Talk:Clarence Thomas/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Clarence Thomas. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mediation

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

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

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

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

General comments

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

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

Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

edit

Version of RafaelRGarcia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the line I suggest for the lead: "Appointed by President George H. W. Bush in 1991, Thomas's controversial confirmation hearings led to the nation's increased awareness of sexual harassment."^[1] Then the line about judicial philosophy.

The lead should be two paragraphs, but we could expand to that later; the article is too thin right now.

edit

Version of Wallamoose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article Length

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

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

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

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

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

Wallamoose

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to Further Reading

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

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

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

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

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

Phase three

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What quote do you mean?

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

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

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

Is This Article about Jeffrey Toobin?

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

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

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

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

States' rights v. federalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you have seriously misunderstood Wikipedia policy, and this argument has become unproductive. I have referred it to Medcab.[1] Simon Dodd (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

You ceased to be civil when, instead of accepting mediation, you continued to edit war (with the result, by the way, that you are now in violation of WP:3rr.[2]). What you are doing is distorting the article by a misplaced reliance on an (in any event flawed) interpretation of wikipedia's groundrules that cuts strongly against NPOV, IAR and Living Persons.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

So, what’s the solution? There are two options, IMHO. The first is to go with how the subject self-identifies. This is what’s invariably done at the abortion-related articles, so people are referred to as pro-choice or pro-life, rather than pro-abortion or anti-abortion or anti-choice or anti-life. The principle that self-identification is important also is evident in this draft guideline language: “When naming or writing an article about specific groups or their members always use the terminology which those individuals or organizations themselves use.”[3]

The other neutral option is to always use both terms. For example: “The United States v. Morrison decision was seen by the press as part of the Rehnquist Court's series of federalism or states' rights decisions, mainly because of the Court's previous federalism or states' rights holdings in Lopez, Boerne, and other decisions.”[4] This is kind of a clunky solution, and I prefer the self-identification solution in this instance. But whichever solution is chosen, it must not be the current solution which exclusively uses the pejorative term.Ferrylodge (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Lawrence v. Texas. Likewise, contrary to what the Harvard sociology professor says, Justice Thomas has also endorsed Brown v. Board of Education.[5]Ferrylodge (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this article locked up?

Unless I'm mistaken, the controversy is about the following sentence in the lead: "PBS has referred to Thomas as the leading conservative in America and says that his 'decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority.'[6]" If you look at the source, it doesn't seem reliable, and in fact the quoted sentence from the source includes an obvious misspelling: "He [sic] decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority." Additionally, I don't see where in the source it says that Thomas is the leading conservative in America.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ferrylodge, to be fair, he may in good faith not understand the difference. I can give two examples of his sloppy work that imply as much. I posted statistics compiled by Tom Goldstein that showed Thomas and Scalia agreed in full only 74% of the time; Garcia changed the text, attributing the figure as a statement by Goldstein: "Goldstein says the two agreed in full only 74% of the time." [7] (subsequently corrected: [8]). More recently, Garcia misrepresented Justice Thomas' position in Edmonton by omitting a crucial prefatory line from a quote. He insisted that because the "line was a straight quotation ... [there was] no room for mischaracterization." No kidding - see [9]. If this is taken in good faith, we must assume that Garcia cannot comprehend the difference between what Thomas actually said ("[t]aken together, our decisions in [two previous cases] ... stand for the proposition that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops. I am not convinced that [those cases] ... were correctly decided"), on the one hand, and saying that "[i]n Indianapolis v. Edmond, Thomas wrote 'that suspicionless roadblock seizures are constitutionally permissible if conducted according to a plan that limits the discretion of the officers conducting the stops.'" He may simply not realize what he's doing, and while Wikipedia ha a policy of assuming good faith, it doesn't offer much in terms of guidance when the choice is between assuming that the editor is dumb but acting in good faith or smart and acting in poor faith. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canvassing?

Rafael, what criteria are you using to determine who should be invited here?[10] See WP:Canvass.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

(undent) I have now taken a brief look at the edit history of this article, and I do not believe your explanation. You first edited this article on August 9, 2008. Since then, Gloriamarie has edited the article as follows: [11][12][13]

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

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

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

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

And so did you.[14] Much of the material in this article has been edited by multiple editors.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Gullah

There seems to have been some recent controversy here at this article about Justice Thomas’s use of the "Gullah" dialect as a child, and how that may have helped him to develop the habit of listening. [15] The present article says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pieces that rely heavily on personal opinion are questonable sources.[16] Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources should normally not be used in a BLP.[17]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following sentence that this sociology professor wrote is not only false but also malicious: "His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia."[18] This sociology professor is entitled to his opinion but not his facts. Fact #1: Justice Thomas has endorsed the holding in Loving v. Virginia.[19]. Fact #2: Justice Thomas has also endorsed Brown v. Board of Education.[20] This opinion piece by a sociology professor does not belong in this article. He obviously knows nothing about oral arguments, and nothing about the law.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It isn't settled, as anyone who actually looks at the medcab discussion rather than taking your word for it will see. Another bad faith comment from you. Simon Dodd (talk) 12:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"What was meant was that, if those cases were brought to Thomas today, and he followed his states' rights position (which he usually does), Thomas would be voting on the losing side in those cases." What evidence do you have that Thomas would favor the racists side in Brown or Loving? You have nothing but an op/ed by a loony-tune sociology professor. Raich had nothing whatsoever to do with the Equal Protection Clause, and nothing to do with racism. I have no doubt that "conservatives with far dimmer credentials have opinion pieces cited all over Wikipedia." Ditto liberals (oh, pardon me, progressives). You're seriously arguing that because other craps exists, we should therefore create crap here?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You have zero grounds for challenging the NYT piece. An admin spoke on the issue and said it was reliable, and there is nothing in WP's policy page that says the piece doesn't merit citation. Both of you continue to post in bad faith, and this matter is settled. Please stop mischaracterizing what the piece says. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The admin's comment addressed a question entirely incidental to the medcab debate, whether s/he realized it or not (and the admin has not responded to being challenged on it). Moreover, despite your allegations that Ferrylodge and I are commenting in bad faith, you're the one who is entirely misrepresenting the medcab case as having reached some kind of consensus. Patterson's op/ed piece is certainly a reliable source for Patterson's opinion of Thomas; it is not a reliable source for facts about Thomas. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnotes in the lead

According to Wikipedia:Lead_section#Citations:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material."

