Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:44, 25 October 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clarence Thomas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Clarence Thomas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Georgia (U.S. state) Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States courts and judges High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States courts and judges, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States federal courts, courthouses, and United States federal judges on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States courts and judgesWikipedia:WikiProject United States courts and judgesTemplate:WikiProject United States courts and judgesUnited States courts and judges High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

More acceptable language for the lede

"...centering around an accusation by attorney Anita Hill, a subordinate at the Department of Education who followed him to the EEOC, that he had made comments she thought amounted to sexual harassment."

Alternatively, I think the lede as it is right now adequately describes what Hill's main point was.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds awkward and unnecessarily wordy. Since we agree that she accused Thomas of conduct that "amounted to sexual harassment", why not just say that she accused him of sexual harassment? It feels like we're contorting ourselves to avoid using the wording that virtually every other reliable source on Earth uses. Also, I'm not sure it's proper to say that Hill "followed to the EEOC" - do sources say that Hill accepted the position to "follow" Thomas, or that a desire to work with him played a role in her decision? Perhaps we could focus on one issue at a time. Otherwise you might unintentionally create the impression that you're trying to sneak other leading language through the back door while we're focused elsewhere. MastCell  05:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Sneak? Hardly.

The sources at footnotes 63-65 say she was unsure whether it amounted to illegal sexual harassment. The wording you suggest precludes such a thing, so I oppose it.

And after all this studying of Justice Thomas that you have undoubtedly now done, MastCell, you think that Hill was -what- forced to leave the Department of Education?

Leaving out the word "comments" would make it seem like he might have touched her. You wouldn't want to suggest that, would you pal?Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

"Sex" in the lede

I've made a noticeboard inquiry here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is archived here. The consensus was for changing "unwelcome sexual comments" to "unwelcome comments" in the lede of this article. So, I'll plan on making that small change on Saturday. Of course, that would leave plenty of discussion of sex later in this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that single comments from 2 uninvolved editors is a robust consensus, and there was no actual back-and-forth discussion among uninvolved editors of the issue. That said, I don't feel like fighting about it. I may readdress the issue with more substantial outside input at some point in the future, since I feel pretty strongly that we're failing to inform the reader and failing to reflect available sources accurately. MastCell  20:25, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the comment. I guess I may as well go ahead and make the change now. If we revisit it later, then we can notify those who disagreed with you (aside from myself, that's Jclemens, JPMcGrath, and Johnuniq). My sense is that you're merely objecting to how the lede summarizes the article's body, rather than what's in the body.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. MastCell  20:55, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting into this late, but removing the word "sexual" from the statement in the lead makes the statement virtually meaningless. Hill didn't complain about "comments" like "why don't you stop filing things in the wrong place." She complained about sexual comments. If you're going to have a reference to the Hill allegations in the lead, then the word "sexual" should be there.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, and you raise a good point. I've just tweaked that sentence, so it now says "inappropriate comments" instead of "unwelcome comments". I think that rules out the example you gave of garden-variety criticism. Please make sure you've looked at the Noticeboard discussion to see what the concerns were. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the archived Noticeboard discussion before posting here. Some of it seemed to be about consistency between Clinton's and Thomas's articles. The rest appeared to be about the appropriate weight in the lead's summary description. I appreciate your change to inappropriate, which is in an improvement over unwelcome, but it still seems euphemistic. In my view, if the "comments" are going to be mentioned, it's simply clearer and more accurate to say sexual. Here's another alternative (although still not my preference): "Thomas's confirmation hearings were bitter and intensely fought, centering on attorney Anita Hill's allegations that Thomas behaved inappropriately when she worked for him at the Department of Education and subsequently at the EEOC."--Bbb23 (talk) 01:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with "behaved" is that it increases rather than decreases the ambiguity, because it could refer to comments or physical contact or lots of other things, whereas Hill only alleged comments. It was the impropriety of the alleged comments that was problematic, not their sexual nature (i.e. lovebirds at work make sexual comments all the time without scandal). You're right that the lede is somewhat euphemistic, but (like Clinton's lede) it should make readers curious to read more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Most Memorable Line

There is a block quote in the Anita Hill section that says: "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."

Thomas's biographer, Ken Foskett, said that part of the quote ("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") is "one of the most memorable lines in American judicial history."

Editors keep putting in the Foskett quote, either as a quote or a paraphrase, and other editors keep removing it.

