Talk:Clarence Thomas

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thurgood Marshall image and legend[edit]

@GuardianH: It took me a while to get ahold of second-hand copies in good condition of the two sources you cited in the legend to Thurgood Marshall’s picture you added here with the legend, "Marshall would later give advice to Thomas after the confirmation". 20 minutes later you changed the legend to say, "Marshall would later be an advisor to Thomas after his confirmation." I don’t see anything in the sources that would justify "giving advice", much less "be an advisor", so I’m wondering why you added the image and the legend. Here are the text passages mentioning Marshall on the pages you cited.

  • Foskett, 257-258: In [Marshall’s] own departing news conference, he told the world he saw no difference between a white or a black snake, an apparent reference to Thomas as his likely successor. What galled Marshall more than anything was the notion that he could be replaced by anyone, much less a conservative black man like Thomas. "They think he’s as good as I am, " Marshall grumbled about Thomas, according to a former clerk quoted in his biography.
Marshall believed America and its great Constitution never were and never could be color-blind. He devoted his life to writing color into the law, using America’s historic discrimination of black Americans to make race a factor in public-school education, college admissions, and the workplace. By contrast, Thomas believed America could only become color-blind by expunging color from the law. Marshall spent a lifetime reminding America of its racially stained past: Thomas planned to spend a lifetime eliminatibng race from American law. Marshall’s era was over, and Thomas’s was about to begin.
One pearl of wisdom from Marshall stuck with Thomas. As a black man, Marshall said, Thomas would be held to a different standard. The advice resonated instantly with Thomas because his grandfather also had preached that a black man in America had to work twice as hard to get half as far. All the questions about his qualifications had reinforced that lesson.
Thomas learned later that he would be held to a different standard by black Americans as well as white. And that standard was the great Marshall himself.
  • Greenburg, pg 112: But other liberals were welcoming, including Marshall, the justice Thomas had replaced. Thomas is a gregarious man, and his conversation with Marshall, a renowned storyteller, stretched nearly three hours and ended with a piece of advice from the liberal legend. "I had to do what I had to do in my time," Marshall told Thomas. "You have to do what you have to do in your time."

