Talk:Clarence Thomas

Opinion piece on WaPo regarding Hill controversy

This article [1] has some interesting assertions in it to support why the author takes Hill's side over Thomas's side. Does anyone think some of this information should be included? Remember 19:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It depends on how its included. I don't know if an Op-Ed piece on the Anita Hill controversy from this year will necessarily fit as a reliable source. If the source is included as an example of how this person takes Anita Hill's side, that's one thing, but I'm not sure that's notable. However, I doubt that an Op-Ed piece's assertions themselves can used as a reliable source in a wikipedia article. This is especially true considering that the writer is obviously taking a biased view point. I guess you could include some her refutations of Thomas' points in his book, but you risk taking an already large section in this article and extending it even further. The detail should reflect the notability of the event in relation to everything else in the article. The Anita Hill controversy is significant, but its far from the most significant thing about Thomas. --Jdcaust 19:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Checking the Anita Hill section again, it seems to be prominent because of a long quote from Thomas. Perhaps a better way to cover this controversy is to remove or cut-down the quote, then give a cited overview of both Thomas' and Hill's side of the events. In any case, the section could use some improvement. --Jdcaust 19:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the section might need work, but removing the commentary of Thomas at the hearing is not a good way to edit the section. There is no one whose opinion at that hearing is more important than Thomas's. Also, there is no opinion of any commentator who wasn't at that hearing that is as important as Thomas's, especially as this particular article is concerned. This article is about Thomas and he deserves to have his side of the story told, from his perspective, not the perspective of Rush Limbaugh or Ted Kennedy or Joe Biden. Any cited overview is going to be slanted whether it comes from a pro-Thomas supporter or a anti-Thomas supporter. From that perspective is much better to have him speak for himself and let the reader decide, not some Wikipedian. And remember that is the point of view that this encyclopedia aims to take, a neutral one. It is his article, not Anita Hill's, not Ted Kennedy's. Thomas should have his say, and not the truncated words of a Wikipedian, if it is then we run the risk of bringing POV into the article.--JobsElihu 02:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

When you get into the "Anita Hill" controversity related to approval of Supreme court nominees you're getting into the argument about reasons for pro or con voting on the subject matter; And in doing so you're neglecting the controversity about whether senators were supposed to consider anything other than judicial qualifications in judging the candidates and that the previous nominee (Bork) was agreed to be eminently qualified but was voted down nevertheless.WFPMWFPM (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

From SEPT. 16 on this talk page: "Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) (UTC))" Garcia never follows through on his promise to address the situation and ignores every comment in the RfC that supports cutting down and balancing the allegations section. In fact if you scroll through the talk page you'll find that RafaelGarcia simply went on adding more one-sided and largely irrelevant information. Are these the actions of a good faith editor? He's had the same problems on other articles. It gets old going round and round with this delusional liar. (Wallamoose (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

The information currently in the article here on Wikipedia is merely an expanded version of the information that has been there for a long time, placed there by other editors. In contrast, when you first started editing the article, you sought to remove entirely the accusations of Angela Wright, Sukari Hardnett, and others, and you tried to minimize the impact of Anita Hill's accusations. This was one-sided and dishonest. Shame on you. Almost all of the edits I made to the relevant section were using sources YOU provided; I just wasn't saying what you wanted to say. Thank you for doing the work for both of us. As to your request, I'm not required to follow your instructions, and neither is anyone else. If you want to be constructive, try working on material that will actually go into the article and stop crying about how people don't like your edits. I will try to respond once per day at night until my finals are over. Again, I never deleted your edits from this week; all I did was move them, because it is standard practice to provide one side of the story, then the other. You tried to immediately refute Anita Hill's story with a paragraph immediately after it, in the way of other testimony about Clarence Thomas's sexual misconduct and gross perversions, which makes for confusing reading. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It is sad that left and ignorance reigns so aften in a medium which started with great potential. That is why it is held in such low esteem by even left academia and even many high schools reject it as a source. That Anita Hill was a part of the confirmation is appropriate. That there were supporting and opposing witnesses is fine and a general statement as to the allegations is fine. But the lurid re-enactment and replay of the back and forth has little academic or other value. This apparently at one time was a bio of the man. Wikipedia has taken that away by overwhelming the man's life with one never proven relationship. If someone thinks this "coke can pubic hai" exposure has social redeeming value then why not put it in a setting where someone is interested in that subject; like the pornographic allegations against judges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.41.137.62 (talk) 16:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the above is a very perceptive comment as to the current state of this article, and is germane to the current dispute.--Paul (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

I've never really commented before, so sorry if I made a procedural error, but I wanted to point out that fn 25 is broken. The whole sentence it's in really needs better sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.233.180.240 (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Fn 22 is broken as well.

I added the broken sources template to the top of the references section, I looked it up and it said this was the proper thing to do.

Also FN 9 links to a title with no corresponding information contained within the site.

The sentence supported by FN 23 appears a bit one sided to me. The section makes it appear that Thomas is steered by his clerk who worked for Scalia previously, imputing that Thomas would then vote like Scalia. The reader should also consider that Landau, the clerk, clerked for Thomas on the D.C. Circuit before he joined the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia, which to me undermines this proposition. See http://www.kirkland.com/sitecontent.cfm?contentID=220&itemID=8991 for Landau's bio. Because Landau clerked for Thomas before he clerked for Scalia, unless Scalia profoundly influenced Landau's thinking, Landau was probably the same thinker he was on the D.C. Circuit 2 years earlier when he clerked for Thomas. This would diminish the importance of the statement that Landau clerked for Scalia before Thomas and thus the proposition that Thomas follows Scalia. Thanks! 68.43.180.105 (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)c1nn

Unreferenced POV

I removed this.

