably much more prominent, has dominated Bill Clinton's life.  I strongly support creating a new page to discuss the controversy, cutting down the section here and at Anita Hill and then linking the truncated section in both articles to to new page.  It would give the page its proper due, without overemphasizing it here.  Good idea, Remember.  --Jdcaust 18:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Anita Hill incident dominates Thomas' life story because he has been the subject of so little other coverage. Prior to his nomination he was a virtual unknown, and he has been relatively quiet on and off the bench since his confirmation. Is there any profile of Thomas that doesn't mention it? I don't think the existing material is excessive, and if it were split out it would probably grow much larger. I think it's better to keep it short, like it is now, and in its existing place.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Upon review I think we can shorten the section by cutting down the long quote from Thomas.  The famous "high tech lynching" line is the key part that we should quote, the rest can be summarized briefly.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My argument should have been, what do people think of creating an article on the Anita Hill Controversy.  It was a big event that still has large ramifications within the US and deserves its own article.  Obviously there is not enough material right now to support the page, but I believe that we could put together a good article that could document the controversy. Remember 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Anita Hill Controversy" would be a POV title since the controversy involved both Hill and Thomas. I agree that the controvery did have large ramifications, and that is why I don't think the section in this article should be reduced further even if a separate article is created to address the controversy alone.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any suggestions for an alternative title, perhaps "Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill Controversy?" Remember 16:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using "controversy" in the title is not ideal, since it prejudges the matter to some extent. Based on a more recent event, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination, I'd say the most neutral title would be "Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination". That makes it clear it's not about Thomas, but about the nomination and all that it entailed.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any good words that lack a negative connotations for something as combatative as a sexual harrassment accusation?--Mokru 21:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Splitting out Anita Hill controversy 

message: shouldn't there be a section on affirmitave action in the judicial philosophy section? He is after all the only African American on the supreme court and there have been some rather important Affirmitave action cases lately. Cryo921 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Affirmitave action

message: "From 1974-1977 Thomas was Assistant Attorney General of Missouri under then State Attorney General John Danforth. When Danforth was elected to the U.S. Senate in 1976 Thomas left to become an attorney with Monsanto in St. Louis, Missouri."
I doubt he was working as an attorney for Monsanto at the same time as being Assistant Attorney General of Missouri -- at least that is how it reads to me. Can someone clarify?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokru (talk • contribs) 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Career Clarification 

message: There are a a few cases here only linked to externally - we should work on getting articles written on them so we can turn those into internal links. The cases are: McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, United States v. Hubbell, United States v. Bajakajian, Indianapolis v. Edmond.  BD2412 talk 19:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links to cases 

message: Thomas's voting record is extremely relevant, especially as "judicial activism" (or, "legislating from the bench") is at the center of debate regarding SCOTUS justices and nominees.  User: Keetowah has chosen to continually obscure, downplay, or altogether delete this important study.  That's rather ironic, because a quick check of the Robert Byrd page shows that, in certain cases, there's nothing about a person's past actions that Keetowah deems unworthy of including in a Wikipedia entry.
Keetowah is free to construct a laudatory website to Clarence Thomas, whom he no doubt regards as the finest legal mind since Solon.  But Wikipedia entries should be about the truth, not obfuscation or propaganda.
The Yale study should stay. --Eleemosynary 04:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't mischaracterize my position.  I do not believe that the Yale study should be eliminated.  I believe that it should streamlined.  It is merely the study of one Yale professor.  It does not deserve its own section. Also, the way that it is presented violates Wikipedian policy in that whoever put it up there in the first place stole wording directly from the study and that is a copyright issue.  It needs to be slimmed down and re-written.  Oh, I'm sorry that you don't want Robert Byrd's racist KKK past and present to be shown to the public.  ---   --Keetoowah 14:16, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've tipped your hand again.  It's not the study "of one Yale professor."  That's a mischaracterization.  Nothing was "stolen" or is a copyright violation; the study is quoted and attributed.  Perhaps slimming it down would help; but not with "weasel language," as has been done previously.  Regarding your suggestion that I wish to obscure Byrd's "racist KKK past and present," that's just more hyperbole and personal attacks by you.  Did Arbitration teach you nothing?  Eleemosynary 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not personal attack you.  You would like that so you could justify your constantly following me around Wikipedia like a stalker. --Keetoowah 17:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Another personal attack from Keetowah.  Duly noted.  Eleemosynary 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think these personal back and forths are appropriate.  As we all are political, it adds nothing to introduce personal attacks --Mokru 22:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, the information belongs on the page, and prominently - it is a useful statistic (about all Supreme Court justices, in fact).  I'm not sure this article needs the information about ALL the justices, however - Thomas' score, and where that places him relative to other cour members, would be sufficient.  My only issue with it is presenting it as if it is the sole and only measure of judicial activism, whatever that means.  I say the latter because I suspect that defining 'judicial activism' solely as 'how often he votes to overturn laws' is a narrowly drawn and partisan definition.  In a sense, it is being set up as a straw man to knock down.  Of course, in real life, partisans of any political stripe define a "Judicial Activist" as someone who makes decisions contrary to their ideology ... —Morven 18:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Cogent and well-reasoned.  I've removed the other justices' voting percentages. Eleemosynary 18:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I think that the other percentages should be put back in - there are only nine justices, it's not like it's a huge addition - and it puts the number in perspective.  Let the reader draw his/her own conclusion about the meaning. --Kevin 03:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding Eleemonsynary's latest edit... "He is considered to be part of the "conservative wing" in the current court." is okay but "liberal block" is "laughably POV".  What am I missing here? --Paul 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Conservative wing" and "Liberal Wing" are somewhat NPOV.  But "liberal block" or "conservative block" implies rigid, groupthinking cabals.  Eleemosynary 19:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas's voting record/reversing congressional decisions 