Marshall said in a conversation after the swearing-in ceremony that as a black man Thomas would be held to a different standard and that he would "have to do what you have to do in your time". It's a stretch calling that "giving advice", much less calling Marshall Thomas's advisor. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Space4Time3Continuum2x Marshall gave advice to Thomas per both the Foskett and Greenburg source; it's not a stretch to call advice advice. Greenburg calls it as such in the third paragraph you have above, not to mention the rest of Marshall's "pearl[s] of wisdom". Greenburg says so also explicitly that at their conversation's end, Marshall gave Thomas a "piece of advice".
I changed the caption actually because I thought using "the confirmation" separated Thomas from being the subject, I later used the word "advisor" as a way to stretch out the caption so the text wouldn't wrap underneath, along with making the whole caption more wordier in general. Either caption is acceptable to me, and I would re-add the first one especially now that there is the new vector. I added the image of Marshall in the first place as a way to illustrate the section, which is a standard writing thing that's been done extensively before; I actually had a whole conversation about it on the photo regarding Dinand Library that is still transposed here. It is not unusual or out of place at all. GuardianH (talk) 19:26, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is this standard writing thing that's been done extensively before you keep referring to? It looks as though you cherry-picked a couple of sources because of an agenda (adding an undue image to establish a connection between civil rights veteran Marshall and Thomas?). I haven't come across any other sources mentioning the encounter after Thomas's swearing-in ceremony or any reports of them ever having met before that time. The way the meeting is described it appears to have been a common courtesy conversation with small talk, trivial and not noteworthy for a bio in an encyclopedia. The caption is an undue generalization of one of the two sources saying that "the conversation ... ended with a piece of advice". Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking me to be a far wittier villain than what were my actually anti-climatic intentions — adding an innocuous image of one's predecessor to illustrate a wordy section, which is a common practice. Take a look at the Quay FA; notice how there is an image of Quay's predecessors (i.e. Senator Don Cameron, whom Quay eclipsed in the Pennsylvania Republican Party), I just did the same thing, with a fun fact tapered at the end. Take also a look at the Oppenheimer article, which has an image of the Trinity Test in the respective section; I also did the same thing, but with an illustration of Thomas' college.
The relationship between a predecessor and a successor, in addition with the two having a three hour conversation, is a connection, by the way. If it wasn't already obvious with Foskett dedicating his second paragraph with a comparison of the two. GuardianH (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A witty villain? You misunderstood me, and you misunderstood/misread Quay’s page. Quay collaborated with Simon and Don Cameron for many years, and their images are in the respective long sections detailing Quay’s collaboration with each of them. Don succeeded Simon in the U.S. Senate and was in office from 1877–1897; Quay held Pennsylvania’s other Senate seat from 1887–1904. He eventually became more powerful in the Pennsylvania Republican Party than Don but I don’t think "political machine boss" is an official title one succeeds to. I still believe that the image is undue but, not wanting to get into an edit war since there are no other opinions on whether to include or not, I replaced the caption with Marshall's opinion of Thomas. Here's the full excerpt from Juan Williams's biography:
Bill Coleman watched some of the hearings with Marshall. "If you want to suffer through the most miserable time, sit in Justice Marshall's chambers with the television on during the time of the Thomas hearings," he said. "I think that if he'd ever felt that the guy to replace him was going to be Thomas, he would have stayed on.... [ellipsis points per the quotation in the book] He just thought it was terrible that a person with such small ability and with that lack of commitment, would be on the court at all, much less to take the seat that he had vacated."
Despite the hearings, Thomas was confirmed in a close vote, 52-48. When Thomas joined the court he did the usual round of courtesy calls for brief conversations with the other justices. But his introduction to Marshall was most memorable. The meeting with Marshall lasted more than two hours, with Marshall doing all the talking, telling stories about his days as a civil rights lawyer as well as his time on the court. Marshall also offered a tip to the newcomer: treat the other justices like a family, where ideological differences do not amount to personal differences.
"Introduction to Marshall ... with Marshall doing all the talking" — their first and, AFAIK, only meeting, and not a conversation. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppenheimer/Trinity test. Similar story — the image of the first detonation of a nuclear weapon ever in a long section about the detonation of the device designed by Oppenheimer is relevant. Image of the library at a school Thomas attended? Not so much. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. An image illustrating the place where Thomas gained his formative education as a student for multiple years is, by that same standard, notable. GuardianH (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x Also, if the FA examples weren't convincing enough for you, check out David Kelly (weapons expert), which irrefutably has an image in the education section that is pretty much the same as the image I added. GuardianH (talk) 15:14, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GuardianH, that's not an image of the library at Linacre College, it's an image of the college itself, i.e, it's main entrance, according to the file's name. The section mentions that he was a student at the college. Thomas's education section says that he attended Holy Cross from his sophomore to his senior year and obtained a BA. It doesn't mention him studying at the library, and why would it? It's a given when you're a student at the college. Fenwick Hall, "the college's flagship building", according to the caption of the image at College of the Holy Cross, would be more appropriate. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Space4Time3Continuum2x Notice now that you are changing your argument — you first favored removing the image, now you say that an image of the college's flagship building is appropriate.
You are doing an incredible amount of hair-splitting in your above message. Thomas was a student at the college, he studied in the library, and not just per your own comment (It's a given when you're a student at the college); the article does mention him studying at the college in the caption. The bottom line is that the college's library is an appropriate representation of the college, and so it is a due illustration. GuardianH (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GuardianH, I’m Amy, you’re Tom, and why do you keep dragging the library and the purported precedents to justify adding the library image into this discussion of an image of Thurgood Marshall and mention of Marshall in the nomination section? When I added an actual source connecting Marshall to the nomination via the televised hearings, you reverted it, saying that "section details his nomination to the supreme court, not what Marshall thought of it". By your reasoning, the picture of Thomas's predecessor is DUE in a section detailing Thomas's nomination, and so is a caption with details about Marshall's retirement and "giv[ing] advice to Thomas after his confirmation" (presumably also based on a primary source quoted somewhere) but the quote of Marshall voicing an opinion on Thomas's qualification for the job to a reliable witness while Marshall is watching the hearings is UNDUE? (BTW, that was an appropriate use of a primary source, a quote cited in a reliable secondary source with proper attribution.) Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...why do you keep dragging the library and the purported precedents to justify adding the library image into this discussion of an image of Thurgood Marshall and mention of Marshall in the nomination section — Actually, you have it backwards – you were the one who brought it back. Check your message on 5 October 15:14. "Similar story — the image of the first detonation of a nuclear weapon ever in a long section about the detonation of the device designed by Oppenheimer is relevant. Image of the library at a school Thomas attended? Not so much." I was responding to that.
Once again, I never doubted the reliability of the said source. The problem is that it is pretty obviously WP:UNDUE; the entire passage doesn't have anything dedicated to Marshall's opinion, or the opinion of any legal figure for that matter. It's especially out of place to lazily taper this quote about Marshall criticizing Thomas at the end of the first section, where it is obviously also out of place on the section chronology. If we had a part for primary stuff dedicated to the opinions of [X] figure, it would be a soapbox for Thomas hagiographies by supporters and a soapbox of polemics by his critics. GuardianH (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you were the one who brought it back — I was replying to your message at 16.27 20.27, 4 Oct 2023 (UTC) (that's 16:27 EDT). I replied at 11:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC) (9:44 EDT) and 12:49, 5 October 2023 (UTC) (8:49 EDT). 5 October 15:14: that's your edit.