Personally, I don't much care one way or the other, although the description of Thomas's lines by his biographer is arguably worth noting. On the other hand, Thomas's statement in and of itself is fairly explosive, and it could probably just stand by itself without characterization by Foskett.

However, we should either put the Foskett line in, as a quote or a paraphrase (quote is probably better - won't allow people to quibble with the paraphrase), or we should remove the cite to the Foskett quote. We already have a cite for the Thomas statement itself. We only need the cite to the Foskett quote if we're going to use it.

If no one comments or there is no consensus on this, I will remove the citation to the Foskett quote (because for the moment the quote isn't in the article).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Good comment. An editor removed the Foskett quote on the basis that Foskett is not sufficiently notable. Another editor then reinserted a paraphrase of the Hudson source that quoted Foskett, instead of quoting either Foskett or Hudson, and that editor said so in an edit summary. That edit summary was subsequently criticized for being inaccurate, though it seemed accurate to me (I am biased because I wrote it).

I don't feel strongly one way or another about what to do with the Hudson reference. But, if people are going to object to the length of the blockquote (as the aforementioned editor who criticized the edit summary has done), then it would be useful to keep the Hudson reference to establish the very high notability of the Thomas quote. So, all in all, it would probably be best to keep the Hudson reference, and perhaps try rephrasing it again in a way that will not meet with objections (saying that a Thomas quote was "memorable" doesn't seem very peacockish to me, but perhaps "notable" would meet with less objection).166.137.137.187 (talk) 10:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Too many issues tangled up here. One editor says Foskett is not notable. But why? (I did find a review critical of Foskett's book in the Washington Post. At the same time, Foskett's book is cited many times in the article. And here's a favorable review of the book by oft-quoted law professor John Eastman, who also was Thomas's law clerk.) Another editor says your paraphrase was inaccurate. Personally, I didn't think it was, but I don't really see the need to paraphrase - it's a short enough quote in the first place. WP:Peacock says you can't use puffy words (like "most memorable") without attribution. Is a citation good enough to meet the policy, or does the attribution need to be in the article? The idea behind the policy is for editors not to use puffy adjectives to "promote" the article subject, but it's okay to cite someone else who does. So, now we have three choices (in my view:) (1) put the quote back in; (2) put the quote back in and in the body of the article attribute it to Foskett; or (3) leave the quote out and take out the citation to Foskett, which, without the quote, serves no purpose. By the way, who objected to the length of the block quote? No one that I've seen wants to take out Thomas's quote itself, do they?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's the objection to the length of the blockquote. Of those three choices, I'd support (1) or (2) but not (3), because (3) removes justification for the length of the blockquote. I'd also support (4) restoring a paraphrase but using the word "notable" instead of "memorable" in order to (attempt to) calm the waters.69.183.187.206 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Polls

The article used to say: "As of 2004, Thomas was second only to Sandra Day O'Connor as the Supreme Court justice whom most people admire or with whom they agree most, according to a Fox News poll. Six years later, in 2010, Thomas had a 48% favorable, 36% unfavorable rating, according to Rasmussen Reports."

It says now: "As of 2010, Thomas had a 48% favorable and 36% unfavorable rating, according to Rasmussen Reports."

An editor removed the Fox poll with this explanation: "Removed misleading poll citation; the cited poll explains of those asked, 58%, "were either unable to name their favorite or do not know the name of any justice". Further, I question of neutral nature of a Fox News poll."

First, the date of the Rasmussen poll was and still is wrong. The poll was taken in 2006, not 2010. Second, the Fox poll explains what questions were asked, what the responses were, the error rate, etc. The Rasmussen poll does not, or at least if it does, I couldn't find it (much of the Rasmussen website is accessible only if you're a paid member).

I recommend we take out all of it. The Fox poll is unhelpful because the statistics are too low to be meaningful. Without some evidence that the poll was biased, the editor's opinion about Fox's neutrality is not an acceptable reason to remove it. The Rasmussen poll simply doesn't shed enough light on what they asked to have much merit. However, if enough people want to leave the poll information in, we should put Fox back and correct the Rasmussen date.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that we should leave in both polls, correcting the Rasmussen date, given that polls are very applicable to the section title "Public Perception." Drrll (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Except in quotations, he's "Thomas", not "Justice Thomas"

