Talk:Anita Hill/Archive 1

Archive 1

Edited David Brock part 2

The 'conservative hit-job' part about David Brock is unsubstantiated. The reference linked to someone's homepage with text and details of the original allegations. No where was the 'hit-job' confession mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.58.6 (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

David Brock Furthers doubts

Current entry states, "In 1991, public opinion polls showed that 47% of those polled believed Thomas, while 24% believed Hill. Doubts about her testimony were furthered by the widely publicized and later recanted claims of David Brock." However, one public opinion poll shifted in favor of Hill after the publication of Brock's book. [1]. Better to say, "Brock sought to further doubts about her testimony..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weffiewonj (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New Job

Added "followed him to this new job", which is true.

[[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 06:57, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Hm. I'm not sure about that. I think a citation is needed.

--Amynewyork4248 13:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• • She says it herself in her opening statement...that she was offerred the opportunity to go with Thomas, and she took it. The other woman who went, Thomas' secretary (Diane Holt), testified that Hill (and Holt, herself) was "excited" to go with him.

68.45.226.99 06:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism / Errors

The front page has some error/vandalism. Please attend to it Gautam ^Discuss 06:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wallamoose Edits

None of Wallamoose's edits are cited, and should be challenged. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Some paragraphs are cited, and all of my edits are based on the official transcript which is also cited. You seem to be challenging my edits for the sake of challenging my edits. Is there material I added that you dispute and find controversial?(Wallamoose (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC))

Actually, I don't see any citations on your edits. Please cite what you add. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 02:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

All of my edits are based on the official transcript. So if you could add that citation where necessary I would appreciate it. I will try to do a better job in the future. And if there's still a question involved please use the SOP fix it with a date tag, and I'll get to it when I can. Thanks.(Wallamoose (talk) 02:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC))

untitled

Perhaps something should be added to cover the witnesses who testified that Hill had previously seemed to imagine that men were taking interest in her, and all the speculation during the hearings about whether it was "fantasy" or "transference," and how even those who said she was not telling the truth believed that she believed what she was saying. These seem to be important points in an article about the woman and the controversy.

68.45.226.99 06:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If that gets added, it would have to contrasted to Specter's nationally televised accusation of perjury, which (assuming Specter was telling the truth about his own state of mind) says at least one of those disputing her story saw her as deliberately lying. Dvd Avins (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit reference 7

^7 Hull, Smith, Scott. All the Women Are White, All the Blacks Are Men, but Some of Us Are Brave: Black Women's Studies, pxvi

Add "Publisher: The Feminist Press at CUNY (February 1, 2003)"

From listing at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/But-Some-Us-Are-Brave/dp/0912670959

00:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Perseus109 - 6/8/2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Perseus109 (talk • contribs)

Inappropriate mention of black feminism

The linked main article on Black Feminism's opening line directly associates sexism with racism, but Clarence Thomas is African-American. As regards the subject matter of the article, unless a scholastic argument can be made which removes Clarence Thomas' African-American heritage from the issue and/or cause of his alleged sexism, then its inclusion in the article itself is inappropriate. Unfortunately, it is impossible to do so without sacrificing the scholastic value of the article, for by doing so it will become an argumentative, possibly propagandist piece of literature. It may well be that Anita Hill's experience inspired "Black Feminism," as the article states, but to retain educational value the implicit suggestion that race and sexism are linked, even when an accused offender is African-American cannot be permitted to remain in this article. By simply pointing out that Clarence Thomas is African-American, a tabla rasa student will then be able to recognise the apparent contradiction, and then may or may not pursue further study to develop their own informed opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.59.205 (talk) 03:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of "Hill to SCOTUS" claim

Under the Later Career section it is asserted at the end of the section that:

"In 2012, she may be nominated to serve as Supreme Court Justice."

There is no reference offered for this assertion. Is there any truth to this at all and, if so, shouldn't there be a cite for the evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vansloot (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

This was already removed at the time of my review. Jaydubya93 (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Up-coming movie

HBO movie Confirmation is about Hill-Thomas tiff.64.53.191.77 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

liberal bias in article

Why is the story about Ms. Hill allegedly putting a public hair in one of her students notebooks not in this entry? --24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source for that? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

These pubic hair incidents could be implied as reference to black magic in black culture beyond its sexual intonations.