obviously undue: you made it relevant and due by adding the picture of Thomas's predecessor, with a caption that you have to drag in by the hair and pound into submission to claim it's based on the sources. None of the other current SC justices sport a picture of their respective predecessor on their WP page, although Ketanji_Brown_Jackson's page has a picture of her and her predecessor smiling into the camera, no dragging or pounding required there. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC) Fixed typo (UTC timestamp). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to do any dragging or pounding for the caption — or any wailing for that matter. An image doesn't necessitate the views of a subject in the same manner that an image of a building doesn't necessitate a clause about its architecture. See WP:OTHER, the only articles worth comparison are FAs, since they are used as examples for other articles. It doesn't have to be a strictly legal article, there are a number of FAs that have an image of a subject's predecessor in the same manner as this one. Like I said, it is probably one of the oldest editing gimmicks out there in terms of imagery, much in the same way as the library image. GuardianH (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)::[reply]
Unarchived, discussion to be continued — considering RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH: The only FA you mentioned is that of Matthew Quay which has an image not of his predecessor in office but images of Simon Coleman Simon Cameron and his son J. Donald Cameron. Quay, for almost two decades, worked for and worked with closely with Simon Coleman Cameron and worked closely with J. Donald Cameron. He eventually "eclipse[d] Don Cameron as Pennsylvania's Republican political boss", hardly an official title. Marshall did not have any kind of working or other relationship with Thomas. Thomas paid all SC justices the customary courtesy visit after he had been administered the judicial oath. Thomas himself wrote about the encounter in "My grandfather's son": What was supposed to have been a brief courtesy call on Justice Marshall ballooned into a two-and-a-half-hour visit, and I loved every minute of it. He regaled me with tales of his long, remarkable careeras a civil rights lawyer. "I would have been shoulder-to-shoulder with you back then—if I'd have the courage," I said. "I did in my time what I had to do," Justice Marshall replied. "You have to do in your time what you have to do." Those words have stayed with me, too. This is trivial, while the caption (Marshall would later give advice to Thomas after the confirmation.) sounds as though Marshall was a mentor to Thomas. And neither Foskett nor Greenburg were in the room with Marshall, so their writing is based on Thomas's account. It's as much WP:PRIMARYNEWS as Marshall's opinion of Thomas, as recounted by his friend William Thaddeus Coleman Jr. to Marshall biographer Williams.[1] Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC) Fixed Wikilink error (replaces incorrect name Simon Coleman with correct name Simon Cameron). Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And neither Foskett nor Greenburg were in the room with Marshall, so their writing is based on Thomas's account. Is there any actual evidence for this? Your synths of material regarding Greenburg and Foskett in making such a conclusion is WP:NOR until actually verifiable by either of them. Like I said previously, we can't make such assumptions as we weren't in the room when they were writing their books. Without any explicit evidence, this is clearly original research on your part and a wild misconclusion. GuardianH (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bibliography and edit history of image, caption, and Marshall's mention in the main space

Bibliography[edit]

  • Williams, Juan (1998). Thurgood Marshall: American Revolutionary. New York: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-8129-3299-4.