Misplaced Pages style is to refer to people by surname only. The first time someone is mentioned, his or her position can be given; thus, someone like David Souter should be referred to as "Justice David Souter" at first mention but merely "Souter" thereafter. I've changed several instances of "Justice Thomas" to "Thomas". Verbatim quotations should be given accurately, however, even if the source being quoted doesn't conform to the Misplaced Pages rules on this point. Thus, "Justice Thomas" is correct if it's within a verbatim quotation and is so in the original. JamesMLane t c 22:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Description of Hill's allegations in lead

I'd like to reopen discussion of our description of Anita Hill's allegations in the lead. The competing versions are here and here. I think that in order to honestly and accurately represent published reliable sources, we should state that Hill accused Thomas of sexual harassment. That is a fact supported by virtually every reliable source published on the subject (whether the allegations had merit is separate, but the content of the allegations is hardly in dispute).

I think that the push to bowdlerize and water down this language is in error. It is uninformative to the reader to say that Hill accused Thomas of making "inappropriate" comments. That leaves the reader to wonder what, exactly, was inappropriate about them. I continue to fail to understand the objection to accurately describing Hill's allegations in the words used by virtually every reliable source on the topic. I would welcome discussion on the matter. MastCell  19:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

In the last discussion on this topic, I agreed with the minority view that some form of the terms "sexual" and "harass" were needed in the lead to accurately summarize the events and the article content. I still feel that would be the best phrasing.

However, I'm never particularly happy when the local school board keeps re-presenting the same budget to the voters multiple times, knowing that eventually the opposition will tire or have other things to do so eventually the proposal will pass. The last discussion on this ended only a month ago, so while I support the underlying point, I oppose taking another bite of the apple by reopening the discussion at this time. Fat&Happy (talk) 19:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I re-presented it because another editor (who had previously not been involved in this article, to my knowledge) raised the issue with this edit. Since things seemed to threaten to devolve into an edit war, it seemed appropriate to re-open the discussion here, which is in keeping with my understanding of our consensus process (see Misplaced Pages:Consensus#Consensus can change). How long should I wait before raising the concern again (in all seriousness)? MastCell  19:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know that there's any set answer to that question. As I was framing my response, I had a figure of about six months in the back of my mind. But in a way, I see it as situational; re-opening a well hashed-out clear consensus because one editor insists on a contrary approach seems like wheel-spinning. Check out the talk pages for the various Barack Obama articles; things get deleted (frequently my personal preference) or collapsed at the drop of a hat (no pun intended). Things get a bit brutal over there (and they do have a FAQ). But in the present case, I think the consensus was a bit weaker; any time two or three new (to the topic) editors were to disagree with the present content, and one of them brought it to talk, it could probably be reviewed, but I think the previous opinions, at least of verifies editors, should be considered also. Just my $2 ramble with 2¢ of content... Fat&Happy (talk) 20:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Fat&Happy on both points. On the first point, I think the omission of the word "sexual" from the lead is inaccurate and silly. On the second point, why is this being rehashed yet again? Even on the merits, although it may be silly not to have the word "sexual" in the lead, it's laid out in the body of the article (gee, did I just use the words "laid" and "body"?), so why is this such a big deal?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Again, I brought it here because at least two editors currently seem to feel strongly enough to edit-war over it. That indicates to me that whatever consensus existed is either no longer in effect, or needs to be reaffirmed. The talk page seemed like the place to go. That's all. MastCell  02:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You brought it here immediately after editing the article, and now your edit has been edit-warred back into this article by a person who has not even visited this talk page. Incidentally, here's a fun diff for your viewing pleasure from the Bill Clinton article. The lead at the Bill Clinton article is purged of anything sex-related by Misplaced Pages administration. Meanwhile, Misplaced Pages administration engages in and permits edit-warring at this article to include sex in the lede despite a consensus the other way. Nothing new I guess. Yawn.166.137.8.217 (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ginny

Why does "Ginny Thomas" redirect here when she has her own page? 72.101.169.162 (talk) 10:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Old (misspelled) leftover. Fixed. Fat&Happy (talk) 13:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange Justice

On September 20, Mothmothmoth added material to the Anita Hill allegations section of the article. I removed much of it, but I left in the part about the book Strange Justice and the New Yorker article, although I edited it somewhat and added a tag. Along came MastCell who (rightly in my view) removed the tagged phrase. Along came Drrll who removed the piece completely saying, "Rmv description of a one-sided book as an objective examination of Thomas/Hill, by Hill apologists, and a commentary piece in a publication w/a conflict of interest" in the edit summary. I'm not saying Drrll, an editor whom I respect, was wrong to remove the material, but I think the material merits some more discussion. Unfortunately, I don't have the book itself, nor do I have the New Yorker article (only an abstract of the article is available online). However, the added material was reasonably well-sourced. We don't necessarily have to have online access to a source for it to be legitimate. Also, the material didn't really characterize the book except to say that the WSJ reporters conducted an extensive study, which should be verifiable from the book itself. It was the New Yorker that characterized the book, but the quote is included and sourced.