So, if information in the body of the article is adequately footnoted, and some of that is summarized in the lead, I don't think we really need to footnote it again in the lead. I'll therefore remove the footnotes from the lead.Ferrylodge (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Original research

Ferrylodge, your edit here suggests that my citation was original research. I want to note my dissent on that point; the addition was carefully tailored to fall squarely within what is allowable by WP:OR, as I explained in detail here (comment timestamped 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)). If the article makes the false claim that Thomas is for states' rights, the article must rebut that claim - not necessarily in my preferred words with my preferred citation, but in some terms (if it does not, it fails the most basic imaginable criteria of balance and NPOV). If no better language is included in the article, I must insist on adding that text and footnote back in.

With that in mind, I note that an acceptable compromise has been proposed. At time of writing, the article states, in relevant part, that "Justice Thomas has been accused of defending 'states' rights,' for example by Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson. Patterson wrote: 'His ardent defense of states’ rights would have required him to uphold Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law, not to mention segregated education, yet he lives with a white wife in Virginia'" (footnote omitted). A previous edit you made went further, adding to this sentence the observation that "Patterson did not point to any case where Justice Thomas defended states’ rights, or endorsed federalism, instead of endorsing or defending the Equal Protection Clause." See [21]. I think the latter is an acceptable compromise, and I have added it back into the article, as I regard the massively-footnoted version as a cumbersome and silly result forced on us by one user's insistent wikilawering.

Nevertheless, I must emphasize that (1) I reject emphatically the theory that the footnote violates WP:OR, as I have explained, and (2) I see these two possibilities as the acceptable options presently on the table - not refuting the statement is not an acceptable option. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The line "Patterson did not point to any case where Justice Thomas defended states’ rights, or endorsed federalism, instead of endorsing or defending the Equal Protection Clause." is unacceptable editorializing by one or both of you. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:58, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a statement of fact, although I could be happy trimming it down to "Patterson did not point to any case where Justice Thomas defended states’ rights" with the same citation? I think all of us would prefer to avoid the loony footnote, but that footnote is the only way to prove a negative if it comes to it. The only way to prove a negative is to cite every possible situation where something could have happened and didn't. It's a silly result, but that's what we're left with if the fact has to be supported by a citation of some kind. Simon Dodd (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not a WP editor's place to use BLPs, or any other articles, as soapboxes to tear down sources he disagrees with. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's our place and charge to "get it right." Simon Dodd (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)If Patterson says that Thomas is an avid "states' rights" supporter, isn't it only fair for us to mention that Patterson did not point to any use by Thomas of that term? I think so, and I also think it removes the need for the immense footnote that Simon suggested.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Either Thomas is for States' Rights, or Thomas is against States' Rights, or conflicting sources say both (some arguing for, some arguing against), or the sources don't mention "States' Rights". Right now we have one source, Orlando Patterson, saying Thomas defends states' rights. Is there really not any more sources that say a damn thing on this subject? How notable is Orlando Patterson? Is he a Thomas biographer? Is he an eminent SCOTUS or law scholar? And what is the context of Patterson's characterization? Is it in something peer reviewed, is it a commentary/editorial (or, in this case, a book review, which makes us wonder if the book mentions "states' rights"). If this is honestly the only source in existence that says Thomas supports or opposes "states' rights", then I really don't see how Patterson's view is notable or even relevant to this article. THAT SAID, while perhaps arguments could be made that Patterson's characterization is one of derision or even outright false, if those arguments are only found on the lips of fellow wikipedians, instead of in reliable sources, they also don't belong. If we truly, and honestly, only have a single source that mentions Thomas in regards to the issue of "States' Rights", and the source is some snide commentary in a popular book review, then I really don't see why we need to discuss this topic at all. If we truly, and honestly, do have sources that discuss Thomas and States' Rights, then please start compiling and citing them. Seems like this should be a non-issue.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew c. Thomas is very clearly a leading defender of "Federalism." Also, Thomas is often mentioned as a supporter of "states' rights", usually (but not always) by people who oppose the Supreme Court's federalism jurisprudence. These two terms have a very similar meaning, but very different connotations (kind of like "pro-choice" and "anti-life"). As this Wikipedia article currently says, the term "states' rights" is usually (but not always) used in a derogatory way, often to conjure up images of racism and segregation. Patterson is a prime example of that, but by no means the only example. I agree with you that his comment was snide (and malicious too, in my opinion). I do think that this article should clearly say that Thomas has endorsed applying the Equal Protection Clause in cases like Loving and Brown, and should also explain how the terms "federalism" and "states' rights" are often used differently; this section on "Federalism and 'states' rights'" does both of those things, so I don't think we should get rid of the section. Getting rid of the nasty Patterson quote is a closer question, IMHO. We could substitute a less snide quote, although the Patterson quote gets across well how people use the term "states' rights" to try to slime Thomas.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's basically my response, too. Patterson's comment isn't notable, standing alone, but it is to an extent typical of the use of the term by those people who are hostile to Thomas generally and to the Rehnquist court's moves to reanimate meaningful judicial review of federalism questions. Labelling decisions to which they're hostile with a term that evokes something we're all against - segregation - is usually a deliberate rhetorical move (sometimes one deals with people who just don't know better) to cast decisions like Seminole Tribe, Printz, Lopez, and Morrison as some kind of retrograde plot to bring back Jim Crow. That's why it's so important that if this article repeats that smear - even in quoting a third party - it must be careful to point out that the charge is false. Thomas is not for states' rights, he has never said so, and many of his decisions hammer the point home. If Thomas believed in states' rights, he would have been on the opposite side in recent preemption cases, because a broad interpretation of preemption doctrine is hostile to states' rights, insofar as it uses federal law to narrow the range of policy options permissible for the states. Yet Thomas thought preemption should be applied broadly. That makes no sense if he is for states' rights, but it makes perfect sense if he's for federalism, which, unlike states' rights, doesn't mean that the state always wins. (If you were for states' rights, a presumption against preemption - precisely what was rejected by Thomas' side in each of those cases - is what you'd want.) Rather, it means that the Constitution delineates the balance between the state and federal spheres, and when that balance goes against the states, Thomas finds for the feds. The article should not be left inaccurate simply because Thomas has never explicitly contrasted federalism and states' rights à la Hugo Black. Simon Dodd (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