References

  1. ^ Williams 1998, p. 394.

Recapping the edit history on Supreme Court justice Thurgood Marshall's image and caption, and of mention of him in the text

  • Space4T 2 Oct rmv of second cite w/editsum saying that it doesn't confirm the caption
  • Space4T 2 Oct correction of first cite w/editsum explanation
  • Space4T 2 Oct removal of caption w/editsum explanation "not confirmed by source"
  • Space4T 2 Oct removal of image w/editsum reason for inclusion unclear—no relationship to subject per body of article
  • Guardian H 3 Oct image and caption restored w/editsum "restore; advice confirmed by sources and image of standard practice" (what does "image of standard practice" mean?)
  • Space4T 5 Oct replace caption w/editsum "Replace caption with Marshall's opinion of Thomas's qualification to replace Marshall on the Supreme Court", citing RS
  • Guardian H 5 Oct rvt w/editsum "the original caption worked fine as a neutral summation; also, the quote is giving WP:UNDUE emphasis"
  • Space4T 6 Oct add Marshall's opinion of Thomas to body of article w/editsum "Adding relevant information (predecessor Marshall's voiced opinion of Thomas's qualification for the court)"
  • Guardian H 7 Oct rvt w/editsum "rv, this is primary and also WP:UNDUE - section details his nomination to the supreme court, not what marshall thought of it"

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Commenting here since 3O was requested. I would say "Marshall would later give advice to Thomas after the confirmation" is nevertheless misleading and it should be removed. The dispute above is valid with regards to the claim if Marshall really "give advice" or not. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 09:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it misleading? It's a statement explicitly verified by the source. GuardianH (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have relisted the discussion at Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. The responding editor has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet and won't be able to respond to your objection. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third opinion - Omit the advice part of the caption. Whether or not and to what extent Marshall gave advice to Thomas can be included in the body of the article if relevant. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The advice part is relevant to Marshall, which is why I included it in the caption. Why do you think it should be omitted? GuardianH (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see why it should be included in the caption - WP:DUE. Also if it is to be mentioned in the article it should have more detail than simply "Marshall gave advice to Thomas". IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A bit more detail to my comment: To say simply "Marshall would later give advice to Thomas after the confirmation.", it is not clear if this was casual/courteous advice on a single occasion or if Marshall was a longterm advisor of Thomas. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Greenburg/ABC News passage[edit]

Greenburg merely paraphrases and quotes excerpts of Thomas's 2007 book. The content is not based on independent research by Greenburg or other journalists but solely on what Thomas wrote, as the full paragraph shows: In his meetings with white Democratic staffers in the Senate, Thomas wrote, he was met with ill-concealed hostility." He says he was "struck by how easy it had become for sanctimonious whites to accuse a black man of not caring about civil rights." But his confirmation hearing to the federal appeals court would prove uneventful, and he got the support of a number of influential African Americans, including William Coleman, co-author of the NAACP's Brown v. Board of Education brief. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The key part is the transitive "but" separating the first two sentences with the third sentence — which is Greenburg talking, and not Thomas. GuardianH (talk) 23:30, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, she's saying Thomas was wrong, and our text is wrong by reversing the chronology. You left out the words following your transitive but: But his confirmation hearing to the federal appeals court would prove uneventful, i.e., the sanctimonious whites didn't accuse him after all, and he received the support of a number of influential African Americans. Rephrasing accordingly. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:09, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't it at all — that has got to be the biggest and most fanciful misreading of the text here. She uses "but" as a transitive word to demonstrate that even though Thomas perceived the affair as hostile to him, it was actually uneventful and he had a lot of support behind him. It doesn't mean that sanctimonious whites didn't accuse him after all — they did. And it doesn't mean that he didn't receive the support of a number of influential African Americans — which he also did. GuardianH (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion to be continued, considering RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