I'd like to hear more from Drrll about the edit summary comment, particularly the conflict of interest part. Now, I read that Jane Mayer joined the New Yorker in 1995, but that would have been after she cowrote the book and the after the article appeared in the New Yorker. But I also read in the main article on the Hill allegations that Mayer and Abramson wrote an earlier article in the New Yorker (May of 1993), although that is also unsourced. I'm still not clear how anyone necessarily has a "conflict of interest."

I also recognize that anything that touches on the Anita Hill hearings is sensitive and has often been debated in the past, but that doesn't mean we can't add sourceable material to the section. Also, if someone wants to add material that comes out the other way (Hill lied, Thomas told the truth), that would be fine. Right now, all we have is the following unsourced sentence: "All sides still vigorously dispute the conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings." I'm not crazy about that sentence, partly because it's unsourced, and what does "still" mean as time moves on?

Another possibility is not to have anything about the publications post-hearing because it's too much about the subject, and we have the main article on the Hill allegations that goes into this stuff in much more detail. If we're going to do that, I'd be in favor of removing that last sentence.

Any thoughts?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

My main objection lies in the characterization of the book with the phrasing "However, two Wall Street Journal reporters conducted an extensive study of the controversy." This comes immediately after "The debate over who was telling the truth continues, and several books have been written about the hearings and what effect further testimony might have had. Clarence Thomas wrote an autobiography addressing Anita Hill's allegations, and she also wrote an autobiography addressing her experience in the hearings. All sides still vigorously dispute the conduct, meaning, and outcome of the hearings." On the one hand, you have the uncertainty of a continuing debate on Thomas/Hill, however on the other hand, you have this "extensive study" that speaks to the debate in certain terms. It would be just as wrong to characterize pro-Thomas books like The Real Anita Hill in similar terms. Since the characterization is not quoted, it can't be determined if it's from the New Yorker article (which is a commentary piece, by the way), the book, or the editor who added it. I agree that we don't have to have online access to a source, per WP:SOURCEACCESS.

As far as the conflict of interest part, the New Yorker pleaded with Mayer and Abramson to write a review of Brock's book, knowing that a book by them on the same subject was in the works (another conflict of interest), then when Mayer's/Abramson's book came out, lavished it with praise in a commentary piece.

I don't have a problem per se with using sourced material from Strange Justice (which incidentally, by its title says volumes about their view of the Thomas/Hill hearings and/or Thomas himself) or the commentary piece from the New Yorker. I just want to see it handled in a NPOV manner and its advocacy counterbalanced by advocacy on the other side.

I agree that the "All sides still vigorously dispute..." sentence doesn't really belong there. I guess I would lean toward having a brief mention of the post-hearing books, giving examples of both pro-Thomas and pro-Hill books. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the vigorously dispute sentence. I think we should avoid the conflict of interest angle because it seems to delve into original research and our own interpretation of events. It comes close to being a legal conclusion on our part. I agree with you about the "extensive study" phrase, which I noted in my original post. I think we have only two choices. One is to present stuff from both sides (assuming both sides are well-represented and sourceable), and the other is not to present any of it and leave it for the main article. I don't have a problem leaving all of it out. In sum, I think the burden is on the editor who wants to add material to the Thomas article section to add both sides or nothing. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That would depend. Strange Justice is not an "anti-Thomas" book. In some ways, it's quite sympathetic to Thomas. The evidence compiled and presented in the book might lead a reader to the conclusion that Thomas had lied - it seems that the New Yorker reviewer reached this conclusion - but that's a different matter. It seems ludicrous to equate or "balance" this reputable, respectable, well-researched book with The Real Anita Hill, which is generally recognized as a scurrilous hit piece and has been disowned even by its author as such. We should look at the actual quality of sources, rather than assigning them to "pro" and "anti" Thomas camps and assuming they need to balance each other out. MastCell  00:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to go with a consensus on this issue, particularly on the book, which, unfortunately, I don't have, so can't comment on. Even assuming the book is well-written, etc., does it belong in the Thomas article given that it's already covered in the main article on the Hill allegations? To me, that's a separate issue.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Although TV news shows distanced themselves from The Real Anita Hill at the time, the book was praised from the expected sources and from unexpected sources. From an article about the book by the Washington Post's media reporter:

First, in early April, came the excerpts on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, serving notice that David Brock's book on Anita Hill was to be taken seriously. Days later there was a laudatory Newsweek piece by George Will ("assembles an avalanche of evidence that Hill lied"). And a syndicated column by fellow conservative Mona Charen ("knocks the wind out of a cherished liberal myth"). Soon respectful reviews were appearing in such establishment organs as The Washington Post ("a serious work of investigative journalism") and the New York Times ("carefully reasoned and powerful in its logic").

It's true that the author had an ideological change of heart and thus renounced something that would not fit in with his newfound orthodoxy, but in what quarters is it "generally recognized as a scurrilous hit piece"? BTW, Jane Mayer in particular is a crusading advocacy journalist who is known for her attack pieces on conservatives. Are there any books you consider "reputable, respectable, well-researched" that draw a different conclusion than Strange Justice' conclusion? Drrll (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Come on now. When a book's author comes out and says that he lied, that rather impeaches the book's utility as a reliable source for a serious encyclopedia, right? The fact that the book received some positive reviews before the author admitted it was filled with lies isn't really relevant. That sort of puts the book in a different category than Strange Justice. MastCell  04:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

From that very NY Times article, note what Brock said he lied about and that it was the only thing he lied about in print:

The author of a best-selling book that attacked the credibility of Anita F. Hill has disavowed its premise, and now says that he lied in print to protect the reputation of Justice Clarence Thomas...

Mr. Brock wrote that in an effort to protect the conservative political agenda, he "consciously lied" in the review of Strange Justice in The American Spectator.

In the review, Mr. Brock wrote that there was no evidence that Justice Thomas had "ever rented one pornographic video, let alone was a habitual consumer of pornography."

In the excerpt, Mr. Brock writes: "When I wrote those words I knew they were false. It was the first and last time that I consciously put a lie in print.

Brock doesn't say that he lied in the book and that the book was "filled with lies." To my knowledge, he has never given examples of specific lies that he told in the book. Again, are there any books you consider "reputable, respectable, well-researched" that draw a different conclusion than Strange Justice does? Drrll (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few reputable, well-researched biographies and books about Thomas. Most are identifiable in part by the fact that they don't take an explicitly pro- or anti-Thomas stance. Many are already cited in the article. Are you continuing to argue that The Real Anita Hill is an example of such a biography, or that it's the equivalent of Strange Justice just because you think they somehow balance each other out?

David Brock, the author of The Real Anita Hill, is on record as saying that while he personally believed Anita Hill, he created the book with the intent of demonizing her, and "dump virtually every derogatory—and often contradictory—allegation I had collected on Hill from the Thomas camp into the mix." () Interestingly, Brock himself credited Strange Justice with prompting his change of heart because it "debunked much of The Real Anita Hill, and Brock discovered that he could not honestly and successfully debunk Strange Justice in return." ()

The Real Anita Hill is not a good encyclopedic source, full stop, and it's not somehow "equivalent" to more reputable biographies and published works. What other books do you consider reputable, well-researched biographies? MastCell  16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Strange Justice is more pro-Hill than anti-Thomas. I'm not arguing that Brock had equivalent journalistic credentials to Abramson's and Mayer's credentials, but I do believe that they are similar in their use of advocacy against/for Hill. Even with what Brock has said about his more recent view of Hill and account of how he produced the book, we have yet to hear from Brock which "derogatory--and often contradictory--allegation" in the book was false. Given that the book was well-received in the two newspapers that matter most on such issues and that the author does not say that he lied in the book, I do believe it is a good source for Misplaced Pages. As far as other reputable, well-researched books on Thomas (not necessarily biographies), I like First principles: the jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas by Scott Douglas Gerber. Gerber actually doesn't know who to believe in the Thomas/Hill saga. Are there any specific books you like that take an agnostic view or that favors Thomas in the Thomas/Hill conflict? Drrll (talk) 13:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting adding my views on The New Yorker's conflict of interest to the CT article, or even using them to disqualify the New Yorker piece on that basis. I wasn't clear about distinguishing between the books by Thomas and Hill and the books by third parties. I feel that those books by the principles should be mentioned, but for the other books, I believe that they should be mentioned only if they add valuable information, and like you said, only if both sides are given. My inclination is to leave the third-party books out entirely, and like you said, leave them for the other article. Drrll (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