Considering, however, that Jeffords later left the Republican Party in order to caucus with Democrats, and thus give the Democrats majority status in the Senate, and considering that Packwood had a very liberal voting record, essentially voting with the Democrats on all major issues, the negative vote was essentially along party lines.

I think the ideas expressed have some validity. And certainly Jeffords later leaving the party is a fact. But calling Packwood "liberal" is opinion unless you can cite some sources. The next leap from Packwood being liberal and Jeffords being independent meaning the vote "was essentially along party lines" goes a bit too far. Are all Republicans conservative and all Democrats liberal, so any liberal Republican is "essentially" a Democrat? If you can find a well-known pundit, historian, etc. who has made this point about the vote being essentially on party lines, we can use it. Otherwise it is original research simply opinion. Readin (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking

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

Missing Witnesses and bad title under the "Allegations of sexual harassment" section

1) Don't you need to have some mention of the women who came into refute the charges against Thomas. The section mentions Thomas defense of himelf and also his "high tech lynching" remark but a lot of things happened after his remarks. Remember all the women who came in and defended him? Women who worked for him? Surely you don't mean to pretend that it was simply Thomas's use of the race card that turned the tide for him? Those women witness were very persuasive and very powerful. I remember first seeing Hill's testimony and remarking to my wife that Thomas was done. But, after Thomas's spirited response and after the witnesses for Thomas were heard, Hill pulled her other witnesses and backed away from the whole thing. Even with all the pressure put on her by Nina Totenberg!

2) Sexual harrassment was not alleged as I remember -- this term crept in to use later after Anita Hill started making the speech circuit -- and as I remember -- after Bill Clinton had real sexual harrassment problems. The original term used by Hill and everyone else in testimony was "inappropriate behavior". Lkoler (talk) 03:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Your points are absolutely correct. This page is repeatedly being corrupted by the inclusion of false statements in this section. The perpatrators have taken out any mention of those whose testimony refuted Anita Hill's. They also insist on stating that Angela Wright testified before the committee which is absolutely false. In fact there is an ongoing debate about why she did NOT testify and how it might have affected the proceedings. How do we stop these lies from being included in this article? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Hi, I'm just popping in as an uninvolved admin. I have no preference one way or the other on the article content, but do have some suggestions on how to proceed:

• Keep all communications civil
• Keep discussions focused on the article content, and not on the contributors
• Keep discussions based on reliable sources. Never speak from personal knowledge, speak only from what is already published and can be verified
• Don't engage in revert wars. Simply edit-warring to try and get a preferred version of the article, is never effective.
• Build consensus on the talkpage. Produce sources, engage in good faith discussion with other editors. If necessary, request comments from other editors.
• See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for other suggestions on how to resolve the dispute. Remember, the ultimate goal is to produce a high-quality article, which best serves our readers, and reflects positively on Wikipedia.

Hope that helps, --Elonka 19:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Approach to Oral Arguments POV

The article states that Clarence Thomas is famous for being silent during oral arguments... because he spoke a different dialect when younger? This seems like a stretch. Even the quote from his book offers no insight - many people, including other Justices, were quiet children, became excellent "listeners", and now participate vigorously in the oral give-and-take. Also, this sentence: "Thomas is uncomfortable in the rapid pacing of oral argument discussions, the supposition being he prefers a more cerebral, quieter environment in which to carefully contemplate matters of constitutional law." The footnote goes to the SCOTUS blog, and isn't searchable, and thus the whole statement - or "supposition" is utter conjecture. Much of this paragraph reads like pro-Thomas political spin.

Compare it to the "analysis" section and criticism mentioned in the entry for Justice Anthony Kennedy: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Kennedy)

"Conservatives have generally been critical of Kennedy's Supreme Court jurisprudence, with some calling his rulings poorly-reasoned." "Conservative commentator Rich Lowry called Kennedy the Supreme Court's 'worst justice', writing that his written opinions 'have nothing whatsoever to do with the Constitution', and amount to 'making it up as he goes along.'"

And no such opprobrium cited for Thomas? Even though "clarence thomas" + "worst supreme court justice ever" gets over a thousand distinct hits on Google? If Justice Kennedy's alleged unpopularity is open territory, certainly the antipathy for Clarence Thomas deserves mention. Ecstasy426 (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett

Angela Wright Sukari Hardnett never testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee. This article has contained false statements about their role in the process for two years, and it's time to finally correct the record.

Here's an interview with Wright on NPR. You'll notice the FACT that she didn't testify is discussed. http://www.npr.org/about/press/2007/100907.wright.html

Here's a government website detailing all the witnesses and the documents submitted during the Clarence Thomas nomination process. You'll notice that Angela Wright never testifies. Instead her phone interview by Senate staff is included in the record. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html

Here's another blog discussing what could have been if Wright had been called to testify. http://www.aliciapatterson.org/APF1602/Graves/Graves.html

Here's an article discussing what COULD have happened if Angela Wright had been called to testify and speculating why she wasn't. http://www.democraticwings.com/democraticwings/archives/womens_rights/003490.php (Wallamoose (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

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

Now it doesn't. Please stop putting false information in this article. I've been kind enough to provide you with several sources substantiating the fact that Angela Wright and Sukari Hardnett DID NOT TESTIFY BEFORE THE COMMITTEE. So why would you continue to try to include false statements about their role in his nomination? Clearly discussion of allegations made by people who never testified at the hearings doesn't belong in this article. There is a long witness list of people who DID testify and no mention of any of them is included in this article. Please stop abusing your edit privilges.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