This article used a children’s book as one of its main sources (cited 17 times). It’s a book for grades 6-12. The book doesn’t cite any sources (see its contents page), it merely has a list for "further reading". It’s thus difficult to determine its reliability per WP:TERTIARY and WP:RSTERTIARY and whether or not better sources are available per WP:USETERTIARY and WP:DONTUSETERTIARY. According to the book’s details, the author has an MS in education, taught in the public school system, written 11 children’s books, and "writes from national magazines and newspapers in 16 states". Not sure what that means, i.e., does she use national magazines and newspapers as her sources? Exactly what WP editors use, except she doesn’t say which sources she used, so we can’t determine reliability. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The work in question appears to be meant as an educational work (i.e., a textbook) as part of Infobase Publishing's Black Americans of Achievement Series. It is quite similar to an introductory undergraduate-level textbook of the kind mentioned in WP:TERTIARY. In addition to the aforementioned details about her, Cox also teaches at Drury University.
@Space4Time3Continuum2x The website has mistranscribed Cox's background. She does not write from national magazines and newspapers in 16 states as you stated, but rather what the text is actually meant to say is that she writes for national magazines and newspapers in 16 states. This correct version is the one which appears in the book on Page 112. So, she doesn't just draw from national magazines and newspapers as her sources. It doesn't appear uncommon also for biographical textbooks to omit a bibliography page, and to instead add a Further Reading section in cases where the general chronology and events are settled, which is probably what Cox decided. GuardianH (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Clarence Thomas is one of the most-written-about people in politics. There is no shortage of high-quality reliable sources, so it's pretty embarrassing that we lean so heavily on a children's book. That's not what one would expect from a high-quality reference work of the sort that Wikipedia aspires to be. Nor is a children's book "quite similar" to an college-undergrad-level textbook. MastCell Talk 00:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If Cox is to be replaced, there needs to be time for replacement. I'll need some time to rewrite the passage with other books. GuardianH (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book doesn't have notes, and it’s a book recommended for reading age 12–17 and grade level 7–9, per the publisher’s product details ([1], [2]). According to this, she taught at Drury University from 2001-2003, and she’s not on Drury University’s current faculty. If Jrank is right — the info on the publisher and the bibliography checks out — then Chelsea House should not have claimed in the 2006 book you cited that she was "currently teach[ing] at Drury University". Based on the bio (a book on HTML, vice president and president (see also pg. 22) of the Missouri Writers Guild from 2001-2003) I would assume that she was teaching writing and/or web design, not history or journalism. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 13:59, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There certainly may be better sources than Cox, but because better sources are available are no grounds for removing a source entirely. Cox is not necessarily a children's book - that is a mischaracterization. The website states that the reading level of the book is for ages 12–17; this does not constitutes a children's book at all. Seriously, most books (and news articles, for that matter) are at the reading level of a high schooler — this obviously does not mean that Cox is unreliable because she writes in a manner understandable for people aged 12–17. GuardianH (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book is a tertiary source for ages 12–17, i.e., children, in grades 6-12, per the publisher's details on Amazon, or 7–9, per the publisher's details on Infobase Publishing. Grades 6—8 are not high school. If the books is suitable for pre-high schoolers, then it's not high school level. As for your second restoration of the 17 cites, I'm not going to revert it because we're now in edit-warring territory but you may want to consider self-reverting. Your edit summary cites WP:PROVEIT which would put the onus on you since you would be restoring material IF I had removed any material. I didn't, 'though, I removed the cites. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 22:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Citations are a part of an article's material. You cannot go to an article, remove all the citations, then state that you have not removed any material. GuardianH (talk) 21:34, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are unsuitable, you can absolutely do that. Cortador (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you remove suitable sources? GuardianH (talk) 21:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a typo - I meant unsuitable sources. Cortador (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the typo in the original message. Well, in the discussion we haven't come to a conclusion regarding Cox' reliability or that of Infobase Publishing, but we do agree that there are better sources than Cox and that it should be replaced with definitively better sources.
It is wrong to remove the cites without replacing them with those better sources, so until that is completed — I'm the only active writer on the page — Cox should be gradually phased out as I find better sources, and as some other editors can help me replace Cox with better sources. Carpet bombing the citations and leaving the material unsourced solves nothing, as WP:PROVEIT pointed out. GuardianH (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

we haven't come to a conclusion — at what point would you consider a discussion having come to a conclusion? Two or three editors contradicting your opinion and none supporting you apparently isn't conclusive enough. I'm the only active writer on the page — really? Admittedly, you have been very active reverting edits. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 14:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fenwick Scholar[edit]

