Talk:Clarence Thomas

Thurgood Marshall image and legend

Template:Ping 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: Template:Tq

Template:Tq

Template:Tq

Template:Tq

• Greenburg, pg 112: Template:Tq

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)

@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)

Template:Od What is this Template:Tq 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)

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. Template:Tq), 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)

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:

Template:Tq

Template:Tq

"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)

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)

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)

@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)

Template:U, 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)

@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 (Template:Tq); 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)

Template:U, 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)

Template:Tq — Actually, you have it backwards – you were the one who brought it back. Check your message on 5 October 15:14. "Template:Tq" 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)

Template:Od Template:Tq — 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). Template:Tq: that's your edit.

Template:Tq: 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)

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)::

Unarchived, discussion to be continued — considering RfC. Space4Time3Continuum2x (cowabunga) 15:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Ping 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": Template:Tq 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.Template:Sfn 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)

Template:Tq 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)

Bibliography

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) Template:Cob

• 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)

  How is it misleading? It's a statement explicitly verified by the source. GuardianH (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

Add NYT article re Recusal of Judges - or Not?

Added text/ref (5/29/2024) to main article - then reverted - seemed relevant - Worth considering adding after all - or Not? - Comments Welcome from other editors - in any case - Stay Safe amd Healthy !! - Drbogdan (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) Template:Reflist-talk Drbogdan (talk) 10:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Recent edit by GuardianH

This edit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=prev&oldid=1229153723

--> and the removal of content, it may be for simplicity? But GuardianH says that the information is already included in previous paragraph, however, it is not!

Could some of the removed info can be reintroduced? Thank you everyone! 72.14.126.252 (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

more undisclosed gifts and vacations paid for by donors!

Just saw this article:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/clarence-thomas-accepted-yacht-trip-to-russia-chopper-flight-to-putins-hometown-democrats

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of not disclosing a yacht trip to Russia and a private helicopter flight to a palace in President Vladimir Putin’s hometown, among a slew of other gifts and loans from businessman Harlan Crow.

Buried on page 14 of a letter that two Democratic senators sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Tuesday, in which they urged Garland to appoint a special counsel to probe Thomas, was an astonishing list of dozens of “likely undisclosed gifts and income” from Crow, Crow’s affiliated companies, and “other donors.”

In the letter, Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Ron Wyden (D-OR) said Thomas, one of the court’s staunchly conservative justices, even may have committed tax fraud and violated other federal laws by “secretly” accepting the gifts and income potentially worth millions.

Probably some of this should be included on the Wikipedia article, right? Or maybe there should even be a new article about all of the sketchy relationships and financial dealings that Thomas has with wealthy elites and billionaires etc? 72.14.126.22 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

easier to make a list of billionaires he HASN'T take gifts from. 2A02:2454:9976:7200:D5C5:56D0:E103:627A (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear to me why the lede's first paragraph does not note his unique relationship with gifts/donors or the sexual harassment allegations. It warrants a "criticism" header at the least. He seems like he's in a class all on his own. In the latter matter, he is joined by Brett Kavanaugh. Anonymous-232 (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So true. Anita hill is a hero. How those 2 got the supreme court???

Almost no chance either of those women were lying 165.140.184.196 (talk) 06:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

newly identified nondisclosure of gifts

Template:U, I see that you reverted my edit about yet more undisclosed gifts from Harlan Crow, saying “this is one letter of many issued by multiple senators, and this section is already long – wait for a definitive conclusion to prevent WP:RECENTISM.” The section is long because Thomas has failed to report many gifts; as the section notes, these total over $4M, several times more than all of the other current and recent justices combined. Most Senate letters get no coverage, but this was widely reported by WP:RS (NYT, Washington Post, Bloomberg, CNN, BBC, ProPublica, Reuters, USA Today, Forbes, NBC, CBS, ABC, Reuters, and more). It is not a letter from a random Senator, but from the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, and it's part of a SFC inquiry that was opened after numerous reports about Thomas's undisclosed luxury travel gifts from Crow. I disagree that it's an example of WP:RECENTISM; it is another example in a long pattern of ethical concerns. What kind of "definitive conclusion" are you looking for? FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Blumenthal's December 2023 letter got coverage in Politico, Bloomberg, along with Senate Judiciary Chairman 2023 Dick Durbin's letter, covered in CNN , Politico, The Washington Post, and also The New York Times, Ed Markey in The New Republic, The Hill, Newsweek, and other superficial mentions of other Democratic congressmen. Republican defenses of Clarence Thomas, like Mike Lee's defense of Thomas covered in The New Republic and The New York Times , are also numerous with coverage. Mitch McConnell's defense of Thomas, like his proposal to punish Blumenthal and Whitehouse for attacking Thomas, is covered in CNBC, Bloomberg, The Hill, Reuters, etc.