In short, I could live with the section as it is now, although I'm certainly open to considering whether the Patterson quote should be removed, and open to any other proposals as well.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. While I'd prefer the article to note that Thomas hasn't used the term, this is fine as a compromise text, to my mind. Simon Dodd (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You both are very clearly ignoring the many instances of Thomas being associated with "states' rights" in both mainstream and rightist media that I cited in the Medcab. We don't have "one source;" there are many. I will have to add them later. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:STICK and Wikipedia:POINT#Gaming the system (particularly numbers 1, 4, 7, and 8). - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article presently says, "Justice Thomas has been characterized as defending 'states' rights,' for example by Harvard sociology professor Orlando Patterson." RafaelRGarcia, isn't this correct? How many examples do you want us to give? I think one example is plenty, and this example should be especially pleasing to you since it attempts to smear Justice Thomas in the worst possible way. How many more smears will be sufficient for you?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Sexual Harassment

Ferrylodge's "summarizing" of the section is highly partisan and removes all relevant details about the accusations against Thomas. The section could use trimming, but it should remain balanced. I am OK with using the version I wrote above when Wallamoose pushed for trimming, as that achieves summarizing without removing all the details. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in any disputes over that section - I don't care what he did, didn't, was or wasn't alleged to have done - but, just to be clear, you're referring to [22]? Simon Dodd (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

2d thought: Assuming that it's the section just mentioned, I can probably support using that, although I'm having some trouble fitting it together and seeing the overall picture. I would say edit it consistent with your earlier proposal and let's see how it fits together. Simon Dodd (talk) 05:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I edited that section to make it shorter. It did not comply with WP:Summary style. However, Garcia reverted here.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I reverted, because your "summarizing" was highly selective; it only removed what made Thomas look bad. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

That's right, I did remove some stuff that made Thomas look bad, because the whole entire section was crammed full of stuff to make Thomas look bad. The section is now back to its incredibly long version, and it relies heavily on a book that accuses Thomas of lying under oath, while not relying on any books or articles that take the other view.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

"Influences"

Do we need a separate section for this, or can it be merged into another section? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:45, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Paul.h

Your edit summary says "restore arbitration language - one point of arbitration compromise was to remove lurid details - editor needs to explain why results of arbitration doesn't apply to him." I assume that text mandated by arbcom is binding on me, but editors who aren't aware of previous arbitration can't abide by its results. (This is a problem Wikipedia's going to need to address, sooner or later - developing some way to indicate that particular text has been subject to arbitration). Could you link to the arbcom case? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean, I searched Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests, and I don't find any mention of this article. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Paul.h may be referring to the mediation that previously occurred here in October. See here.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh! Well, that isn't arbitration. It's not even mediation, formal or informal - just a third party getting involved and brokering a compromise. That's all to the good, of course, but it isn't binding on the parties to the dispute, let alone third parties. To the extent that it's persuasive as an optimal version of the text, it should be kept, but if it can be improved upon - a fortiori if it can be improved on in ways that do not detract from the concerns involved in the earlier dispute - it should be improved. So far as I can tell, the edit I made meets that threshold (if it inadvertently removed any allegations, I have no doubt that Rafael will voice his opinion). I'd revert, but someone's already beaten me to it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Ruslik version is way too long per WP:Summary style, but we ought to use it as a baseline and only make changes by consensus, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

[undent] Okay, then I propose my 12:32 edit[23] as new language, and ask for opinions:

Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC, was leaked. Hill was called to testify at Thomas' confirmation hearings, where she alleged that that Thomas made inappropriate and harassing comments of a sexual nature, and that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct. Hill said Thomas spoke of scenes of bestiality, rape, and group sex in pornography films he had seen, bragged of his sexual prowess, and other inappropriate comments.

