Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Clarence Thomas

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Clarence Thomas
Status	closed
Request date	01:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Unknown
Mediator(s)	--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Where's the dispute?

Clarence Thomas

See also collateral proceedings at [1] (3rr violation by Garcia) and [2] (page protect, discussed below)

What's the dispute?

RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs) and myself (Simon Dodd (talk · contribs)) have been bickering in edits, reverts, and talk page disagreements, over particular statements in this article. It's time for a fresh perspective; the involvement of a third party in what amounts to a disagreement over the application of Wikipedia policy would be healthy and helpful.

Specifically, I would like to pose three questions/issues for mediation, although I should acknowledge that Garcia may see the issues differently. As I see it, the issues for mediation are:

1. Can a wikipedia editor in good faith ask other editors to prove a negative? Garcia characterizes Justice Thomas as being for "states' rights," citing op/ed pieces hostile to Thomas that describe him as being for such. But "states' rights" is an extremely loaded and pejorative term (see, e.g., Lynn Baker & Ernest Young, Federalism and the Double Standard of Judicial Review, 51 Duke L.J. 75, 143-9 (2001) (noting that "[t]o many, [states’ rights] stands for an anachronistic (and immoral) preference for the race-based denial of essential individual rights")) -- and Justice Thomas has never used that term in a published opinion or speech, certainly not to describe his own view of federalism. I appended a sentence noting that there is no opinion in which Thomas has used that term to Garcia's sentence accusing Thomas of being for states' rights. Garcia has now twice removed the qualification, insisting that it is original research and demanding I prove a negative by "cit[ing] a reliable source that says Thomas has never endorsed it in an opinion."[3] Is he correct, is he acting fairly in asking editors to prove a negative, and in either instance, is he violating Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and the policy statement of Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons ("We must get the article right" (emphasis in original)) by hiding a dubious, ideologically-driven characterization behind Wikipedia policy?

2. If an article makes a conclusory claim of dubious notability that has a propensity to mislead, and cites a third party source that makes the claim in equally conclusory terms - advancing neither research of its own or a citation of someone else's - can or should that claim be removed, particularly in view of Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons's admonition that "poorly sourced contentious material about living persons—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"? Garcia is fond of (i.e. does not want to be removed, and from the introduction at that) a statement that Thomas' "decisions frequently disagree with those of the Court majority." This statement says nothing at all (it could equally be said of every current member of the court except Justice Kennedy), and its inclusion is calculated to create the false impression that Thomas is in dissent uncommonly frequently. No support is offered for this accurate but (in context) misleading statement beyond a PBS article that says the same thing in haec verba.

3. In two cases for which this encyclopedia has entries, Riegel v. Medtronic and Altria Group v. Good, the question before the court was, in essence, whether preemption should be applied broadly or narrowly. Is it original research to say so, citing those cases themselves, or must one cite a third-party source's description of the case in order to describe the case? If the latter, why is this encyclopedia's entire article on Riegel not original research? After all, in describing the case, it cites no authority other than the case itself; ditto the first paragraph of this encyclopedia's article on Altria Group. Surely Wikipedia prefers primary sources over secondary sources, and surely Wikipedia policy does not require citation to a secondary source to describe a primary source. Is it, then, original research to describe a case, and if so, is Wikipedia:Ignore all rules applicable?

Response by RafaelRGarcia (talk · contribs)

1. I cited multiple reliable sources showing that Thomas stands up for the concept commonly known as "states' rights," which is sometimes also called federalism (but, as Dodd admits and has made edits to this effect, the two terms are not interchangeable --- even the most liberal person in the country, the person most in disagreement with Thomas or Dodd, is still in support of federalism if he believes that states can have their own laws apart from federal laws). Dodd alleges that Thomas doesn't support states' rights, and/or hasn't said that he supports states' rights. If this is what Dodd believes and what he wishes to incorporate into the article, then he should provide a RELIABLE SOURCE that says Thomas doesn't. Dodd's own uncited assertions are not sufficient; they should not be allowed to stay in a Wikipedia article. Dodd's edits amount to original research, and are often his own personal view on things, not the view of a reliable source.