message: There really isn't enough discusion to merit this organization except that it is more logical to break out each ancestry as a part of the whole.
===Gullah???===
"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a Gullah, and spoke primarily the Gullah dialect until the age of 16."
Is this for real? Or has he been Seigenthalered? --Peripatetic 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he claims Gullah descent (did you read the linked article?) and that he grew up speaking the Geechee dialect, and also that he plans to write a book about this.  Like many people with Native American descent who hid this for many years, things are changing and now it's more fashionable/acceptable to admit one's heritage. Badagnani 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The original quote was in Thomas's own words, in the December 14, 2000 The New York Times (registration required to read, or you can find the article via Lexis-Nexis).  Badagnani 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancestry 

message: "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a Gullah, and spoke primarily the Gullah dialect until the age of 16."
Is this for real? Or has he been Seigenthalered? --Peripatetic 16:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he claims Gullah descent (did you read the linked article?) and that he grew up speaking the Geechee dialect, and also that he plans to write a book about this.  Like many people with Native American descent who hid this for many years, things are changing and now it's more fashionable/acceptable to admit one's heritage. Badagnani 20:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

text: The original quote was in Thomas's own words, in the December 14, 2000 The New York Times (registration required to read, or you can find the article via Lexis-Nexis).  Badagnani 21:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gullah]]???

message: Does his new autobiography get into his Gullah heritage? Badagnani 00:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gullah Heritage in Autobiography?

message: :The expression "high-tech lynching" coincidentally or ironically first appeared in Asa Barber's 'Men's' column published in Playboy magazine in an issue released before Thomas' Supreme Court hearings.
...was added (with some POV I have not reproduced), and then removed. I can't find any evidence of this on the Internet (0 hits for  "high-tech lynching" "asa barber"), but it would be interesting if it were true. jdb ❋ (talk) 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playboy Origins of High Tech Lynching 

message: It is certainly worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Rush Limbaugh's third marriage at his Virginia home, and it was not included as an attempt to imply POV "politics by association."  A Supreme Court justice performing the marriage of the most-listened-to political radio host in America is certainly worth mentioning.  Eleemosynary 03:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is not worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Rush Limbaugh's third marriage at his Virginia home.  If it was not included as a POV attempt to imply "politics by association," then why do you say "A Supreme Court justice performing the marriage of the most-listened-to political radio host in America is certainly worth mentioning"?  Do you mean if he wasn't the "most-listened-to political radio host in America" it wouldn't be noteworthy? So the noteworthiness is because of Limbaugh's political-radio-host fame? Tell me again with a straigt face that you aren't including this to make a political implication.  I have once again removed this POV-pushing.  Also, you (perhaps inadvertantly) reverted my "leak" change at the same time.  I have also restored that change, adding a cite. --Paul 21:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't appreciate your combative tone, nor your refusal to assume good faith.  It is indeed worthy of inclusion that Thomas performed Limbaugh's wedding.  I think you're projecting a little.  Do you think there's some political significance of Thomas performing Limbaugh's wedding that you would like to strike from the article?  I do not.  Your "challenge" to me is silly.  I'm putting my edit back.  Please do not remove it until consensus has been reached.  And thank you for adding a cite. Eleemosynary 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, check the David Souter page "Personal Life" section.  If that information is worthy of inclusion (as I think it is), the Limbaugh wedding info certainly should be here.  Eleemosynary 02:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree. It belongs in the article. It's a verifiable fact, it's inclusion does nothing to detract from the article, and it does not push any POV. Just because Thomas presided over Limbaugh's wedding does not mean there are other implications to this. It just means he presided. Many justices/judges do that for friends. And its not like its a big secret that Thomas is a strict originalist/member of the conservative justice bloc ⇒ SWATJester  Ready  Aim  Fire! 03:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see what the problem with including this information is.  Badagnani 04:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Elee asked me to take a look here and give my $.02.  In my opinion, that Thomas performed the wedding, and especially at his house, should be included as a noteworthy bit of trivia.  The reason, in my opinion, has nothing to do with politics but rather celebrity.  Limbaugh is a celebrity.  If any Justice performs a celebrity's wedding ceremony, especially at the Justice's personal residence, I think its noteworthy.  Say Souter performs Kirsten Dunst's wedding.  Her politics are irrevelant but I think mention of Souter performing her wedding ceremony should be in both their entries.   If the ceremony was at Souter's house it is even more interesting/noteworthy as it implies that he might be closer to this famous person than people would otherwise assume.  Lawyer2b 04:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Swat, Elee, Lawyer, and Bada (apologies to anyone whom I've missed), inasmuch as I think the factoid to be a notable piece of trivia, and I, in assuming good faith, impute no malign, POV-infused bias to its having been included.  Joe 04:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: One of the maxims here is that as long as a fact is sourced and verifiable, it will end up in an article regardless how minor. So the trivia will stay if people want it. Relevancy would be better served if someone found out how often he conducts marriage ceremonies and to whom. Also, does it belong in the "Life" section? It is more trivia than a discussion of his life. The section's bigger issue is Why isn't there more information about Thomas's personal life and relationships? This is an article about him, and his two marriages rate about as much discussion as the Limbaugh wedding trivia. NoSeptember talk 08:51, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, though I will point out that "factoid" refers a made-up fact, and I don't think anyone is claiming that in this case. I also agree that this is a biography, and we should try to cover biographical info like marriages, children, hobbies, etc that are beyond the mere CV entries yet are sufficiently well-reported to be verifiable and beyond gossip. As editors we need to balance the coverage of different elements of the subject's life. As to the immediate point, Limbaugh is more than a celebrity, he is a highly partisan political commentator, a fact which lends additional relevance. -Will Beback 09:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of the main problems of wiki.  What is relevant for a biography?  It seems simple enough to any encyclopedia user to say that Thomas is or is not a republican.  That combined with his judicial philosophy covers the spectrum.  Any wedding then, doesn't really add much to the article.  Depending on emphasis.  If it is overemphasized, it detracts from the article quality.  If it is removed, it potentially deminishes the article quality.  If it's in a trivia section, give it all the emphasis you'd like.  If it's in any other section, the emphasis should be relatively minor.  I don't think anyone would dispute that the Supreme Court often follows ideological party lines.--Mokru 21:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limbaugh wedding 