@GuardianH: You added the sentence saying Thomas had been a Fenwick scholar, citing Cox and Brady as sources, on July 22, 2023. I just tried to correct that information, and you immediately reverted my edit with an edit summary that doesn't address the problem. Sure, brady source confirms that the Fenwick Scholarship is one of the college's highest honors, when she is writing about Theodore Wells Jr., the Fenwick Scholar who's also mentioned as one of Holy Cross's five 1972 Fenwick Scholars (Thomas isn't among them, and he doesn't mention the honor in his memoir, either). Please, cite the passage in Brady that says Thomas was a Fenwick Scholar or self-revert. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Brady also isn't a source for Thomas having applied to and been accepted at the University of Pennsylvania Law School but I didn't get around to correcting that information because your revert of my previous edit interfered. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's in the Cox source. GuardianH (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And you cited Brady as a source for both claims because? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 19:54, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To give background on the Fenwick Scholarship, which Cox doesn't do — i.e., it's one of the highest honors of the college. GuardianH (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Brady doesn't say that Thomas was a Fenwick Scholar, and she doesn't say that Thomas applied to and was accepted at UPenn Carey Law. You can't cite her as a source for either statement. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 20:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cox says that Thomas was a Fenwick scholar; Brady says that its one of the highest honors at the college. GuardianH (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, WP:SYNTH? Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 16:46, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas writes on pg.61 of "My Grandfather’s Son" that by the end of junior year he "was accepted into the honors program and [] became a member of Alpha Sigma Nu, the Jesuit equivalent of Phi Beta Kappa". The honors program is one of the two "scholar programs" at Holy Cross, the other being Fenwick. Makes me think that he would have mentioned Fenwick if he had been named a Fenwick Scholar. I tagged the inconsistencies and missing reliable secondary sources in the second to last paragraph of Clarence_Thomas#Education. Quoting Justice Marshall's "advice" to Thomas (mentioned prominently in the caption to Marshall's undue photograph but not quoted): "I did in my time what I had to do. You have to do in your time what you have to do." Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second SC confirmation hearing[edit]

@GuardianH: Re this material added on Aug 2, deleted on November 20 and reinserted four hours later:

After the confirmation hearings ended, the event became a focus of divided scholarship, with authors who revisited it reaching varying conclusions.

We can’t say this in Wikivoice. It’s one scholar’s opinion from 10 years ago that needs attribution, and more articles and books have been written since then. She also didn't mention who the authors of the "numerous books and articles" were, the usual suspects being scholars and journalists but she doesn't say. This is the RS text, one paragraph in a 28-page biography in a compendium of short biographies of SC justices published in April 2013:

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

Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 12:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but what you just said is completely unreasonable. Susan N. Herman is a scholar writing the dictionary entry, and in that particular passage she is commenting on the scholarship at the time. The attribution is her own writing; scholars have subject-matter expertise.
It’s one scholar’s opinion from 10 years ago that needs attribution — 2013 is not an unreasonable date nor is it old enough to require "attribution".
and more articles and books have been written since then. — As if articles and books are not always being written. This is another unreasonable point. There has been no big paradigm shift in the Anita Hill hearings since then, and the view expressed by Herman can hardly be said to have radically changed.
She also didn't mention who the authors of the "numerous books and articles" were, the usual suspects being scholars and journalists but she doesn't say. — Because she's writing a dictionary entry! Like I said, this is her scholarly analysis. GuardianH (talk) 20:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation hearings - divided scholarship[edit]

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

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

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

Bibliography

References

  1. ^ Robin 2019, p. 163.
  2. ^ Abramson, Jill (February 19, 2018). "Do You Believe Her Now?". Intelligencer. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
  3. ^ Jacobs, Julia (September 20, 2018). "Anita Hill's Testimony and Other Key Moments From the Clarence Thomas Hearings". The New York Times. Retrieved November 22, 2023.
  4. ^ Hutchinson, Dennis J. (September 5, 2004). "Hutchinson Reviews Judging Thomas". The University of Chicago Law School. Retrieved November 22, 2023.

