Talk:Clarence Thomas

message: * 
Recapping the edit history on Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall's image and caption, and of mention of him in the text
*Space4T 2 Oct rmv of second cite w/editsum saying that it doesn't confirm the caption
*Space4T 2 Oct correction of first cite w/editsum explanation
*Space4T 2 Oct removal of caption w/editsum explanation "not confirmed by source"
*Space4T 2 Oct removal of image w/editsum reason for inclusion unclear—no relationship to subject per body of article
*Guardian H 3 Oct image and caption restored w/editsum "restore; advice confirmed by sources and image of standard practice" (what does "image of standard practice" mean?)
*Space4T 5 Oct replace caption w/editsum "Replace caption with Marshall's opinion of Thomas's qualification to replace Marshall on the Supreme Court", citing RS
*Guardian H 5 Oct rvt w/editsum "the original caption worked fine as a neutral summation; also, the quote is giving WP:UNDUE emphasis"
*Space4T 6 Oct add Marshall's opinion of Thomas to body of article w/editsum "Adding relevant information (predecessor Marshall's voiced opinion of Thomas's qualification for the court)" 
*Guardian H 7 Oct rvt w/editsum "rv, this is primary and also WP:UNDUE - section details his nomination to the supreme court, not what marshall thought of it"
Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. The responding editor has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet and won't be able to respond to your objection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography <!-- Note: Any source not used should be moved to the further reading section --> 

message: Greenburg merely paraphrases and quotes excerpts of Thomas's 2007 book. The content is not based on independent research by Greenburg or other journalists but solely on what Thomas wrote, as the full paragraph shows:  Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The key part is the transitive "but" separating the first two sentences with the third sentence — which is Greenburg talking, and not Thomas. GuardianH (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, she's saying Thomas was wrong, and our text is wrong by reversing the chronology. You left out the words following your transitive but: , i.e., the sanctimonious whites didn't accuse him after all, and he received the support of a number of influential African Americans. Rephrasing accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That isn't it at all — that has got to be the biggest and most fanciful misreading of the text here. She uses "but" as a transitive word to demonstrate that even though Thomas perceived the affair as hostile to him, it was actually  and he had a lot of support behind him. It doesn't mean that  — they did. And it doesn't mean that he didn't receive the support of a number of influential African Americans — which he also did. GuardianH (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Greenburg/ABC News passage 

message: You  added the sentence saying Thomas had been a Fenwick scholar, citing Cox and Brady as sources, on July 22, 2023. I just tried to correct that information, and you immediately reverted my edit with an edit summary that doesn't address the problem. Sure, , when she is writing about Theodore Wells Jr., the Fenwick Scholar who's also mentioned as one of Holy Cross's five 1972 Fenwick Scholars (Thomas isn't among them, and he doesn't mention the honor in his memoir, either). Please, cite the passage in Brady that says Thomas was a Fenwick Scholar or self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's in the Cox source. GuardianH (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And you cited Brady as a source for both claims because? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: To give background on the Fenwick Scholarship, which Cox doesn't do — i.e., it's one of the highest honors of the college. GuardianH (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Brady doesn't say that Thomas was a Fenwick Scholar, and she doesn't say that Thomas applied to and was accepted at UPenn Carey Law. You can't cite her as a source for either statement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Cox says that Thomas was a Fenwick scholar; Brady says that its one of the highest honors at the college. GuardianH (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So, WP:SYNTH? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Thomas writes on pg.61 of "My Grandfather’s Son" that by the end of junior year he "was accepted into the honors program and [] became a member of Alpha Sigma Nu, the Jesuit equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa". The honors program is one of the two "scholar programs" at Holy Cross, the other being Fenwick.  Makes me think that he would have mentioned Fenwick if he had been named a Fenwick Scholar. I tagged the inconsistencies and missing reliable secondary sources in the second to last paragraph of Clarence_Thomas#Education. Quoting Justice Marshall's "advice" to Thomas (mentioned prominently in the caption to Marshall's undue photograph but not quoted): "I did in my time what I had to do. You have to do in your time what you have to do." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fenwick Scholar 

message: Change "In Hudson v. McMillian, a prisoner had been beaten, sustaining a cracked lip, broken dental plate, loosened teeth, cuts, and bruises." to "In Hudson v. McMillian, a prisoner had been beaten by respondent prison guards, sustaining a cracked lip, broken dental plate, loosened teeth, cuts, and bruises," to clarify the nature of the beating and mirror the language in Hudson v. McMillian. FinallyTheresSun (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024 

message: Added text/ref (5/29/2024) to main article - then reverted - seemed relevant - Worth considering adding after all - or Not? - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe amd Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add [[NYT]] article re [[Judicial disqualification|Recusal of Judges]] - or Not?