message: A new book, The Nine, comes out with allegations regarding Thomas's penchant for porn.  As Above the Law states : "The decision to rush the swearing-in of Justice Clarence Thomas spared the controversial nominee the publication of more embarrassing personal revelations than Anita Hill's notorious testimony. That same day, three Washington Post reporters were set to write a story about Thomas' extensive taste for pornography, including accounts from eyewitnesses such as the manager of his local video store. "But since Thomas had been sworn in, the Post decided not to pursue the issue and dropped the story."  I don't know whether we should include this or not since it is only allegations about a story that was never published, but I thought I should bring the issue up on the talk page because I anticipate it become a future point of discussion. Remember 17:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing wrong with some good porno, as long as it doesn't distract from his legal reasoning. ~ Rollo44 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's tricky. The book is a reliable source, but it isn't making the assertion about Thomas and porn, it's simply reporting that the WaPo was going to report on that. In that circumstance it appears more like gossip than simple reporting. However other material from the book may be more appropriate. Here's the original ABC report that the Above the Law blog cites: . For example, the details that he adoped a grandnephew and that he's received large book advances are noteworthy.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegations in The Nine 

message: I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent edit of this article -- not that I'm sure that the data are necessarily "wrong."  Rather, I'm persuaded that the strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is an unhelpful approach to this specific subject.  I note that articles about other sitting Justices have been similarly "enhanced;" and I also believe those changes are no improvement.  
In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, I would invite anyone to re-visit articles written about the following pairs of jurists.
:* A1. Benjamin Cardozo
:* A2. Learned Hand
::* B1. John Marshall Harlan
::* B2. John Marshall Harlan II
The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph?  I think not.
Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging?  I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point. 
Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.
At a minimum, I'm questioning this edit?  It deserves to be reconsidered. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-considering 1st paragraph edit? 

message: This article  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion piece on WaPo regarding Hill controversy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Footnotes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced POV 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Approach to Oral Arguments POV 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: p.9 (the page the link is to) paragraph one.  (Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Angela Wright and Sudari Hardnett

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Deletion of any mention of Thomas's witnesses and evidence

message: "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)
replies: text: Your partisan assertions are meaningless without citations. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: My own standard is to cite every single sentence I add to Wikipedia.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: problems with heresay and refusal to act

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see any citations for these assertions.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hill continued contact with Thomas after leaving job

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Testimony in support of Thomas

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: contradictions in Hill testimony

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can we at least agree on the need for a disputed section or unbalanced section tag? 

message: 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.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html Mayer and Abramson say Biden abdicated control of the Thomas confirmation hearings and did not call Angela Wright to the stand. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html They report that four women traveled to Washington DC to corroborate Anita Hill’s claims.http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html
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.” Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine. First Anchor Books Edition, September 2008. Page 39. 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." Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine. First Anchor Books Edition, September 2008. Pages 38-39. However, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, the Washington Post dropped the story. Toobin, Jeffrey. The Nine. First Anchor Books Edition, September 2008. Page 39.
RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Additions