A brief comment. The removed quote said that two reporters found "Hill's testimony wholly credible and Thomas's defense nearly impossible to believe." This is a generalized comment, and does not add to this Misplaced Pages article. If the quote was something specific, like "Thomas rented videos contrary to his sworn testimony" then that would be more worthwhile (except that he didn't actually testify that way). So, I'd suggest leaving this article as-is for now.166.137.10.140 (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Last sentence

The new sentence at the end of this Misplaced Pages article says that he's been spotted sleeping on the bench. First off, many judges have been spotted sleeping on the bench, including Justice Ginsburg who not only had her eyes closed but was slumped over. So, even if Thomas did doze off, that would not be very notable, and is hardly the way to end this Misplaced Pages article. Anyway, the source does not pretend to be neutral:

We can give Thomas a pass on this one, given that he’s already an expert on sexual harassment.

Other lawyers who have argued cases before the Supreme Court told me that they noticed Thomas closes his eyes but were not sure whether he was sleeping.

Veteran court watchers suffer the same doubt. “It is kind of tricky to tell if someone closes their eyes if they are asleep,” said Linda Greenhouse, who covers the court for the New York Times.

Given that he wasn't slumped over like Ginsburg, it's hard to tell if he dozed off.166.137.138.242 (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Lillian McEwen's Memoir

I just undid an editor's addition about the recent news of McEwen's memoir and her comments on Thomas and the Hill hearings. The sentence I removed was not really accurate, not necessarily placed in the ideal part of the section, and begs discussion as to the broader question of what belongs in the Thomas article and what doesn't. This section, as most know, always stirs controversy among editors, so my view is we should discuss this before putting it in.

The major press, including the Washington Post and the New York Times have articles on McEwen, her as yet unpublished memoir, and her comments about Thomas, their relationship, and the Hill hearing. As a preliminary matter, I believe it's noteworthy and something about it belongs in the article. As to where, I suggest putting it at the end after the sentences about Thomas's and Hill's writings. The McEwen stuff is complex because she certainly had a long-term relationship with Thomas and therefore has a lot to say, her comment about not being subpoeaned to the hearing is interesting, and she's a reputable figure. At the same time, she does have a book she wants to see published, so like a lot of writers, actors, directors, etc., who have a new book or a new film, she has an agenda. I don't think it can be handled in just one sentence.

What do others think?--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For now, it may be sufficient to simply add this news story as a footnote at the end of the sentence that says, "her description of Thomas's alleged entertainment preferences." When the book comes out, maybe we can say more, either in this article or a sub-article or both.

It's unclear to me if the new info corroborates mere personal habits, or instead corroborates the particular behavior that Hill thought might be illegal. If the former, then it's less notable. Suppose some person writes a bio of Ted Kennedy detailing which sex positions he used, and which porn videos he rented; that would all be extremely tangential to his alleged relationship with Mary Jo Kopechne; but, if someone actually witnessed their interaction then that would be more notable. Similarly with Thomas, IMO.166.137.139.116 (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth more than a footnote. As I already stated, it's complex. Therefore, in response to your distinction between someone's personal habits and his actual professional behavior, McEwen's statements discuss both. They also respond to specific things Thomas said at the hearings. I also don't see why it's any less noteworthy now as opposed to when, if ever, the book is published. The book may not be published for a long time or may never be published. Although I think it's important to note that McEwen is "shopping" her book, beyond that, her comments are significant. One side note. I don't believe Hill alleged that what Thomas did was "illegal". The question of whether Thomas's conduct could give rise to a sexual harassment case against him (criminal action seems really dubious) is less important than whether Thomas's alleged conduct was suitable for a member of the Court.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I lean toward not including anything about it, but I could be convinced otherwise (and it is adequately sourced). Her relationship with Thomas was purely personal and not professional, so she has no direct knowledge of Thomas' treatment of his subordinate employees. The information that she provides about Thomas' interest in describing pornography again is in reference to her being his girlfriend, not a subordinate. The only thing I see in her account that might be relevant is her claim that Thomas told her that he asked someone he met at work (not specified whether that person was a subordinate) about her bra size. But that does not corroborate Hill's particular charges and is a little hard to believe (why would he tell his girlfriend of his sexual interest in another woman?). In addition, she does admit that she is politically opposed to his legal philosophy / Court rulings. Drrll (talk) 21:04, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe that McEwen's specific comments have to be precisely the same as Hill's comments to be relevant. The fact that McEwen said that Thomas behaved inappropriately at work and has an example is more than enough to make it notable. This is not just gossip. This comes from someone who was in a relationship with Thomas for five years. It doesn't matter whether it's true. It's unlikely we'll ever know what's true and what's not, which won't, of course, stop us from forming our own opinions (also irrelevant). It matters that it's been reported by the mainstream press and it's relevant to the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to the WaPo article. There doesn't seem to be a lot there that's not already covered by this Misplaced Pages article. Maybe there will be more when the kiss-and-tell book comes out. The only factoid from the WaPo article that seems possibly notable is Thomas allegedly asking someone at work the bra size, but still that in and of itself is not notable. Bill Clinton asked someone at work for a blow job, which seems a bit more momentous than asking about a bra size, and yet the Bill Clinton Misplaced Pages article doesn't mention blow jobs. I realize that requests for evenhandedness don't work at Misplaced Pages, but come on. McEwen doesn't suggest that the person objected or disliked being asked about bra size. Let's not make allegations about Thomas's personal life completely swallow and overwhelm this article.