The wiki article never said Wright formally testified. She told committee members; she didn't formally testify.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The version of the article you are trying to maintain says she "told" the committee AND says she "testified". Neither statement is true. She was INTERVIEWED over the phone by SENATE STAFF and a transcript included in the record. That is the extent of her involvement in the nomination process. Why would you want to include information about her in an article that doesn't say anything about any of the witnesses that actually testified at the hearings??? Also, please don't delete my comments from the discussion page. I haven't deleted any of yours.(Wallamoose (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

OK, the Wright section doesn't use the "T" word anymore. That's fine. You could have changed that yourself, but instead you tried to nuke the whole section, which is partisan and dishonest. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your own citation shows she was interviewed on the phone by Senate staff. She was never called as a witness. She never testified before the committee. She never spoke with committee members. And there is no reason she should be talked about in this article, especially with gross mischaracterizations about her role. There is no mention of any of the witnesses that gave sworn testimony before the committee.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright is completely on topic for the section on Thomas being such a perv. Her interview with senators belongs there and is backed up with many sources. If you want to add further information about Thomas's appointment, I believe you could add the info here, or even on the specific article for that. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You've deleted any mention of the fact that Wright was fired by Thomas. Furthermore, several witnesses testified under oath before the committee that Angela Wright was fired for misconduct. Evidence was also presented that she had a history of misconduct at other employers. This is why she was never called as a witness. This is why she played no role in the actual hearings. I understand you have a personal bias against Justice Thomas as is made clear by your comments, but this is an encyclopedic entry about his career. Not your personal soap box. There is no discussion of any witnesses that actually testified at the hearings on Thomas's behalf. There is no place for discussion of tangential allegations by persons whose credibility issues prevented their being called as witnesses.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Your own allegations are entirely untrue. I added a sentence about Thomas's firing Wright; one did not exist there before today. If you have further information that could be added to the section, then add it in a contrary paragraph. You do not have the right to nuke the parts of the article on Hardnett and Wright. Wright's employment history is not at issue in the article; she is relevant only insofar as she is one of the many women in Thomas's life, from different stages of his life, who had to suffer his inappropriate remarks and actions. Furthermore, I have no personal bias. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Protected page

I have protected the page for three days. Please discuss the potential changes here rather than reverting them back and forth on the article. Useight (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

To say that you've "protected" this page may be technically true, but what you've done is allowed personal bias to be maintained in an official entry on an important government official. I don't mean to be nasty or difficult, but why on earth would discussion of allegations by persons never called to testify at the hearings be included in an article about Clarence Thomas when there is no discussion of any of the many witnesses who actually testified on Thomas's behalf. Other users have posted in the discussion section and tried to address this bias, but our efforts have been unsuccessful.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Wright's interview with Judicial Committee staff is entirely relevant to the section on allegations of Thomas's sexual misconduct. The interview is in the government record and belongs in the article. If you wish to add more information about other witnesses, you should do so, but that doesn't mean you can wipe out the info and citations about two women and their allegations in regard to Thomas. What we have in this situation is a pattern of misbehavior by Thomas, over years of his life, at different employers, and that news did get out. Just because Wright did not officially testify does not mean she does not deserve mention. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

As you well know I have added this information repeatedly and you've chosen to delete it. But I'm happy you have agreed here that you will allow this information to be included in future edits. I trust you will keep your word.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

You "added" the information by deleting evidence of Wright and others' statements and making assertions without citations. That passes no standard. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

False Statements in this Article

Angela Wright and Sudari Hardnett

The information on Angela Wright and Hardnett should include the fact that neither one ever testified and they weren't called as witnesses because of their credibility problems.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The wikipage doesn't say they testified. As for alleged credibility problems, do us the favor of pointing to the relevant page in that massive opinion piece. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

p.9 (the page the link is to) paragraph one. (Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The word "credibility" is not even on that page. You are dishonestly smearing these women. We agree that they didn't testify, though the relevant interviews are in the record.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rose Jourdain

"Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." Rose Jourdain never testified.

http://people.virginia.edu/~ybf2u/Thomas-Hill/part3.html (witness list)

This is a personal page and is not a reliable source. If I were a student at UVA, I could have my own personal page up there saying that even you testified. RafaelRGarcia(talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (official government website including a complete witness list and all documents included in the record. Rose Jourdain never testified, as I suspect you are already aware.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove or alter the sentence, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment" in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section to indicate that Rose Jourdain never testified. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.

It would be dishonest and wrong to remove the sentence. Jourdain did not testify, but the article states she corroborated the statement and would do so publicly if necessary. Jourdain was interviewed by Senate Committee staff, and though the Hill occurrences predated the time period where the phrase "sexual harassment" gained popularity, Thomas's behavior is clearly consistent with the popular conception of the term. On pages 15 and 16 of www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/512-559.pdf Jourdain speaks of Thomas's "increasingly aggressive behavior" and Wright's becoming "increasingly upset and increasingly unnerved." I will be adding these details to the article when it is unlocked. It is true that Jourdain did not "testify" formally; that is not the right verb. But she did relay and corroborate the story to Senate staff of Thomas's sexual harassment of Anita Hill. I am removing the editprotect template until you come up with a version of the paragraph that gains consensus. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As your statement makes clear there is no disagreement that Jourdain never testified. The sentence should be corrected to reflect this fact. Please don't remove my editprotect request again(Wallamoose (talk) 02:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

You are not following the Wikipedia rules. You have to have a specific request; ie, you have to rewrite the sentence. I am clearly disagreeing with you, so there is no consensus here. I removed the editprotect template and will continue to do so as needed. Rewrite the sentence in a way that achieves consensus. Removing the sentence is not agreed on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As you state in you edit 0:49, 16 Sept., "Jourdain did not testify". So there is no dispute over this issue. Please state the edit needed to remedy the article so we can move forward and end this edit war. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

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

Dispute over why witnesses were never called

"Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony."