These letters and statements are obviously omitted not just because bouts between politicians are short-lived with little long-term relevance but also because we don't catalog or hoard every letter made. The significance is the investigation rather than the letter as the NYT mentions, so that's the focus you should have considered mentioning. GuardianH (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: the NYT reporting and Wyden’s letter about the revelation of yet more nondisclosures, I disagree that only the inquiry merits mention. I think it should be both the inquiry and the revelation of new nondisclosures.

Hopefully we can sort this out in a way that works for both of us. I propose something like:

Both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee opened investigations of Thomas’s undisclosed gifts. Both committees found yet more undisclosed travel on Crow’s private jet or superyacht, some domestic, some international. (citations: AP, NYT)

It looks like both inquiries started in 2023, but I haven't found WP:RS saying when.

As for the other letters you mentioned, Durbin’s letter did not disclose any new ethics violations by Thomas, but I would actually include a brief statement in the article that Durbin and other Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats called on Chief Justice Roberts in 2023 to open an investigation into Thomas’s conduct. Perhaps you and I disagree about that as well. FWIW, Robert’s response to Durbin’s letter is mentioned on the SCOTUS page. Blumenthal was among those who signed an earlier letter that is mentioned in the article, from “24 Democratic members of the House of Representatives and the Senate ...,” so it’s not clear that his later letter adds much, other than there being a new relevant case before the Court. I also think it’s worth mentioning on the page that several members of Congress have called on Thomas to resign in light of the ethics violations; Markey is just one of them. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:U, I've worked a bit more on my proposed text:

In 2023, both the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Finance Committee opened investigations into Thomas’s undisclosed gifts. The two committees found additional undisclosed travel on Crow’s private jet and superyacht, including international trips in 2010 and domestic trips in 2017, 2019, and 2021. (citations: AP, NYT)

In 2023, in response to Thomas's nondisclosures, Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats called on Chief Justice Roberts to open an investigation into Thomas’s conduct, and several Democratic members of Congress called on Thomas to resign. (citations:NBC, USA Today, New Republic) In July 2024, Democratic representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez introduced articles of impeachment against Thomas, one of which focused on his failure to disclose the many gifts from Crow. (citation: NYT)

What suggestions do you have for how to improve this? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Tq2

There isn't a date for any of the investigations in either of the sources, so you need to find a WP:RS to support that they were established in 2023.

Template:Tq2

It would honestly be easier to list when Democratic members of Congress are not calling on Thomas to resign, and its unclear if just calling for Roberts to open an investigation will actually prompt one; calling Thomas to resign obviously won't and is a political norm for Democrats, so that lacks significance for inclusion. IMO the first clause on Roberts should be included.

Template:Tq2

AOC's proposed articles of impeachment is noted by The New York Times as being an obvious political stunt with Template:Tq. It lacks any real long-term significance and is not due for inclusion. GuardianH (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

The AP article was written in 2024 and says "The Democratic-led Judiciary panel launched the investigation last year," hence 2023. My mistake about the NYT article. I haven’t been able to find a news article stating when the SFC inquiry was opened, though spring 2023 letters on the SFC site refer to “the Committee’s investigation” and were commenced after the 2023 ProPublica articles. Some news articles report on those SFC letters without stating a start date for the investigation. The closest I’ve gotten is this NPR interview in which Wyden says in July 2024 that “we literally have been working on this for, you know, over a year,” again putting it in 2023.

You’ve provided no evidence that “calling Thomas to resign … is a political norm for Democrats” prior to the financial nondisclosure news starting in 2023. You and I clearly disagree about whether these things are worth including. You seem to think that they're only worth including if they result in resignation of impeachment, whereas I think the calls alone make them worth including -- that it's not just revelations of the nondisclosures, but responses by members of Congress. Shall we seek a third opinion? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

And here's another response from members of Congress that I'd include: Senators Whitehouse and Wyden asked AG Garland to appoint a special counsel to investigate Thomas and others involved with the undisclosed gifts (CBS). FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Tq2

Thomas has faced numerous calls to resign ever since Anita Hill, and this is a pretty well known fact that substantially predates 2023, even just in the year before the disclosure news:

• Axios (2022): Dems grapple with Clarence Thomas response – Template:Tq
• Vanity Fair (2022): Calls for Recusals, Resignations, and Even Impeachment: Democrats Escalate Ethics Campaign Around Clarence Thomas
• Forbes (2022): Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas Faces Calls For Hearings, Recusal, Resignation For Wife’s Texts About 2020 Election
• ABC (2022): Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to resign

As for the date sourcing, yes, my qualms were with the SFC mention: both AP and NPR should have been included for verification. And I don't think that pieces are Template:Tq; I just said the Roberts clause should be included, even though that's unclear to succeed. The issue is that you think Template:Tq — a standard of "[X] congressman called for [Y], therefore include [X] and [Y]" seldom guarantees inclusion. Template:Tq and Template:Tq are two different things. As I said previously, the investigation is significant for the WP:BLP, but not short-lived politicking that the NYT says has "no realistic chance". Keep the rest. GuardianH (talk) 03:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)