For another example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=264590092&oldid=263268005

2. PBS is a reliable source, and it is not up to Dodd to decide which reliably-sourced cited information should stay, and which should go. Empirical analysis of votes, such as that seen on oyez.org, also labels Thomas as the most radical justice on the Court. Just because something hurts someone's image does not mean it should be removed.

For another example of Dodd removing reliably-sourced material because he doesn't like it, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Kennedy&diff=264592777&oldid=264590092

3. Dodd calls Thomas's conception of federal preemption doctrine "broad." What he calls it, or what he thinks, is not important. Rather, he should be citing a reliable source that characterizes Thomas's policy as broad. He doesn't do this; instead, he relies on himself as some sort of legal authority. This behavior is not in line with WP policy.

RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I will defer reply on Garcia's response until mediators get involved, but I would like to note that I take it as a demonstration of utterly bad faith that having been notified of this mediation request, Garcia continued edit warring, reverting the page to his preferred version. I have undone his reversion, and will request page protection if he further demonstrates an inability to behave properly while this is resolved. Simon Dodd (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only reverting away Dodd's latest edits, which are not at all what the page was before he started edit warring, and which introduce his uncited assertions, speculation, and personal views. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 03:40, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Not so at all, and as a result, page protection has been requested.[4] What you have done is not to revert the page to the text prior to the "edit war" (it's fruitless to get into a "who started it" argument over an edit war), but revert it to your most recent preferred version.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The "most recent" version is actually very similar to the version from before the edit war, which is why it should be preferred. Please seek consensus on the talk page when disputes arise. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's see

Hey guys, I was wondering around at ANI and noticed this brouhaha. I might be of help to you guys. I know a little about US Constitutional law and I don't really have strong POV's either way. So I'll format the three issues they way you guys have set it up.

1. It seems like you guys don't disagree about Thomas's views of federalism/state rights. The only issue is what to call this view. I personally would lean towards the term "states rights" because I feel the layperson would be more familiar with the term. I also never knew that "states rights" has a pejorative ring to it. But this mediation is not about what I think; it's about getting you two to come to some sort of agreement.

I haven't really looked at the contrib history, but are the reliable sources (let's exclude negative op-ed's) that state that "Thomas is pro state rights"?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

While reliable sources are important, that isn't the fulcrum of this dispute. One can find "reliable sources" that claim Thomas is for states' rights: that term is a pejorative term used by critics of federalism to implicitly link its supporters to segregation, and those critics include numerous media outlets and scholars that are usually regarded as reliable sources. Nevertheless, the facts remain that (1) Our Federalism is not the same thing as "states' rights," and the Supreme Court has drawn a bright line between the two, see Younger v. Harris; and (2) Thomas has never used that term, not to describe his own philosophy, not to describe anyone else's philosophy, and has often spoken in terms of federalism (see, e.g. Gonzales v. Raich).

What I find in strikingly bad faith is Garcia's insistence that other editors prove a negative. Suppose - arguendo, whether you agree with me or not - I am right, and Thomas has never used that term. Is it really likely that there will be a reliable source that makes such a specific, abstruse claim in as many words? Garcia is insisting that an inaccurate, pejorative and misleading description of Thomas ' jurisprudence remain in the article unless or until I prove a negative - an impossibility, as is well known, and an obvious bad faith tactic.