There is no evidence Biden stopped anyone from testifying. This is an allegation he denies. And there is an ongoing argument about why certain witnesses were never called and who made those decisions. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/440.pdf (Letter sent from Biden to Wright that details the agreement by all parties (including Wright) that the subpeona be vitiated. "I wish to make clear however, that if you want to testify at the hearing I will honor that request.- Jospeh R. Biden"(Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Please remove the sentence, "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony" from the allegations of sexual abuse section as it is not true. See above.

You are misusing the editprotect template, as you have not achieved a consensus. Wright signed the document but it seems she did not do so freely. You are only presenting one side of the issue, and you are being dishonest. In this interview with NPR, Wright says more about not getting to testify. I will get back to this issue tomorrow. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15113601 RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate that you removed my editprotect request. You've only chosen to comment now after the editprotect request was made. And your argument doesn't support keeping the sentence in the article as written. While you provide Wright's argument that she claims she wanted to testify, I've provided verifiable court records that say otherwise. As we've discussed previously, I know there is a controversy about why Angela Wright (and others) never testified. That's why I've repeatedly tried to change or modify the statement that says Joe Biden made the decision. He refutes that. The letter from the trial refutes that. And nothing in what you've said changes the fact that there's a controversy over why certain persons were never called to testify and it's factually incorrect to say "Sen. Joseph Biden, chair of the Judiciary Committee, decided against publicly hearing Wright's testimony".

The factual truth is not established. With some quick googling, I found other sources saying that Biden did pretty much block the testimony. We have to reach consensus on the edits to be made. You are misusing the editprotect template. That is obvious. I am not able to respond to your comments immediately because I am a dual-degree student at top law and business schools; I am busier than you are. The fact that you added editprotect has nothing to do with it. Do not add another template again until you've reached consensus. This is impossible until tomorrow evening, when I'll be more free to participate here, as I have no class on Wednesdays.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state your suggestion to correct the sentence so we can move forward to fix the article and end this edit war. (Wallamoose (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Deletion of any mention of Thomas's witnesses and evidence

The record is absolutely clear that no one ever testified alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas except Anita Hill. In fact Clarence provided documentation and numerous credible witnesses refuting any and all such claims, but the editors of this page have refused to allow any of this information in the article.

You have not tried to shore up Thomas's side of the issue; instead you have consistently tried to nuke the sections. As a result, your edits were reverted, not just by me.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101941114-163252,00.html "...the fact that the four women who came to Washington to corroborate Hill's story were never called to testify..." and "What we know for certain is that Hill was left as the sole accuser".

The wikipage does not say other women formally testified. Thank you for the source on four women corroborating sexual misbehavior; I will add it to the wikipage in a few days. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Your statement is false. No one ever testified that they could corroborate any of Hill's allegations. And no one ever testified that they had been harassed by Thomas. (Wallamoose (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

The article you cited clearly states that four women went to DC to corroborate the story. They were not called on, but they still corroborate. I will add this to the article when it is unlocked. Thank you.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article states, "Rose Jourdain testified that Wright had discussed Thomas' behavior with her at the time it occurred, and that she had considered it sexual harassment." But I'm glad you agree that it shouldn't so we can have this misinformation removed.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/921012/archive_018473_9.htm p. 9 paragraph 3.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

problems with heresay and refusal to act

"Additionally, Ellen Wells, John W. Carr, Judge Susan Hoerchner, and Joel Paul testified that Hill had discussed Thomas's actions at the time she worked for Thomas and that she had characterized them as sexual harassment." Yet none of these professionals advised Hill to keep a record of the incidents. No evidence was ever provided to support her allegations and she contradicted herself on the stand. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC))

Your partisan assertions are meaningless without citations. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

My citation is the court record. It's been cited repeatedly. How many times do you want me to cite it? (Wallamoose (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

My own standard is to cite every single sentence I add to Wikipedia.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Hill continued contact with Thomas after leaving job

It is an undebatable fact that (a) Hill had called Thomas a dozen times over the years, including one time when she left a message containing her hotel room number, and that (b) Hill originally tried to deny that these calls were made, but was forced to concede that they had happened. Now imagine the situation in reverse: Imagine that Hill had alleged that Thomas called her a dozen times at her apartment, that Thomas had denied doing so, but that phone records had then been produced showing that Thomas had definitely made those calls, and that Thomas basically had to admit that he was lying. Wouldn't that be exceedingly relevant in judging his credibility? (Wallamoose (talk) 00:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I don't see any citations for these assertions.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Court transcript. Are you kidding? If you want to dispute the official court records please cite your sources.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I didn't say I was disputing; I said I didn't see any citations. Every sentence added to the article should be cited. Just saying the word's "court transcript" is not enough either.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Testimony in support of Thomas