Thomas's vote was recently the fifth and deciding vote to apply the Second Amendment against the states. This article doesn't mention that, but should mention an alleged question about bra size? Undue weight.166.137.138.210 (talk) 01:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

First, there is no mention in the article about McEwen - that, in and of itself, is notable. Second, we don't necessarily have to use the phrase "bra size" to get the point across, not that I'm saying at this point that I'm against using the phrase. Third, whether Clinton's article talks about oral sex or not is immaterial. Certaily, the Lewinski scandal article goes into fairly graphic detail. Finally, Thomas joined in parts of the majority opinion in McDonald and wrote a separate concurrence. How do you figure he cast the "deciding" vote? Why wasn't it one of the other four? As for your use of the word "swallow" coming on the heels of the phrase "blow job," well... :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 01:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should edit the JFK article to make sure it mentions every woman he slept with. Seriously, you ought to take this to the sub-article on the Thomas-Hill hearings. This article is a summary article that's supposed to summarize the sub-articles. As for the 2d Amendment case, all 5 in the majority were deciding votes, and Thomas rejected the rationale of the other 4. (Incidentally, use of the word "swallow" above was not consciously related to the BJs!)166.137.138.87 (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was that asking someone about bra size, while inappropriate, is not like graphically describing pornography, which Hill alleges. If we include something, it should be exactly what he was alleged to have said and that he allegedly said it to a "womn he encountered at work", rather than in a way that suggests strongly that it was a subordinate. Drrll (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

• I'm of two minds about including this - it seems properly sourced and relevant to a serious account of one of the main chapters in Thomas' life. On the other hand, it might be wise to wait a little so we can avoid overemphasizing it and avoid the temptation to fall into recentism. I am absolutely adamant that if we cover it, we need to reflect the coverage of independent, reliable sources rather than the personal interpretations of individual Wikipedians. This article has been degraded by an insistent and inappropriate tendency for a handful of editors - all of whom tend to take a fairly partisan stance - to bowderlize and recontextualize everything related to Thomas' confirmation hearings to suit their personal preferred spin.

  Reliable, independent sources are clear on the significance of McEwan's claims. We can either choose to honestly and accurately reflect those sources, or we can choose to table this subject until more perspective is available. We don't have the option of spouting our own personal views about whether Thomas' conduct was inappropriate and substituting those for the content of reliable sources. That's a recurring theme in the editing of this page, and it needs to end. MastCell  00:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Unlike what you say, my comments above do not advocate substituting my "own personal views" "for the content of reliable sources." I am advocating not going beyond what the reliable sources say (because some would like to imply in the article that McEwen confirms Anita Hill's allegations). At the same time, Misplaced Pages is not a slave to the transference of partisanship in reporting by left-leaning papers like The Washington Post and The New York Times. And that is precisely what these Talk pages are for--the deciding of what to use from reliable sources. Drrll (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Top-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• High-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class United States courts and judges articles
• High-importance United States courts and judges articles