Wikipedia's rules are directed at smoothing the process of getting its content right. Accuracy, supported by verifiable sources, is more important than hyperfocussing on the rules, as Garcia is doing: that's precisely what WP:AIR directs, a fortiori in the context of wikipedia:living persons. If Garcia thinks I'm wrong, he should simply cite an example of a case where Thomas did use the term to describe his viewpoint. If he cannot -- and all this huffing and puffing he has engaged in is a smokescreen to hide the fact that he cannot -- he should concede that I am correct and accede to the removal of this misleading bit of content.Simon Dodd (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You're completely off-base here. I've provided numerous instances of conservatives themselves using the term "states' rights," so how can you proclaim it's a pejorative term? Let's take the word "liberal" as an instance of a similar example. Conservatives often use the word "liberal" in a negative sense, to "implicitly link" Democrats to high taxes. Does that make the word "liberal" a pejorative term? No. I'm sorry you don't like the use of the phrase "states' rights," but it's not appropriate to subvert the use of the word "federalism." Please stop citing Younger v. Harris - the section of Hugo Black's opinion that you keep referring to is dicta. It's Black's own views, not anything legally binding. It's a decent explanation of things, but it's not widely used, and it's simply not what people first think of when they see the word "federalism." You concede the fact that "numerous media outlets" use the phrase "states' rights." I think that solves this issue, the conservative contempt for the mainstream media notwithstanding. I even showed you a use of the phrase on the conservative site Newsmax.com, but you rejected it because it's not a reliable source. You're right, it's not, but when both the mainstream media and extremist sites like Newsmax.com are using the phrase "states' rights," we have consensus here.

Re: Thomas and "states' rights:" It doesn't really matter whether Thomas himself has used the phrase or not; we have numerous reliable sources saying he defends states' rights, and he does. I'm not going to look through every opinion Thomas has ever written just to check and see if Thomas has ever used the phrase "states' rights" or not. That isn't a productive use of time. On Wikipedia, you can't assert things that are not verifiable. Your claim is contested, and you're not able to verify it, so it should go. Are we unable to use the word "racist" for the justices who decided Plessy v. Ferguson, even though they don't identify with the word themselves?RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RGG: I'd like to consolidate the discussion to one area so I'm going to respond here. My gut reaction is to agree with Simon regarding having to prove a negative but on the other hand agree with RGG that if reliable neutral sources call it "state rights" it's too bad on Justice Thomas if he himself doesn't use or like the term.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the argument here is all about the name of the section. If that's the case, maybe we can agree on some sort of compromise and put one of the terms in parentheses. Like for example, "Federalism (state rights)" or "State rights (federalism)". Alternatively, we can just remove the whole thing and just name the section "Commerce Power". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As I understand his edits, Garcia has accepted "Commerce Clause and federalism" as the title of the section. There are two points of contention regarding the content of that section (and one about the lead paragraph). The first is whether the first paragraph should note that Thomas' critics accuse him of defending states' rights, or note the same while qualifying it by pointing out - accurately - that he has never used that term himself. Garcia insists, in bad faith, that I prove a negative by citing a source in support of the qualification; he insists that to do otherwise violates WP:Original Research, while I maintain that in doing so, he is transgressing WP:IAR and WP:Living persons in order to introduce inaccuracy and WP:POV. I don't mind including the observation that Thomas' critics charge him with being in favor of states' rights, I just want it underlined that this is a charge made of him by critics (there aren't neutral reliable sources, but neutrality isn't necessary so long as it's made clear that these are accusations, not factual statements made by the article), and not one that he accepts. [ADDED: The second point of contention in that section is about Altria Group, but as I understand it, you're taking these one at a time, right?] Simon Dodd (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! But you are charging here that Thomas doesn't accept states' rights, which is what your edits to the article were implying and which I was repudiating by listing out the reliable sources. Do you have any reliable sources or interviews saying that Thomas doesn't accept states' rights? If you don't, the information is not verifiable and should not be added to the article. Where did you even get the factoid that Thomas has never used the term? Have you really read every opinion he's ever written? The point is that your writing is dubious and therefore needs to be cited. Unless you have proof that Thomas has appointed you as his spokesman. Has he? Your personal distaste for the phrase of "states' rights" shouldn't dictate what goes into the page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