Nancy Altman from the Department of Education testified: "I consider myself a feminist. I am pro-choice. I care deeply about women's issues. In addition to working with Clarence Thomas at the Department of Education, I shared an office with him for two years in this building. Our desks were a few feet apart. Because we worked in such close quarters, I could hear virtually every conversation for two years that Clarence Thomas had. Not once in those two years did I ever hear Clarence Thomas make a sexist or offensive comment, not once." She continued, "It is not credible that Clarence Thomas could have engaged in the kinds of behavior that Anita Hill alleges, without any of the women who he worked closest with -- dozens of us, we could spend days having women come up, his secretaries, his chief of staff, his other assistants, his colleagues -- without any of us having sensed, seen or heard something." http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/browse.html (Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

This is fine, but should be shortened to a line or two. It is too long for Thomas's general article.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

contradictions in Hill testimony

Anita Hill initially denied any knowledge of a news report that Senate staffers had told her that "her signed affidavit alleging sexual harassment by Clarence Thomas would be the instrument that would quietly and behind the scenes, would force him to withdraw his name." Senator Arlen Specter said that after consulting with her lawyers, Hill "flatly changed" her testimony "by identifying a Senate staffer, who she finally said told her that she was told that if she came forward, [Thomas] would withdraw . . . ." Senator Specter went on to say that "the testimony of Professor Hill in the morning was flat out perjury and that she specifically changed it in the afternoon when confronted with the possibility of being contradicted."

Another issue arose with respect to Hill's treatment of the phone logs that Thomas's secretary had kept for him at the EEOC. Those logs showed that Hill had called Thomas about a dozen times since leaving the EEOC for a career as a law professor, including one time when Hill called Thomas's office to notify him that she was visiting D.C.; in that message, she had left her hotel room number and phone number with Thomas's secretary. Hill initially told the Washington Post that the phone logs were "garbage," and then implied in her opening statement to the Senate that the phone logs had mostly represented the times when Hill had called to speak to Diane Holt, Thomas's secretary.

Under questioning, however, Hill admitted that "I do not deny the accuracy of these messages." Moreover, Diane Holt testified that if Hill had ever called to speak with Holt, that call would not have been recorded in Thomas's phone logs. Holt further testified that the phone log represented only the occasions when Thomas had been unavailable to take the call. In fact, Hill had additionally called Thomas on several other occasions that were not recorded in the logs because Thomas took the call.

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

Hill also contradicted herself in attempting to explain the reasons for having called Thomas. At one point, she claimed that "the things that occurred after I left the EEOC occurred during a time -- any matter, calling him from the university, occurred during a time when he was no longer a threat to me of any kind. He could not threaten my job. I already had tenure there." But later in the same session, Senator Simpson asked her, "if what you say this man said to you occurred, why in God's name, when he left his position of power or status or authority over you, and you left it in 1983, why in God's name would you ever speak to a man like that the rest of your life?" Hill responded, "That's a very good question. And I'm sure that I cannot answer that to your satisfaction. That is one of the things that I have tried to do today. I have suggested that I was afraid of retaliation. I was afraid of damage to my professional life."

(Wallamoose (talk) 01:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC))

I think most of this material would be better off in the article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Thomas_Supreme_Court_nomination . If you really like Thomas so much, you should lengthen the material on his jurisprudence; it's awfully thin. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Whether I like Thomas is irrelevant. I think it's important that a biographical article about a sitting Supreme Court Justice not serve as a political propaganda piece for those who opposed his nomination or disagree with his judicial philosophies. There is a lot of information on allegations against Thomas (many made by persons who never testified at the hearing), but no mention of the testimony, evidence and witnesses supporting Thomas and refuting the allegations included in the Allegation of Sexual Abuse section.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

None of the language in the article rises to a propaganda piece, and it hurts your credibility to make such brazenly dishonest claims. You are free to add other testimony, but you are not free to wipe out one side of an argument. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state what evidence and testimony refuting Anita Hill should be included in the article to remedy the inherent bias of presenting only allegations. Let's end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I see that you've largely copied your text in this section from this website: http://www.upto11.net/generic_wiki.php?q=clarence_thomas . If this was really the past state of the Wikipedia entry, then I can see why a separate article was created; all this material is far too long to include in Thomas's article. You have to create an abbreviated set of facts for this article that you can expand on in the nomination article. I am only interested in this particular article on Clarence Thomas in general, so you can edit like crazy over there.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Edits Needed in Allegations of Sexual Harassment section

The section goes into great detail about allegations made by persons who never testified at the hearings, but includes none of the tesimony or evidence refuting these allegations. Also, there is already an entry for the Clarence Thomas Nomination so this isn't the place to retry the JusticeWallamoose (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

You are correct that many of the details you've supported including in the article are more properly put in the Nomination wikipage, which is separate. However, any supposed bio page on Thomas himself would be remiss to avoid at least mentioning the allegations, so of course they should be included. You are free to add information on testimony refuting the allegations, but instead all you have tried, and continue to try, is to remove the allegations, or to improperly remove sentences wholesale. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Please state the witnesses, evidence and testimony that should be included in the article or other remedies so we can move forward to fix the article's bias of presenting only allegations and accusors and end this edit war.(Wallamoose (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

I will respond to all of this tonight. Why don't you write the paragraphs you want to add for starters and then we can do this efficiently? Every sentence should be cited, though. I will write some stuff too when I am free tonight.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