Politically Motivated Character Assassination?

I have seen coverage on MSNBC News and also FOX News that suggests that Anita Hill's accusations against Thomas were "politically motivated character assassination" and that if Thomas had not been a conservative, he would never have been subjected to her accusations.

Does anyone have any source material that either proves or disproves that assertion?

65.101.228.154 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time, Hill was an active conservative Republican, or so said the news coverage of the day. I suggest searching for that. If true (and I see no reason to doubt it) it would render that explanation for Hill's accusation implausible. It would still be plausible that she would have received assistance in bringing the matter before the committee from those who were politically motivated, but that's not nearly the same thing. Dvd Avins (talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No, Anita Hill was not a Republican (or a conservative) despite what some chose to imply at the time. During the hearings in 1991, Newsday reported that Hill was a registered Democrat. During a television interview, Hill herself contradicted reporter Ed Bradley's assumption that she was a Republican; she clearly said she was a registered Democrat and 'not a conservative' (February 1992 60 Minutes). Hill's Democratic Party registration was also reported in Essence (magazine), March 1992. During her entire adult life (through 2009), Federal Election Commission records show that all Hill's political campaign donations have been to Democrats. Years after the alleged harassment by Thomas, a conservative columnist testified under oath somewhere that Ms. Hill had also accused him (John Doggett (columnist)) of having made unwanted advances to her, Doggett claimed the advances were entirely in Hill's imagination. This whole sordid business has always been "she said, he said". --68.195.234.154 (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion page is for discussing the article, not for venting opinions about the subject of the article (see top of this page "not a forum") . nut-meg (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

See User talk:Nut-meg#Anita Hill. Also, this seems somewhat odd. --68.195.234.154 (talk) 15:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal appropriate per WP:BLP. In fact this discussion itself is somewhat borderline so I suggest it stop now unless there is some relevance to how we should edit the article Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I was led to believe all these years by the media Ms. Hill was a Repubican and she was spurned by them and left the party. Thank you for clearing up that misconception. She never was a Republican. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.0.156 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Suggested sister link and images

Suggested sister link to add to this article's External links sect:

{{commonscat|Anita Hill}}

Readers and editors may find additional suitable images there, for example perhaps one of these could be considered (instead of current infobox profile image which lacks WP:OTRS confirmation of permission) see:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

I'll leave that decision up to other editors,

— Cirt (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anita Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130913093438/https://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images/modeng&data=/lv6/workspace/yitna&tag=public&part=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Anita Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111101095251/http://www.theroot.com/views/anita-hill-ponders-her-legacy?page=0%2C0 to http://www.theroot.com/views/anita-hill-ponders-her-legacy?page=0%2C0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107034024/http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/41-124.pdf to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/senate/judiciary/sh102-1084pt4/41-124.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111013163549/http://digital.library.okstate.edu:80/encyclopedia/entries/H/HI005.html to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/H/HI005.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020232649/http://www.svc.edu/about/board.html to http://www.svc.edu/about/board.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anita Hill. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/H/HI005.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new-yitna?id=UsaThom&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Flv6%2Fworkspace%2Fyitna&tag=public&part=24
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120112090036/http://forum-network.org/lecture/anita-hill-reimagining-gender-race-and-finding-home to http://forum-network.org/lecture/anita-hill-reimagining-gender-race-and-finding-home

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there any published information on her personal life?

No offense to anyone intended, but is there any published information on her personal life? Has she ever had any long-term relationships? Has she ever been married? Does she have any children? Do she have any hobbies? What does she like to do when she is not working? 66.162.249.170 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Those two footnotes are not my doing but I can't get rid of them. 66.162.249.170 (talk) 02:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Effects section edit

I removed the mention of EZ Million being called a "one-armed man," partly since I can't locate the original source, and because according to the one reference I did find (http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?nid=184&commentary=1) this seems to have been in relation to his activism around a Constitutional Convention in the 1980s and has nothing to do with Anita Hill. If there's an Elmer Zinn Million article, that might go there.11 Arlington (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)