As noted immediately above, the dispute isn't really about the section title, but for the record, let me note that I would accept your suggestion for the section title if Garcia is unhappy with "Commerce Clause and federalism" as a title for the section.Simon Dodd (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The title "Commerce Clause" is useful, but doesn't capture everything the section is about. I don't accept "Commerce Clause and federalism," and the title really should be "Commerce Clause and states' rights" - which is what Thomas espouses and has defended, ardently. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take it that we have come to an agreement on one thing: the section name. We're going to rename it to "Commerce Clause". Admittedly, it's not the ideal, what's more important is WP:NPOV and that you two great editors get along. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I had thought so, but Garcia's 21:04 comment above says that he doesn't accept it. He rejects both my suggestion and your compromise - amply demonstrating precisely the sort of unreasonable, inflexible attitude that led me to charge WP:Ownership.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop posturing. The fact is that "Commerce Clause" as a heading doesn't capture the relevant issues, as you and others have continually expanded the section. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been resisting replying to you directly (please direct your comments to the mediator's questions; if you and I arguing was remotely productive, there would have been no need for medcab), but I really must respond to this. I agree with you that it isn't a perfect match for the relevant issues, but that's beside the point. The point is this: You won't accept the title I want, I won't accept the title you want, and so an imperfect compromise suggested by a third party is surely preferable to an undesirable edit war.Simon Dodd (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This is simplistic thinking which rewards obstructionism. The mediator leaned toward "states' rights," the article said "states' rights" for months or years and nobody said a peep until now, because I don't think I inserted the heading, and "states' rights" more accurately captures what's in the section. Unless you have some proof that Thomas disagrees with the concept, I don't see a reason not to use "states' rights." RafaelRGarcia (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

And unless you have some proof that he does, I don't see how using it can be justified. You continue to show bad faith in demanding the burden of proof lie on my doing something you know full well is impossilbe - to prove a negative. What do you want me to do, insert a footnote citing every single opinion Thomas has written? Even if I wasted several hours doing so, you would find some other excuse why it's impermissible - you'd complain it was original research, or that it wasn't a secondary source. If you think Thomas is for it, cite an opinion where he says so. This ongoing smokescreen to hide your inability to do so is the obstructionism here.

Congratulations, you've drawn us back into yet another round of unproductive arguing. Stop directing comments at me and direct them through the mediator. Otherwise we're all three wasting our time. Simon Dodd (talk) 22:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quit posturing. Again, it's not about having to prove a negative. What you're trying to do is force your view that Thomas doesn't support states' rights into the article. At the same time, reliable sources from the mainstream and even the extreme right media say he does. I think the reliable sources should prevail here. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Anybody can direct comments at whoever they want over here, it's not like I'm in charge here. I'm just here to offer suggestions for a compromise. RGG: Please don't take this section name compromise as precedent for the removal of all "states rights". I feel that the name of the section is not that important and a compromise will set a good tone for this mediation. Neither is this compromise set in stone. It's just a start. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to suggest that we should be running this by Roberts' Rules of Order -- just that it's by now obvious that direct discussion between he and I is a waste of everyone's time and only encourages further unproductive bickering, as can be seen above. Simon Dodd (talk) 01:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

2. The PBS in the lede: The first issue that I think we have to discuss is whether the PBS claim is really up to date. The article goes back to December of 2006. I don't know off-hand when exactly Alito and Roberts came onto the Court. But since they joined surely Thomas became less of a dissenter. No?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the PBS article's claim isn't whether it's true for Thomas, per se, but its misleading effect on the lay readers who will make up the bulk of this article's readers. Those of us who follow the court closely know, and lay readers may well not, the statement rings equally true for every member of the present court except the swing vote, Justice Kennedy. Its inclusion - particularly in the head of the article - implies that this fact is notable or in some way outstanding, insinuating that Thomas is in the minority unusually often.