• This article used to be fairly balanced. I remember a comment from the talk page that expressed wonder that such a fair article had been found on Wikipedia. However, this discussion has gotten my interest, and I just re-read the article. The section on the sexual harassment allegations is now way too big (in conflict with undue weight) and entirely one-sided (does not have a neutral point-of-view). I'll be interested in looking at the suggested new paragraphs. --Paul (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the section on Anita Hill and Co. is too big; it's just that everything else in general is so small. Thomas fans would do well to shore up what is such a thin article. I'll get around to it eventually myself but have been more in love lately with the justices of the 60s and 70s. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Your reply that the balance problem with the article does not lie with the undue weight placed on the Anita Hill affair but is instead related to the paucity of other material is a remarkable claim which is easily refuted by looking at the articles for the other sitting Justices. The Thomas biography is the second-longest article of all of the sitting Justices and fully one-quarter of this article is devoted to "Allegations of sexual harassment" (926 words). Here are the stats:

Justice	Word Count	% of avg
Stevens	3190	117%
Scalia	3956	145%
Kennedy	2592	95%
Souter	1939	71%
Thomas	3528	129%
Ginsburg	1757	64%
Bryer	1808	66%
Roberts	3496	128%
Alito	2366	86%

The problem with this article is clearly that the Anita Hill section is too big in proportion to its importance in life of Justice Thomas. Indeed, I believe that this material causes the Thomas article to be in violation of Wikipedia's Biography of Living Person's standards where editors are cautioned to not let criticism or praise overwhelm the article. My opinion is that the "Sexual harassment" section needs serious pruning. The Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination article covers this material in great depth, so the level of detail we have here isn't needed per Wikipedia summary style. Cutting out about 90% of this material will fix the policy violations without losing any material.--Paul (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, this argument about length of discussion doesn't take into account Thomas's unique situation. We should be thankful that most Supreme Court justices DON'T have sexual scandals surrounding their appointments; Thomas did. It still colors how people see him; I saw Anita Hill talked about in relation to Clarence Thomas on CNN just two weeks ago. Furthermore, other Supreme Court justices who have lengthy controversies surrounding them also have plenty of space devoted to their troubles. For an example, look at the article for Hugo Black, who was on the Court for decades.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I also feel that the sexual harassment section is too big. If the people mentioned therein did not testify against justice Thomas, then their inclusion should be minimal. Additionally, if another article exists covering this topic in more detail, then that article should be linked here, and, again, the sexual harassment section shrunk.Bonewah (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the section is too big in the context of history and the man's legacy. One quarter of the article, actually, relatively speaking, is not bad. The sexual harassment issue was the major issue -- perhaps the only real issue -- in his nomination fight, and, I am afraid, the one thing most persons of my generation recall about Justice Thomas. It was major issue in the 1992 elections for the US Senate and the presidency, which first elected a large class of females to the senate ("The Year of the Women") and, arguably, was the tipping point for the election of the Clinton-Gore ticket. The issue was recalled lately in Hillary Clinton's bid for the White House and the nomination of Joseph Biden for vice-president. Sadly, as an attorney and full-time law professor, I can not name a single one of his judicial opinions off the top of my head. Bearian (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think the sexual harassment allegations were the only "real" issue in Clarence Thomas's confirmation you are not qualified to be a lawyer or professor. how about ABORTION? Many people believe that the whole Hill scandal was leaked and fabricated to sink the nomination because liberals didn't want a court that might overturn Roe v. Wade. All I can say is YIKES, to your ignorance. If you're one of his professors it's no wonder Garcia is so confused.(Wallamoose (talk) 18:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC))

If the present biographical article on Thomas was the only article containing the Anita Hill material, arguments about undue weight would be less persuasive. However, there is an entire article devoted to the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination which is where the details of this matter belong. The Thomas biography should contain only a summary. The Encyclopedia Britannica covers the Hill matter in 90 words, one-tenth the size of what we have here.--Paul (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be shortened considerably. It is in contradiction to WP:BLP and also provides undue weight to an admittedly important part of his life. However, as a supereme court justice and a lightening rod of judicial controversy, I find it hard to defend the position that after all of his controversial and important deicisions from the bench, and all the relevent history he has, that this one scandal should account for 25% of the article. Perhaps someone can start a new article on the "Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill Scandal" and write there to their heart's content, leaving a brief summary here.LedRush (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a political dispute, and it seems that we have a Bush v. Gore situation here in terms of how votes are coming out. Political feelings are dictating voting whether to make the section long or short. I'm going to expand on the rest of the article as soon as the lock is removed, and then it won't be such a disproportionate part of the article. Arguments about word counts in the Encyclopedia Brittanica are irrelevant without knowing how large their entire article on Thomas is. Also, the fact that Wikipedia does a poor job with Supreme Court justice biographies, leaving them thin and sparse on information, isn't a reason to cut down on a section that's actually fleshed out. As it is, right now we're only spending two sentences on Sukari Hardnett and a few on Mayer and Abramson. Anita Hill and Angela Wright also only have a few sentences each. There isn't an overflow of information here. Conservatives not taking the time to add parts on refutations is not a reason to cut down the accusers. And the current length of the section is concordant with sections on other justices who have had controversy surrounding them.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I know I am something of a latecomer to this controversy, but RafaelRGarcia asked me to put in my two cents. I think that the section on sexual harassment in this article should be shortened, and the remainder of the properly sourced material should be moved to the article on the Clarence Thomas Supreme Court nomination. This appears to be a superior compromise solution. --Eastlaw (talk) 06:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree on the need for a disputed section or unbalanced section tag?