Thomas denied the allegations: ¶ “This is not an opportunity to talk about difficult matters privately or in a closed environment. This is a circus. It's a national disgrace. And from my standpoint, as a black American, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas, and it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.[31]”

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings against Thomas.[32] Statements alleging similar improprieties were made by Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, and Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant. Hardnett wrote to the Senate committee, saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."[33] Although Hardnett made it clear she was not accusing Thomas of sexual harassment, she told the Judiciary Committee that [34][35][36] Wright alleged that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates,[37] [7] A third colleague, Rose Jourdain, said that Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events and became "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved" at Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior."[citation needed]

Other former colleagues differed, and testified on Thomas's behalf. Nancy Altman, who shared an office with Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that she "could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had ... [and n]ot once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment...." Altman said that it was "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."[38][39] Diane Holt testified that in the years after Hill left for another job, Hill called at least a dozen times.

After the hearings Senator Specter said that, "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury," and that "she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."[40] After extensive debate, the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 and sent the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation on September 27. Thomas was confirmed by a 52—48 vote on October 15, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.[41] The final floor vote split almost entirely along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the diff for your proposed edit is here. One thing that Ruslik was trying to accomplish in the mediation was to remove lurid details from this summary section. Therefore, I really don't think we ought to now insert stuff about "bestiality, rape, and group sex."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree - and I don't think Jourdain's allegations should be included, either. If those are removed, however, that effectively undoes the compromise that Ruslik proposed, since Garcia (a part to that contretemps, too) was emphatic that he wanted that information in. My intent isn't to disparage Ruslik's effort, it's fine, I just think it can be improved upon. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)The Ruslik version didn't say anything about bestiality or rape, and it should stay out. If you'd like to propose other changes in the Ruslik version, it would probably be best to use strikethroughs and underlines to indicate suggested deletions and insertions, respectively. It's hard for people to discern exactly what you'd like to change, unless strikethroughs and underlines are used.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That seems like a little too much of a chore to be worth the time it would take. I've proposed a text, and if we can get consensus for that text, that should really be that. (If not, that's fine, too.) The yardstick should be consensus, not an old compromise that was fine but that could be improved upon. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Well, next time, why not make the edits that you want to make, and then revert yourself? That way everyone can look at the diff to figure out what you want to change. As for the following edit of yours, I disagree:

~~She said Thomas bragged many times of his sexual prowess. Hill's testimony included lurid details, and she was aggressively questioned by some Senators.~~ Hill said Thomas spoke of scenes of bestiality, rape, and group sex in pornography films he had seen, bragged of his sexual prowess, and other inappropriate comments.

I don't think we should start mentioning details like "bestiality, rape, and group sex." Ruslik specifically said that he was trying to remove lurid details, and I agree that lurid details are not appropriate for a summary article like this. See WP:Summary style. I also disagree with your edit that says that the floor vote was "almost entirely" along party lines. After all, 11 Democrats voted to confirm.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Given the recent history of this article, I'm very, very reluctant to make any reverts that aren't absolutely essential. Also, just to clarify, I didn't insert said lurid details - they were already there when I started editing. I don't have any particular objection to removing them, I just think it'll be hard to get consensus for it. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon, it's never the least bit problematic to revert yourself. It doesn't count toward 3RR, and it obviously doesn't get anyone upset. I'm just saying that it's a way for you to give us a diff so that we can see what changes you'd like to make (instead of just giving us the complete un-marked-up revised version).

As for the stuff about "bestiality, rape, and group sex", it may have been in this Wikipedia article when you put together your proposed revision, but it's not in now, and it wasn't in Ruslik's version either. It ought to stay out.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's a diff of my version earlier; here's a diff of my preferred version against the version that now exists. My version is more concise, and eliminates irritations in the present text concerning redundancy and sequencing (e.g., in consecutive paragraphs: "statements alleging similar improprieties were made ... Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant. ... Sukari Hardnett, another former Thomas assistant, wrote a letter about Thomas to the Senate committee.") - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 21:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I assume that this is your proposed edit. Do you really want to delete the info about the confirmation vote?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the right edit, but I goofed and left out two entire paragraphs. I was trying to copy from the early edit - unsuccesfully, as it turns out. It was intended to read basically per my 18:24, 28 January 2009 above; I think Paul's bite-by-bite approach below is good, so I'll head down there.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:13, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the Ruslik version is fine, and agree that we should get consensus to depart from it. There already is an entire article on this subject full of lurid details, so we aren't suppressing anything here. This is a BLP and what we present needs to be fair, balanced, and frankly - for a BLP of a senior SCOTUS Justice - non sensational.--Paul (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring about trivia

Please stop re-inserting the following material, which multiple editors have deemed trivial and redundant:

Upon the conclusion of the 2006-2007 term of the Supreme Court, it was noted that Thomas had not asked a single question at arguments that term. SeeLaw.com In November 2007, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, the Law Blog of the Wall Street Journal initiated the "When-Will-Justice-Thomas-Ask-a-Question Watch," noting that the justice had not asked a single question during oral arguments since February 22, 2006. See Wall Street Journal Law Blog February 22, 2008, marked the two year anniversary of Thomas's last question during oral argument, a milestone which was noted by several media outlets, including CNN. SeeCNN article on lack of questions for 2 years

Thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

This article needs to be semi-protected, please.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I see ten anonymous edits this month, but I'm not sure what counts as "recent" for RFP purposes. I've asked. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, okay, I just hate to have to revert edit-warring IPs (especially when I suspect that they also have registered accounts). I guess we'll wait and see if it continues.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment Allegations - the search for consensus

Bite 1

Let's take this one bite at a time. Here are Simon's proposed edits for the first three paragraphs:

Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, ~~information was leaked to the press from~~ an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC was leaked. ~~On October 11, 1991,~~ Hill was called to testify ~~during the Senate~~ at Thomas' confirmation hearings,

~~At the Senate hearings Anita Hill said~~ where she alleged that Thomas' conduct had been ~~made~~ inappropriate, ~~and~~ including harassing comments of a sexual nature., and that he had engaged in inappropriate conduct. She said Thomas bragged many times of his sexual prowess. Hill's testimony included lurid details, and she was aggressively questioned by some Senators.