Garcia has, both in this article and elsewhere, showed an unwillingness or inability to understand that a direct quote can be grossly misleading if it omits the surrounding context, and his insistence on including this PBS assertion is much the same, for reasons just mentioned. If the PBS article's claim - which cites not a shred of evidence - is to be relied on at all, it should be placed appropriately in the body of the article, and accurately described for what it is: "PBS claims that Thomas is," not "Thomas is." Just because a statement is accurate, in vacuo, and can be supported by reliable sources, does not mean that it should be included in Wikipedia. Again, the goal is accuracy, and an accurate statement, unmoored from context, can mislead as readily as a false statement.Simon Dodd (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we can say "PBS says," but you are being dishonest when you suggest that the PBS sentence is misleading. From the beginning, Thomas has been and still is the most extremist justice on the Court, and he often writes separately to expound on his idiosyncratic view of things.RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Trying to understant the point of disagreement here. RafaelRGarcia: You don't like the word "broad", but is there are term or description that you prefer or do you want the the whole thing removed pending independent sources?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the things I fail to understand about Garcia's position is his apparent resistance to citing primary sources. Throughout this article, and several other articles, he has cited books about the Supreme Court rather than the court's own opinions; indeed, even when he is directly quoting from the opinion, he will cite a quotation in Toobin, Greenburg, etc. (This is all the more mystifying when citing the cases themselves - freely available online - allows any reader to immediately verify the citation, whereas citing the book only helps those of us who already have the books and thus, paradoxically, don't need Wikipedia's article in the first place) Seen through that lens, Garcia's position is revealed: He isn't insisting, as he claims, on a citation for the proposition that Thomas supported broad broad preemption in these cases; rather, he's insisting that I cite a secondary source that describes them as being broad, rather than simply citing the cases themselves, which plainly support the statement. (No justices disagreed about what they were doing, they disagreed about whether that was the correct result.)

Altria Group was decided barely a month ago; the idea that we must wait on scholarly attention that could be months away before Wikipedia can describe its holding is not only preposterous on its face, it is repudiated by the very existence of an article in Wikipedia that describes Altria Group based on the opinion itself.Simon Dodd (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I cite books about the Supreme Court because I read books all the time, and cases much less often. I think that the vast majority of people worldwide, and on Wikipedia itself, share in this trend. The problem here is that you are not a legal expert, and you're deciding to apply your own filter, or lens, onto cases, and this kind of behavior is just not verifiable. I've already had to remove untrue claims you've added to case pages elsewhere, which calls your credibility into question. The first thing I did in this case was I added a "citation needed" tag to your characterization of the case, and what you decided to do in your infinite wisdom was remove the tag because supposedly you know everything there is to know about the issue. This is inappropriate behavior. If you're writing from personal knowledge, and that writing is contested, then it must be verified, or it can be removed with time (this is the point of the "citation needed" tag). If you're citing an opinion itself, you shouldn't be surprised when you try to characterize something and that characterization is questioned because you don't have any supporting citations, or at the very least, quotations from the primary source, the opinion. Remember the lay reader you posited earlier on this page. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RRG Reply

1. I agree with you that "states' rights" is the appropriate term. "Federalism" is not; even people whose beliefs are very much at odds with Thomas still believe in federalism. The belief scheme we're talking about here is very specific. I don't think there is a good reason to call the term pejorative. Reagan himself used the term in his presidential campaigns. It may be that some people use the term contemptuously, but that's because they disagree with it.

Here's a conservative think tank using the term with no problem: http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.21776/pub_detail.asp

2. The article was posted well after both Roberts and Alito came to office (in 05 and January '06 respectively), and Thomas is still the most extreme-right candidate according to empirical coding of votes, such as the kind used on oyez.org. See the chart at the bottom: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2007/2007_07_320/ideology/#opinions . No one could seriously disagree that Thomas is the most extreme justice, and if someone does, they should provide corroborating sources. Besides that, Dodd is exercising too much discretion in trying to exclude information that makes Thomas look bad. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=264558124&oldid=264557706

3. The issue isn't just found in this particular instance. Dodd continually tries to make his own assertions about the law and what it means. He isn't citing sources there or in other instances where he tries to add his own views to the page. How will the layman know the conception is actually broad? Compared to what? Etc.