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

Just saw this (I left to work on some other projects, so lost tabs on this tp). Much of the scholarly discourse over Clarence Thomas and his 1991 confirmation hearings has definitely slowed down. This isn't unfounded of course, because there hasn't been a bombshell report resulting in any paradigm shifts, so a big factor has been personal views and so on. That's why Herman is useful — because what she said as president of the ACLU then is still true. What's most important is that what she said isn't incredibly novel or contested, hence why her voice isn't in WP:INTEXT.
Because of this, there are obvious flareups about Thomas and, by extension, his confirmation hearings whenever he is in the news. A lot of the more recent academic and scholarly sources appear to favor Thomas, actually. Recent news reports are more critical by contrast. This contrast should be treated with care like WP:RECENTISM, which is also why Herman is so important because she is writing with an aim toward a long-term, historical view. GuardianH (talk) 12:06, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The second hearing section quotes Thomas's "high-tech lynching" speech at length in a quotebox. The third paragraph of the section said that Scholars and researchers later wrote that Thomas's "high-tech lynching" speech saved his nomination by placing the focus of the Senate hearings on race and racism and away from sexual harassment.[1][2][3].

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

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

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

References

  1. ^ Tate, Katherine (January 1, 1992). "Invisible Woman". The American Prospect. Retrieved November 23, 2023.
  2. ^ Massie, Victoria M. (April 16, 2016). "How racism and sexism shaped the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearing". Vox (website). Retrieved November 23, 2023. Quote: With that, Thomas set the terms of the conversation. Sitting in front of an all-white, all-male Senate Judiciary Committee, he strategically changed the focus of the hearing from sexual harassment allegations against him to alleged racist politicking from the Senate.
  3. ^ Rosenwald, Michael S. (September 27, 2018). "'A high-tech lynching': How Brett Kavanaugh took a page from the Clarence Thomas playbook". The Washington Post. Retrieved November 23, 2023. Quote: Circus. Lynched. Destroyed. Those words set the tone for how Thomas saved his nomination, a defense that was later deemed shrewd and “well designed” by communication and rhetoric experts. ... In an 18-page analysis of Thomas' testimony, scholars from the University of Missouri dissected what they called Thomas's "image repair strategy." … Though Hill and Thomas are both black, Thomas was able to make race an issue by turning the focus to the all-male, all-white Judiciary Committee and other powerful — and white — senators, all of whom were extremely sensitive to charges of racism, whether toward Hill or him. "Thomas' decision to attack his accusers (in the Senate) deflected attention away from charges of sexual harassment (Thomas allegedly victimizing Hill) to charges of racism (the Senators victimizing Thomas)," the Missouri researchers wrote. "If the Senate voted against Thomas, that could appear to prove they were acting as racists. But if the Senate confirmed Thomas, that would suggest that they weren't racist. This means that Thomas made his confirmation the means to an end desired by the Senate."

Adequacy[edit]

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

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

Thomas has been called the most conservative member of the Supreme Court,[1][2][3] though others gave Scalia that designation while they served on the Court together.[4][5] Thomas's influence, particularly among conservatives, was perceived to have significantly increased during Donald Trump's presidency,[6][7] and Trump appointed many of his former clerks to political positions and judgeships.[8][9][10] As the Supreme Court became more conservative, Thomas and his legal views became more influential on the Court.[11][12][13] This influence increased further by 2022, with Thomas authoring an opinion expanding Second Amendment rights and contributing to the Court's overruling of Roe v. Wade. He was also the most senior associate justice by that time.[14][15][16]