I don't think it's fair that the disputed section of the article is being presented as is without any notice to readers. I suggest an unbalanced, or disputed section tag be added until it is remedied. It's not right that because of one editor's busy schedule and refusal to compromise with other wikipedia editors that fixes are held up indefinitely (see the above discussion for just how long and difficult it is to get even a simple change on a single sentence) while a section that's been vigorously disputed at least since March remains without any notice provided to readers. Wallamoose (talk) 00:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the only editor who's reversed you, so I'm not the only person you need to reach a consensus with. You've also hampered progress for days by insisting on being completely one-sided, which just doesn't help anyone.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The way to balance the section is to find reliable soruces regarding Justice Thomas's defense - for example, statements by Republican senators. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Additions

I am adding the following facts to this or the Nomination article as needed:

Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson, reporters for the Wall Street Journal, concluded in an investigative book on Thomas that “the preponderance of the evidence suggests” that Thomas lied under oath when he told the committee he had not harassed Hill. Mayer and Abramson say Biden abdicated control of the Thomas confirmation hearings and did not call Angela Wright to the stand. They report that four women traveled to Washington DC to corroborate Anita Hill’s claims.

According to Mayer and Abramson, soon after Thomas was sworn in, three reporters for The Washington Post “burst into the newsroom almost simultaneously with information confirming that Thomas’ involvement with pornography far exceeded what the public had been led to believe.” These reporters had eyewitness testimony and video rental records showing Thomas’ interest in and use of pornography, which "far exceeded what the public had been led to believe." However, because Thomas was already sworn in by the time the video store evidence emerged, the Washington Post dropped the story.

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Please don't ignore the many editors that have requested the Allegations section be balanced and made more concise. Please fix what you've already added before adding additional edits. Also, not every accusation by every author is worthy of inclusion in an article on Thomas. Maybe you should start pages for these authors and include their allegations there! I will be removing your "Early Years" sections as it has only one source and is biased. I will post it here on the talk page so you can fix it and then return it to the article. You also need to fix the other problems we've identified and discussed extensively here before adding new material. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 05:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

What Early Years? Anyway, no, you can't remove whatever you want, or you're just going to start off an edit war. Just because you're unhappy with something doesn't mean it's biased. Reporters from the WSJ are a reliable source.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it seems you mean Early Reputation. That was taken from a book by a conservative news reporter, Jan Crawford Greenburg, and she's also a reliable source. You can't remove it.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm going to remove the instance of "allege" and all its variances from the article, as it's an official Word to Avoid.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree to add in such material, although it should be balanced by the contemporaeous evidence on his behalf. 2008 is past the statute of limitations to re-try the 1992 sexual harassment case. Bearian (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Protected

I have protected the article for one week. I counted 13 edits from Wallamoose and 16 from Rafael in just over an hour. I went through the events (kind of skimming, it was a lot to cover), and it looks like it is an edit war regarding (mostly) the location of a paragraph about Diane Holt and about a few citations. Let me first say the the location of that paragraph must be discussed on this page instead of warring on the article. As for the citations, Rafael says here that Wallamoose doesn't know how to cite properly. Well, he's trying to get the citations in there properly and if he did it incorrectly, WP:SOFIXIT, don't just undo each other's work. Rafael also claims here that Wallamoose is adding fact tags wantonly, apparently referring to this and this, but he does it himself here. Wallamoose, look carefully at what Rafael is doing with his edits. He was moving the contents of the disputed paragraph instead of simply removing it. A whole bunch of extra edit warring was done because of adding and removing information that was already in the article.

So, here's what has to be done. Wallamoose has presented some sourced information (and possibly some unsourced info, I haven't checked the citations). The sourced information should be added to the article after it is decided on this talk page which info is verifiable and should only be written in a neutral tone of voice. It must then be determined which location is best for the info. This is to be determined on this talk page. Include the citations. If Wallamoose can't do it correctly, then Rafael should do it. If neither can or wants to add them, place a fact tag instead. Useight (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I added fact tags because Walla cited an index page of many different testimonies. Walla, however, added citation tags for stuff that was already properly cited - newspaper articles and individual testimonies.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Did he add a tag to that citation for a pdf page 442-511? An exact page number would be really helpful there. Useight (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The sourced information refuting Hill's allegations is taken directly from the Senate hearings and needs to be restored below Hill's claims where it belongs. RafaelGarcia needs to be banned. He refuses to compromise with the many wikipedians who responded to the RFC and have asked that the section containing allegations by persons who never testified and were never questioned by the Senate committee, should be greatly reduced or excised completely. RafaelGarcia has continued to abuse his edit privledges and has repeatedly removed the portions I've added that have been discussed (see above discussions) and which were not objected to. See edits (00:41) and (00:48) for example and has removed the unbalanced tag (01:02) unilaterally. He also removed my ref tags (00:46) These are just a few examples of his abusive activities. He has also refused to fix his citations which have been tagged for months.(Wallamoose (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Tagged for months? What are you talking about? You just tagged them yesterday. The only person who merits banning is you. You're crashing through Wikipedia like a bull in a china shop, making nothing but partisan edits. "Many" wikipedians did not respond to the RFC. I removed the "unbalanced" tag because you added info refuting the allegations - so why should it stay forever? I removed your ref tags because you need to cite to the specific documents, not to the html page that lists tons of different testimonials. I've already explained this to you, but you're complaining again to cause drama. Your edits are sloppy and you should take some time out to learn a few things. It's also standard practice to present one side of something, then the other. That's why I moved your new paragraph about Diane Holt. I didn't delete anything and I was following standard procedures.