Here, Dodd asserts that Thomas has never used the term "states' rights" in any published opinion: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Clarence_Thomas&diff=264555848&oldid=264517056 . But are we supposed to take him at his word? Why can't he provide a reliable source that corroborates him? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be about verifiability? And this narrow wording may be deliberate - Thomas could've also said he believes in states' rights somewhere else. However, the issue isn't as simple as whether he's said it or not. His legal opinions clearly service the goals of the concept, so why do we have to wait for the justice to use the term himself?

• Here's some corroboration: http://www.blackvoicenews.com/content/view/38308/18/
• The NYT says Thomas ardently defended states' rights: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/17/books/review/Patterson-t.html
• This conservative book author thinks states' rights is okay (page 115) and also says Thomas supports it: http://books.google.com/books?id=ACNclAFnZNUC&pg=PA115&lpg=PA115&dq=%22clarence+thomas%22+%22states%27+rights%22&source=bl&ots=pUyE-1Ilgb&sig=W9Ibk_KnJcYLUAxh1vjYpEbVkc4&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result#PPA115,M1

I could go on, but obviously there is little need. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 14:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

An external comparison

As a point of reference to the "states' rights / federalism / what others call him / what he calls himself issue, cf. that dispute with [5] and [6]. A mediation case has been opened over whether Media Matters should use the term "liberal" or "progressive." At the latter link, user:Gamaliel insists that s/he "oppose[s] using the world 'liberal' as opposed to 'progressive"' since they themselves use the latter." Presumably, Garcia will apply consistent standards even when they cut against his biases, and will be weighing in against user:Gamaliel, insisting that if reliable sources call media matters liberal, they're liberal, no matter how they think of themselves. Right? Simon Dodd (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that if reliable sources call the site liberal, then it is so, and progressive is a synonym for it anyway. If you're so insistent that Thomas disowns the term "states' rights," provide a source for it. Then we could mention that he disowns the term, though as sources have pointed out, his legal opinions fit the doctrine. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 05:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, we value objectivity. It matters little what the subject of an article says subjectively, say, that "The sky is falling," if common sense layperson observation and every objective source states otherwise. See WP:SPADE. "Liberal" is no longer used by reliable sources; the current term is "progressive," as it was in the 1930s. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This Review from the New York Times is a reliable source and should be used and cited per our citation form. Bearian (talk) 15:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a reliable source that someone's opinion is such and such; that doesn't make it a reliable source that such and such is a fact. For example, Patterson says that "Thomas bears the scars of yet another black prejudice"; that supports the claim that Patterson believes (or some critics believe) Thomas bears scars of blah blah, but it does not support the claim that Thomas does bear the scars of blah blah. In any event, so far as I know, no one is disputing that the article can acknowledge the point your cite stands for (that critics charge that Thomas is for states' rights). That's beside the point.Simon Dodd (talk) 16:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you concede the point now, because you and Ferrylodge have been fighting it tooth and nail until now. The NYT piece stands. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Another external comparison point

Nuclear option#Clinton appointments: 1993-2000 quotes the New York Times as criticizing the Senate GOP for using the filibuster too often, and then adds this statement: "There was no attempt to rewrite Senate rules for confirmation at that time." That seems a very good analog to the situation here: the statement is important to the accuracy of the article, and is true, but is not supported by a citation. Asking that statement to be sourced would be asking editors to prove a negative: one cannot cite a vote that never took place or a statement that was never made. I would say that the burden must be on the editors who dispute the point to show that an attempt was made: that can be proved, a negative cannot. So does that statement have to go, too? That's the upshot of accepting Garcia's argument, and I'm sure that there are a lot of other indisputably accurate yet unsourced statements that will have to be removed from Wikipedia if he prevails here.Simon Dodd (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This situation is not at all analogous. And it covers a historical event in the past. What you're trying to do is assert a fact or characterization for decades of opinions, a set of opinions which will continue to grow until Thomas retires. If you wish to include such an assertion, you should cite it; we can't take your word for it and we can't reasonably check the veracity of your words, given so many Thomas opinions. Remember the policy on Verifiability. Besides which, you're on a losing side here, because even if it's true that Thomas has never endorsed states' rights personally, plenty of reliable sources (and even rightist sources) say it for him. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So: what happens now?