Thomas denied ~~all~~the allegations: ~~of sexual harassment and sexual impropriety by Hill and the other accusers. He said at the hearings.~~

This is mostly okay with me, but I think it cuts too much. I would miss the bit about "lurid details" and "aggressive questioning."--Paul (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer "intense questioning" instead of "aggressive questioning." Other than that, the proposed edits for the first three paragraphs look okay to me (I don't have an opinion about "lurid details").Ferrylodge (talk) 00:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"Aggressive questioning by some Senators" is actually an important point, see Year of the Woman. And I like "lurid details" because it is good, descriptive writing. Here is my suggestion:

Toward the end of the confirmation hearings, an FBI interview with Anita Hill, an attorney who had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC was leaked. Hill was called to testify at Thomas' confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas' conduct to her had been at times been inappropriate, including harassing comments of a sexual nature. Hill's testimony included lurid details, and she was aggressively questioned by some Senators.

Thomas denied the allegations, stating:

--Paul (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference to aggressiveness is primarily about Senator Specter. Specter, on the other hand, says his questions were not out of line. I don't think the word "aggressive" is neutral here, since it suggests that Specter was harassing Hill, and that his questions were out of line. While Specter's questioning has sometimes been described as aggressive, it has also been described as intense. See Morrison, Toni. “Race-ing Justice, En-gendering Power,” page 55 (Pantheon Books 1992). Anyway, I'm okay with your suggestion, Paul.h. "Aggressive" is already in the article, so keeping it there won't make the article any worse.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's a lot of trimming, but I'd say it's all fat with the exception of the example you mention. So you'd have that line run "Hill was called to testify at Thomas' confirmation hearings, where she alleged that Thomas' conduct had been inappropriate, including harassing comments of a sexual nature. Her testimony included lurid details, and she was aggressively questioned by some Senators"? I'm fine with that. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 02:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) This is a pretty uncontroversial change, so I'm going to make it.--Paul (talk) 02:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Bite 2

Okay, here's the redraft of the following two paragraphs, in the same style (as best as I can):

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings against Thomas,^[2] ~~However~~ but statements alleging similar improprieties were made by Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, and Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant. Angela Wright said in the telephone interview that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates.^[3] {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)^[4] Rose Jourdain said that Wright had spoken to her about Thomas at the original time of the events and became "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved" at Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior." ¶ Sukari Hardnett~~, another former Thomas assistant,~~ wrote ~~a letter about Thomas~~ to the Senate committee,~~^[5]~~ saying that although Thomas had not harassed her,~~Although Hardnett made it clear she was not accusing Thomas of sexual harassment, she told the Judiciary Committee that~~ "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."^[6]^[7]^[8] Wright alleged that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates.^[3] {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)^[4] - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 03:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

So where does Rose Jourdain fit in here?--Paul (talk) 04:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

For my money, she doesn't - if one doesn't believe wright, why in the world would one believe jourain's corroboration? - but if her part must be included, that sentence would fit neatly onto the end of this paragraph after the description of wright's testimony. I have no objection to including her bit if other users feel strongly.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)I'd like to raise some concerns here. This is supposed to be a summary section, per WP:Summary style. That means we should speak in generalities rather than details. And yet, it seems like the suggestion is we should go into such depth here as to describe not only who testified but who didn't even testify at the hearings in question. My view right now is that there is no need to mention here the names of anyone who didn't testify.

In this connection, please see this link from October 13, 1991. Senator Biden wrote to Wright: "I wish to make clear, however, that if you want to testify at the hearing in person, I will honor that request." Wright responded to Biden: "I agree the admission of the transcript of my interview and that of Miss Jourdain's in the record without rebuttal at the hearing represents my position and is completely satisfactory to me." All of the minutae can be covered in the sub-article, but I don't think it's appropriate for this main summary to discuss unrebutted non-testimony. We can just say something like, "Additional statements regarding Hill's accusations were placed in the record by people who decided not to testify."Ferrylodge (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel like I'm stuck in an advocatus diaboli position here. ;) My inclination is to agree with you, primarily because I think Jan Greenburg gave this about the right amount of coverage in her book: next to none. I don't find the nomination controversy interesting or significant, so the more material is here, the more I start eyeing WP:Undue weight. Nevertheless, I am also very much aware that others regard this event as being hugely significant, and deserving if not full then at least significant coverage in the main article. My redraft attempts to do two things: to make the language of the section more concise and elegant, and to compromise between the minimalist position ("this should do nothing more than very briefly summarize the content of the main article") and the inclusionist position ("this should rehash all the old arguments in full"). If we could get consensus for the minimalist position, I would be happy for that to be the outcome, but I don't think we can. Garcia is persistent, and insistent that the article contain more "lurid detail" -- and he isn't the only one. I think the benefit of a middle way is that while it might have more detail than I'd prefer, it also has more chance of achieving stable consensus, both by itself and in the long run (the minimalist version practically invites every Thomas critic to expand it under the guise of getting the truth out, whereas a middle way approach, by including in very brief form a balanced summary of what happened, discourages that kind of drive-by violence). So while I agree with you, I'm shooting for something that can garner consensus, and past experience with this article suggests that the minimalist approach won't. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 17:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Wright is going to be mentioned, then it must also be mentioned that Wright decided not to testify at the hearings. And I agree with Simon that mentioning Jourdain should be left in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily - outside the context of a wiki - I'd argue that the point is already established: the first line states that Hill was the only person who testified, ergo, Wright did not testify. Still, this being a wiki, it wouldn't go amiss to state the point more directly. Perhaps change "Wright alleged that" to "In a [method of communication], Wright alleged that"? - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's important to mention that it was Wright's choice not to testify. For example: "Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings against Thomas. Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, alleged similar improprieties in a written statement, but decided not to testify in person. Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, 'if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female.'" Since Hardnett was not alleging harassment, I don't think we should say that the improprieties were similar. Also, the present Wikipedia article says that Hill "had worked for Thomas at the Department of Education and the EEOC." Did she claim harassment at the first workplace, before she decided to follow Thomas to the second workplace? Seems like that should be spelled out. Info about Hill is more pertinent than info about people who decided not to testify.