Your citations are just way too unspecific. A reader coming across the article who sees a link to your html index page doesn't know which PDF to click on or which is relevant. I wasn't about to spend time looking for the PDFs and the pages myself. Furthermore, for citations that are already to the proper documents, if a page is missing, you should add the page number if you need to complain about it - not obliterate the citation entirely. This is dishonest, makes statements seem unsourced when they aren't, and makes more work for everyone else.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose obviously needs to be blocked from editing. He rampages through Wikipedia making nothing but partisan edits. He copies info from other websites wholesale; he's done so with Barney Frank (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests) and his first edits to Clarence Thomas were similar. Pretty much any article he touches, he causes conflict (example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gwen_Ifill). When he noticed citations to a book about Justice Blackmun by reporter Greenhouse, he rushed to look up articles about her to smear her (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wallamoose#Linda_Greenhouse). He thinks Bill O'Reilly is a reliable source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Barney_Frank#New_Information_on_Barney.27s_Fannie_Conflict_of_Interests). He also refuses to learn the most basic formatting and protocol rules, which creates work for all of us. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your post is a clear indication that you are a troubled stalker. The information refuting Hill must go after the information about her in the article, not after a dozen paragraphs of your biased edits about persons never called to testify and with no balance or refutation of their claims. Several wikipedians have suggested cutting this section down and balancing it (see RfC above). Your citations have been tagged for more than a month as I stated. (Wallamoose (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

What are you talking about, tagged for a month? I am asking for clarification, not for reiteration and lies, which is what you have been giving us. On second thought, please, do everyone a favor and just go watch more FOX News instead of wasting our time here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the bottom of the article page you will see a broken citation tag. I didn't put it there. It's been there a long time. The broken citations have also been discussed here on the discussion page, as I recall, as has the lack of balance and need to condense the information you've added to the allegations section. My suggestion to you would be to stop interfering with my edits, and focus on improving this or some other article. I don't interfere with yours, except to correct factual errors which I have explained with posts here and properly sourced. You've eventually been forced to correct you errors, but it's a grueling process as you refuse to ever admit your mistakes. If you need to bring up an issue you can discuss it here or as a last resort add the appropriate tag (without deleting what's already there. Since the information I'm trying to add has been discussed ad nauseum here and been universally supported it seems your only problem is that this information contradicts your warped view (as you've indicated by repeatedly and inappropriately referring to Thomas as a Perv) as well as trying to include misquotes and improperly sourced material. I would point out that this edit war started with you removing my entire edit wholesale when you failed to realize that I hadn't taken anything of yours out of the article. But even after I corrected you, you continued your abusive edits and harassment. Please stop. As far as your inane claims that I plagarize from other websites, my entire post is sourced from the Senate hearing, unlike the smears and opinion you've added.(Wallamoose (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

The edits you've made to this article you brought in from a right-wing website wholesale, without changes; that site cited the Senate page and that's the only reason you know about it. You've since deleted the citation to that page, because you deleted all talk comments you made that you later realized were wrong. Every citation you tagged yesterday, I checked to make sure was still there. They all were, so your behavior is inappropriate. As to this issue that's supposedly been around for a month, I still don't know what you're talking about. Anything you deleted the citation for yesterday is actually still there. For my part, every single sentence I've added to this article has been cited with a reliable source, if not double or triple-sourced. I only used books (which don't become broken, and in general in every article I've edited or created I've almost always used books exclusively), except for last month, at which point I only cited the websites that came up in our discussion (hint: this means it is impossible that something I cited has been broken for months). I didn't delete any edits you made; I moved them. I don't see the need to continually argue with you and point fingers. Anyone who looks at your edit record will see what a partisan hack you are. From this point forward, I'll be happy to report your behavior to administrators, but I will only be discussing the article with you from now on. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 23:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit at (00:41) and (00:48) deleted my addition in its entirety. The rest of your conspiracy theories aren't worth discussing. My edit at 01:50 added citation tags to references that do not include links, page numbers, sources or referred to 50 pages of text (as I noted in my edit description). This contrasts with your removing my references completely in edit (00:46) and removing the unbalanced tag (01:02). I don't have time to go round and round with you and to expose your never-ending lies. Mind your own business and stop harassing me.(Wallamoose (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia was doing just fine without you, actually. I did delete your addition for a second, but only to move it. Not everything can have a link to it. Not all books or newspaper articles are online. That doesn't mean they're not valid sources. Your fact tags were simply invalid, and I won't allow such practices to continue. Remember, you're supposed to fix things, not just wipe out citations. I removed the unbalanced tag because once you make additions, I figure it's not so unbalanced anymore. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

00:41, 7 October 2008 Undid my addition of information. That's a funny way of moving text. Lie much? (Wallamoose (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Do we really have to go over this again? I restored it in a different location a few seconds later. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I restored it after you deleted it. And your next edit was 4 minutes later at 00:45 where you attempted to move the paragraph, that you had previously deleted, to the very bottom of the section where it didn't belong. Do you ever get tired of lying? (Wallamoose (talk) 16:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC))

Mediation

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

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

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

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

General comments

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

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

Principles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Phase two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If I can interject here, let's not get ahead of ourselves. The introduction to the biography is very short as is, and no one is disputing that there should be a substantial section in the article devoted to allegations of sexual harassment. The quote you've sited talks about the dispute as part of the hearings, but doesn't suggest that it's important to put in the introduction to a biography about Thomas. I move that we save that discussion for another day. I don't think it needs to be added to the introduction as it stands now, but would be willing to consider such an addition in the future. (Wallamoose (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC))

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The lead should be two paragraphs, but we could expand to that later; the article is too thin right now. Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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