user:Samir's block expires in a hew hours (although I've suggested he extend it[7][8]). I take it no one wants to go back to an edit war, but I'm afraid I don't think we've made headway here, yet. What happens next? Simon Dodd (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like this mediation made much headway; RGG apparently lost interest. One positive is that Ferrylodge has chimed in at the Clarence Thomas talk page. His position would add weight to any of the positions, which should dissuade the minority from getting entrenched in his position. I can't imagine the lock will continue. We can't have articles fully protected for such long periods of time. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not "lose interest;" I just don't have as much free time to post on Wikipedia as my opponents do, and there's two of them and one of me. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean in the accusatory sense. If you don't want to be part of this mediation, you have every right to ignore us. That being said, I tried to get the compromise feeling rolling with the section name. Simon agreed to the compromise offer (supra), but you never really agreed to the offer or offered another compromise position. Ferrylodge's entrance into this mess complicates matters. Even if I get you two guys to agree on something, Ferrylodge might not agree. So I'm not really sure what to do at this point.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Dodd and Ferrylodge have pretty similar views. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 00:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, surely better that the article remain protected than go back to a revert war, right? I mean, maybe we read the talk page differently, but it looks to me as though Garcia has demonstrated the same high-handed, intransigent and dismissive ownership vis-à-vis Ferrylodge as he has taken with me, and as he did with user:Wallamoose before me. The article as it presently stands is much more to his liking than it is to mine, so he may well hold fire long enough to blame me for restarting the edit war, but it seems clear to me that without consensus, this page will be in one of two states: locked or the throes of an edit war. At least if it's locked, that provides an inducement to build consensus (as I've continued to try to do with the same user at William Rehnquist, to yet more surly resistance).Simon Dodd (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Simon. I'll protect for another week, but no more than that: (1) hopefully it will encourage helpful discussion here as opposed to what is degenerating on the talk page; and, (2) despite Brewcrewer's valiant try to sort through this, this probably should go for WP:RFM. I wish I had the time to help out more substantially with the issues in contention but unfortunately I don't -- Samir 09:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Simon, you are being very uncivil, and after you called me a prick and were very disrespectful on the CT talk page, and now this, it's making me feel like filing a wikiquette alert. RE: Rehnquist - you continue to add your own editorializing to the page, which is just not appropriate in my view. And just because you and Ferrylodge are tag-teaming me with your identical extreme-rightist views doesn't mean I'm a minority view; I'll remind you who was inaugurated president recently. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Samir, I've filed that at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Clarence Thomas.Simon Dodd (talk) 04:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits ignored much of the discussion here and were not in line with consensus. I have edited the article to better reflect the discussion. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

More details: I have changed the description of the professor to "NYT book reviewer and op-ed columnist," which is all true. I removed the unverifiable claim about Thomas's using the phrase "states' rights" or not, per WP: Verifiability. If Dodd really wants to assert this, he should have some corroboration or some source for Thomas disavowing the term. A blanket statement about his decades of opinions is not appropriate and not verifiable. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You're once again demanding that I prove a negative. That would be in bad faith by itself, but it's all the more so since, if I cited every opinion Thomas has ever written, you'd just bleat about it being original research. All of this bluster, Rafael, is a smokescreen for the fact that you know full well that there is not a single published opinion by Justice Thomas that uses the term; if there was, you would already have put this controversy to bed by citing it. What we're left with, then, is your attempt to wikilawyer a false impression into the article. That's thoroughly contemptible. Put up or shut up: cite any Thomas opinion that uses the term to describe his philosophy. Simon Dodd (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Your tone is contemptible, and your point is irrelevant. Reliable sources already characterize him as for "states' rights;" whether he admits it matters not. Some racists, for example, are loath to admit they're racist. RafaelRGarcia (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't get to make such claims after your conduct in this matter. I fancy that the real world is going to rapidly disabuse you of some of these behaviors if your professors fail to. Welcome to the profession. Simon Dodd (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)