Also, if we're going to be describing statements from people who did not even testify, how about the people who did testify? Such as J.C. Alvarez, Nancy Fitch, and Phyllis Berry-Myers.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Here is a version consolidating the comments above:

Hill was the only person to testify at the Senate hearings against Thomas. Angela Wright, who worked with Thomas at the EEOC before he fired her, decided not to testify, but alleged similar improprieties in a written statement, saying that Thomas had repeatedly made sexual comments to her, commenting on her body or pressuring her for dates.^[3] {{citation}}: Empty citation (help)^[4] Also, Sukari Hardnett, a former Thomas assistant, wrote to the Senate committee saying that although Thomas had not harassed her, "if you were young, black, female, reasonably attractive and worked directly for Clarence Thomas, you knew full well you were being inspected and auditioned as a female."^[9]^[10]^[11]

I also agree that including all of these accusers places undue weight on the prosecution, as there were actually more people testifying in Thomas' defense than there were attacking him. Perhaps one more defending testimony could be added to the section.--Paul (talk) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested some additional defenders for "Bite 3." Regarding "Bite 2", it looks okay. Regarding Jourdain, it's just so tangential; she gave a statement in writing to corroborate another person who decided not to testify. It's all in the sub-article, for people who are interested.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bite 3

And here's the penultimate chunk:

~~Several witnesses~~ Other former colleagues differed, and testified on Thomas's behalf. ~~Diane Holt testified that in the years after Hill left for another job, Hill called at least a dozen times.~~ Nancy Altman, who shared an office with ~~who worked with Hill and~~ Thomas at the Department of Education, testified that, she "could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had ... [and n]ot once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment...." Altman said that it was "~~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."^[12] Diane Holt testified that in the years after Hill left for another job, Hill called at least a dozen times.

After the hearings Senator Specter said that, "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury", and that "she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."^[13] ¶ After extensive debate, ~~on September 27,~~ the Judiciary Committee split 7–7 on September 27, ~~and sent~~ sending the nomination to the full Senate without a recommendation. Thomas was confirmed by ~~the Senate with~~ a 52—48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.^[14] The final floor vote was mostly along party lines: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination. ¶ On October 23, 1991, Thomas took his seat as the 106th Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 16:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This revision looks okay to me. Incidentally, I've overhauled the sub-article to try making it NPOV. You might want to add that J.C. Alvarez testified that if Hill had been sexually harassed, “you don't follow them to the next job—especially, if you are a black female, Yale Law School graduate. Let's face it, out in the corporate sector, companies are fighting for women with those kinds of credentials.” Also, Phyllis Berry-Myers testified that her impression was that Professor Hill desired a greater relationship with Judge Thomas than "just a professional one." This stuff is now in the sub-article.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:African American politicians

A user keeps adding this miscategorization; several editors have now had to waste time reverting it and I have politely asked the user doing it to stop.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 18:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Religion

I noticed that there's no religion in the info box. I thought he was a practicing Roman Catholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.85.46 (talk) 03:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The article refers to his catholicism repeatedly, and assigns him to no fewer than five categories of Catholics (African American Catholics | African American judges | American Roman Catholics | Anglican converts to Catholicism | Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices). I think the point is made, with or without the infobox, and at a certain point it gets to be gilding the lily.- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 19:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems standard to put religion in the infobox of a SCOTUS justice. Whether all of the other mentions are necessary is another question. Since we have the subcategory "Roman Catholic United States Supreme Court justices", we do not need all of the categories that this subcategory implies. Per Wikipedia:Categorization#In_general, "do not place an article directly into a category if it belongs more appropriately in one of its subcategories." Also, please see Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#Biographies_of_living_people: "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual preference should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or preference in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual preferences are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." That he converted from Anglican to Catholic does not seem relevant to his notable activities.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot-created subpage

A temporary subpage at User:Polbot/fjc/Clarence Thomas was automatically created by a perl script, based on this article at the Biographical Directory of Federal Judges. The subpage should either be merged into this article, or moved and disambiguated. Polbot (talk) 23:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead's been edited to say: "Thomas's Supreme Court confirmation hearing was notably contentious and centered around allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a former subordinate." I disagree with putting this into the lead, for several reasons, mainly undue weight.

Take a look at Bill Clinton and you won't see anything in the lead about a sex scandal or Monica Lewinsky, and rightly so. There's just a brief sentence mentioning his impeachment and acquittal. And note that the lead for Clinton's article is much larger than the lead for this article.

Also see the Wikipedia article for Louis Brandeis. The Brandeis confirmation battle still ranks as the most bitter and most intensely fought in the history of the Court; Bork and Thomas had it easy by comparison.[24] Yet there's nothing in the lead of the Brandeis article about that, and rightly so. Supreme Court Justices are most notable for what they do, not what they're accused of.