GuardianH (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GuardianH (talk) 10:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those citations are not the ones being referenced.Summerdays1 (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:LEADCITE. The lede repeats information already sourced in the body, so the citations are covered in the body, rather than the lede. GuardianH (talk) 13:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're not clear. I could put only the references in the article but you will remove them. Summerdays1 (talk) 02:29, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You placed unnecessary citations in the lede, when it already has sourcing in the body – I went over this not too long ago. GuardianH (talk) 11:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Toobin 2007, p. 99.
  2. ^ Lazarus, Edward (October 1, 2007). "Book Review – It seems Justice Thomas is still seeking confirmation – My Grandfather's Son A Memoir Clarence Thomas". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on February 22, 2016. Retrieved February 20, 2020.
  3. ^ "Clarence Thomas: The Justice Nobody Knows – Supreme Court Justice Gives First Television Interview To 60 Minutes". CBS News. September 27, 2007. Retrieved April 20, 2023.
  4. ^ Marshall, Thomas (2008). Public Opinion and the Rehnquist Court. New York City: SUNY Press. p. 79. ISBN 9780791478813. Archived from the original on January 3, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2016.
  5. ^ Von Drehle, David (June 29, 2004). "Executive Branch Reined In". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on March 2, 2017. Retrieved August 25, 2017.
  6. ^ Gresko, Jessica (May 4, 2019). "Justice Clarence Thomas's moment may finally have arrived". Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 19, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  7. ^ Casey, Nicholas (May 18, 2020). "Passed By for Decades, Clarence Thomas Is a New Symbol of the Trump Era". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  8. ^ Sherman, Mark (August 4, 2018). "22 former Justice Thomas clerks have jobs thanks to Trump". Associated Press. Archived from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  9. ^ Green, Emma (July 10, 2019). "The Clarence Thomas Effect". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on July 19, 2020. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  10. ^ Lat, David (August 3, 2017). "The Clarence Thomas Clerk Mafia: Legal Brain Trust Of The Trump Administration". Above the Law. Retrieved July 18, 2020.
  11. ^ Gass, Henry (July 8, 2021). "To understand this Supreme Court, watch Clarence Thomas". The Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on July 9, 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2021.
  12. ^ De Vogue, Ariane (May 20, 2021). "Clarence Thomas awaits his chance to drive the conservative majority on abortion and guns". CNN. Archived from the original on July 10, 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2021.
  13. ^ McGurn, William (May 24, 2021). "God Save the Clarence Thomas Court". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on July 9, 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2021.
  14. ^ Gresko, Jessica (June 30, 2022). "Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has a lot to celebrate". Associated Press. Retrieved July 4, 2022.
  15. ^ Baker, Sam (July 2, 2022). "Clarence Thomas is at the peak of his power". Axios. Retrieved July 4, 2022.
  16. ^ Roche, Darragh (June 24, 2022). "How Clarence Thomas Finally Triumphed in 30-Year Battle Against Roe v. Wade". Newsweek. Retrieved July 4, 2022.

In popular culture - John Oliver addition[edit]

In the popular culture section of this entry there should be a new bullet point along the lines of:

- On February 18, 2024 Clarence Thomas was offered 1 million USD a year from actor John Oliver to sign a contract and step down from the supreme court.

Sources: - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE-VJrdHMug Jzkhockey (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube video won't work (primary source and all that), but there's plenty of secondary sourcing available, such as:
  • Paúl, María Luisa (2024-02-19). "Clarence Thomas has 30 days to resign if he wants millions from John Oliver". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2024-02-24. Retrieved 2024-03-08. "If we're going to keep the bar of accountability this low, perhaps it's time to exploit that low bar the same way billionaires have successfully done for decades," Oliver said on Sunday's episode of HBO's "Last Week Tonight," before announcing the offer he had for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: $1 million per year if he steps down from his post immediately. Oliver is also throwing in a new $2.4 million motor coach that's outfitted with a king-size bed, four televisions and a fireplace — a potential deal-sweetener for Thomas, who has come under fire for receiving significant gifts and favors from a network of wealthy friends and patrons.
Locke Coletc 00:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GuardianH removed a link to the main article discussing the piece John Oliver did (it was a section link) claiming WP:EGG was somehow applicable. I'm not seeing the issue? —Locke Coletc 04:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, the link you provided went to the John Oliver Show under Supreme Court (referencing the Supreme Court as a whole), so I assumed that there was other material on the Supreme Court for Oliver under the section, but I just checked and there's just the Thomas event. It might be better renamed "Clarence Thomas wager" or something like that. GuardianH (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is it safe to relink to the section? —Locke Coletc 19:58, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep GuardianH (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]