I just think this isn't the way we write leads for prominent government officials. The lead shouldn't be lurid or tabloidish. I think we're now crossing that line for Thomas.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree; Thomas' confirmation hearings weren't a "tabloid" issue. Their social and cultural impact was substantial. There were tabloidy aspects to the hearings; I intentionally omitted those in favor of a brief and (I thought) objectively worded summary of his confirmation.

I am a total loss to understand how an article on Clarence Thomas can be complete without discussion of his confirmation hearing. I am similarly at a loss to understand, given the significance of the topic, how they do not warrant at least a mention in the lead (per WP:LEAD).

The analogy to Bill Clinton actually supports my position; you couldn't write a lead on Clinton without mentioning his impeachment, right? In any case, if you look at reliable, published material and coverage of Clarence Thomas, you'll find that a large percentage of it relates to his confirmation hearings. Partly that's a function of their significance; partly a function of his reticence and low profile since confirmation. Regardless, basic encyclopedic principles and weighting seem to demand some mention in the lead. To quote from WP:LEAD:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.

Perhaps your quarrel is with my wording, which I can understand. Would you like to propose alternate wording which would cover this relevant aspect of the subject, as demanded by WP:LEAD? I'll wait for suggestions. MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that an article on Clarence Thomas cannot be complete without discussion of his confirmation hearing, and this article includes that. As for the lead, I think it would be adequate to just say that his confirmation hearing was contentious, assuming it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Shall I give it a whack in the article?

Incidentally, since you're around, can you please give your opinion about how this article treats that "online PBS biography of Justice Thomas by John Fox"? We mention it several times, and then cite several contrary sources that show Fox is basically full of it. Shall we delete Fox, or keep it in?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The article lead now says: "Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, Thomas's career on the Supreme Court has seen him take a judicially conservative approach, advocating the principle of originalism." IMO, we could change it to something like : "Appointed by President George H. W. Bush, Thomas's confirmation hearing were contentious. His career on the Supreme Court has seen him take a judicially conservative approach, advocating the principle of originalism."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I went ahead and put this into the lead: "Nominated by President George H. W. Bush, Thomas's confirmation hearings were bitter and intensely fought. His career on the Supreme Court has seen him take a judicially conservative approach, advocating the principle of originalism."Ferrylodge (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, for the lead as currently written. Ideally, I'd like to see the entire lead expanded. It's extremely cursory, especially given the wide volume of available sources and the length and depth of the article itself. We should probably aim for a few paragraphs. It should probably discuss his pre-SCOTUS career a bit - after all, he was head of the EEOC for, what, 8 years? And I'm not sure that "originalism" adequately sums up (reliably sourced interpretations of) his judicial philosophy or record. But the lead can probably be expanded piecemeal.

As to Fox, I don't think we should rely on any one source too heavily, since there is both a large number and a wide range of sources available. Is the concern that Fox claims Thomas has "no respect for precedent"? That's almost certainly based on a quote from Scalia, who said that Thomas "doesn't believe in stare decisis, period." I see that we take pains to editorialize, in a footnote, that Scalia must have been joking or mistaken, since Thomas doesn't overturn old decisions on a daily basis. Bit odd, that. MastCell ^Talk 20:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, I removed the editorializing from the footnote (not my doing). Regarding Fox, he asserts that Justice Thomas "would severely limit the Court's right to review legislation." That doesn't seem to be factual. Regarding length of the lead, I'm of two minds. A short lead can simply stick to the basic facts, and will be a subject of less controversy, but a longer lead might be more informative. If we make the lead longer, then there will be more efforts to slant it one way or another. Not by you or me, of course. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, Fox was probably suckered in by the whole nonsense about "judicial activism". Of course, he failed to recognize that the conservative Justices are generally the most activist of all, a point made in one of this article's "rebuttals" to his biography. :) I think a longer and more informative lead can be constructed, but then I'm an optimist. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Regarding the recently-inserted op/ed piece from the New York Times,[25] I think we'll all be better off if we try to stick to factual matters. See Wikipedia:RS#Statements_of_opinion.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation is simply to confirm the quoted words of the Court's majority, not to support an opinion of the New York Times editorial board. The criticism of a perceived lack of humanity in Thomas' decision was much remarked upon at the time, if I recall correctly; I just happened to have the Times webpage open in another window while reading this article and so went there first. If you'd like to substitute another source for the majority's criticism of Thomas' opinion, that would be fine with me. MastCell ^Talk 22:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay no problem. I linked to the text of the decision, and also to a piece by historian David Garrow about it.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Users, including Ferrylodge, were the ones who added figures disagreeing with the Fox biography. However, they did so in a very one-sided fashion, and citations could be added to support Fox's biography just as easily as to disagree with it. The current version of the section is written almost as an apologist piece defending Thomas, and needs rewriting. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added a citation corroborating the Fox biography that points out how Thomas urges the overruling of precedents often. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Originalism

The following sentence was recently deleted from the lead: "Because he believes in upholding the original meaning of the Constitution and statutes, he looks to the exact phrasing of a law's text as the surest guide to its meaning." It's true that the lead already contains a link to originalism, but I feel that we can still explain what it means here. This is the core idea behind Thomas's jurisprudence and his years on the Supreme Court as a Justice.

Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions says that it may be advantageous "to aid the reader in continuing with the text without having to leave an article for other details." That's true here, IMO. Incidentally, original meaning is a more precise term than "originalism" (originalism has some forms distinct from "original meaning").Ferrylodge (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Your wording works for me. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Contributions

Would it be apropriate to mention that Thomas holds the record of longest period without speaking during arguments (four years)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.64.135.69 (talk) 05:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This article already goes on and on and on about that. See Clarence_Thomas#Approach_to_oral_arguments. Enough already.Ferrylodge (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Frequency of Dissent

I wonder if the people who thought he dissented more than any other justice were misreporting the statistic. My understanding is that he's the lone dissenter more than any other justice is. That is, he's more willing than any other justice to write a dissent when the decision is otherwise unanimous. That fact is interesting and probably worth noting in the article if someone can find a citation for it. Parableman (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

States Rights

Original: Thomas' dissent in the Lawrence v. Texas case, which overturned Texas' law banning certain sex acts only when the participants were of the same sex, relies on similar "states' rights" logic as does the majority opinion in the infamous Dred Scott v Sandford case, which upheld slavery by denying that a slave had a right to petition for freedom in the "free" state to which he had been transported by his owner. In his Lawrence dissent, Thomas writes that the Court cannot grant to homosexuals a right (to have private, consensual sexual relations without getting arrested or imprisoned) that Texas had not granted because the Constitution contained no "general right to privacy." In the Dred Scott decision, Chief Justice Taney writes that the Court cannot grant the slave a right to a trial when the state had not first granted it. In that case, the Court majority also wrote that the drafters of the Constitution had viewed all African-Americans as "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

My comment: One user wants to keep the public from realizing this quite ironic incident, and has asked me to take it to the talk page. Well here it is. When Thomas was given an opportunity to uphold the civil rights of gay Americans, he instead chose his version of constitutionality over civil rights. The irony, of course, is that an African American would follow essentially the same logic as the majority in the Dred Scott case, which upheld a slave-owner's rights. If you think that Thomas doesn't follow the same logic, then I urge you to read the opinions. What has been said here several times by the person who keeps removing this is that the court struck a law in one place and Thomas voted to uphold the law. That isn't the point in the least. The point is that Thomas was willing to deny gays civil rights by using the same logic that the Dred Scott majority used to deny civil rights to slaves. IF someone is willing to show how my argument is not correct on that, then I will be glad to quit posting this information. However, because most people nevere actually read these decisions and dissents, much less try to understand them, AND because I think my assessment of the decision and dissent in question is sound, I expect a reasonable response that seeks to persuade rather than someone who is just trying to defend Thomas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.130.219 (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Thomas voted to uphold a statute whereas the Court in Dred Scott voted to to strike it down. Therefore, you are incorrect to say that they use the same logic.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You may or may not have a reasonable opinion. I'm not well enough versed in the cases to even attempt to debate you. However what you're doing is called synthesis. You're taking facts from source (case) 1, and facts from source (case) 2, and then using your own personal analysis to connect the two. This is not allowed in wikipedia articles. Please read WP:SYNTH.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Find a reliable source that makes your argument, and you can cite that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 16:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay - here is a call for help finding someone else making the exact point, which I will then reference. I am reading lots and lots of text on Thomas' dissent in this case, and haven't yet found someone else making the exact point, though in my view, all you have to do is read the opinion of the court in Dred Scott and the dissent (by Scalia, Thomas concurring) in Lawrence to see that the States' right argument is core. There are other similarities in the two, like the influence of foreign opinion, but that's not the point that should be made. Let me say here that to Thomas' credit, he says that were he a legislator, he would vote to overturn laws such as Texas' anti-homosexual sex law. However, when push comes to shove, Thomas sides with the State instead of civil rights. And the irony still stands, that the exact logic he uses, had it been upheld over time, would have resulted in his potentially being a slave instead of an Associate Justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.187.130.227 (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can find all kinds of opinion pieces pointing out that a some justice's reasoning in some case would have lead to an unpopular or unjust outcome in another case. I could even come up with examples myself with just a little thought. For exmaple, I could point out how Thomas rejected foreign influences and how if he hadn't, he might have logically imposed draconian penalties for homosexuality that much of the world has. You need to do more than find someone else making your argument. You need to show that it is worth mentioning.

The article should not argue about whether Thomas's judging is good or bad, the article should simply describe it. Readin (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

^ http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/cnn25.tan.anita.hill/
^ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html
^ ^a ^b ^c "United States Senate, Transcript of Proceedings" (pdf). gpoaccess.gov. 1991-10-10. pp. pp. 442-511. Retrieved 2008-09-18. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
^ ^a ^b ^c The New York Times. "THE THOMAS NOMINATION; Excerpts From Judiciary Committee's Interview of Angela Wright." Oct. 4, 1991.
^ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/1022-1024.pdf
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html
^ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1896
^ http://hnn.us/comments/121846.html
^ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html
^ http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1896
^ http://hnn.us/comments/121846.html
^ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/589-590.pdf page 590
^ www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/227-234.pdf page 230
^ Hall, Kermit (ed), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, page 871, Oxford Press, 1992

[1] ttp://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/03/cnn25.tan.anita.hill/

[2] ttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html

[gpo442-511-3] "United States Senate, Transcript of Proceedings" (pdf). gpoaccess.gov. 1991-10-10. pp. pp. 442-511. Retrieved 2008-09-18. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

[nytimes-4] The New York Times. "THE THOMAS NOMINATION; Excerpts From Judiciary Committee's Interview of Angela Wright." Oct. 4, 1991.

[5] ttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/1022-1024.pdf

[6] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html

[7] ttp://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1896

[8] ttp://hnn.us/comments/121846.html

[9] ttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/02/AR2007100201822.html

[10] ttp://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1896

[11] ttp://hnn.us/comments/121846.html

[12] ttp://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/589-590.pdf page 590

[13] www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/227-234.pdf page 230

[14] Hall, Kermit (ed), The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States, page 871, Oxford Press, 1992

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]