This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anita Hill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 11, 2021. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Since when did it become inappropriate on Wikipedia to be precise
- According to the file page, the photo was taken 24 September 2014 at 18:27:16. Would you support being that precise in this caption? No? Why not? Oh - because that would be overly precise? So showing less than the available precision in dates and times is in fact something you're familiar with, then?
In that case, let's move past the rhetoric and consider whether the month earns its keep in terms of reader value. We don't (or shouldn't, rather) include information that doesn't increase reader understanding, no matter how small. Can you say why a reader might care whether the photo is from September 2014 vs any other month in 2014? Even if one in a thousand did care, one click gets them the precise time to the second, and saving them that click is not adequate justification for showing the month to the vast majority of readers for whom it is superfluous noise.
and, in this case, by only one word?
- I freely admit it was a minor improvement. That doesn't change the fact that it was an improvement. I could just as easily argue "Why are you making a fuss about only one word?", but I don't consider that a useful argument. The magnitude of an edit is irrelevant. ―
Mandruss
☎
02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
16 days is more than enough time for additional input, and I have reinstated the edit on the strength of the above comment. Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey folks,
In the "Later Life" section, I don't see a reason to have a 'page needed' tag on the following sentence:
Speaking Truth to Power,[42][page needed] in which she chronicled her role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy[4][6]
The sentence describes the fact of her writing a book, and the fact that she chronicled her role in the controversy is documented in reference [6]. (I couldn't fetch reference [4] making me think it should be deleted.
Lcuff ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better photo that can be uploaded to the article of her testimony? Since this was just in 1991, a black-and-white photo does not seem appropriate as it seems to date the testimony for earlier than a color photo would. ManuelLopezz talk 06:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no discussion of the credibility of Hill's allegation that Thomas said "Who put this pubic hair on my Coke can?" The issue is noteworthy because basically nobody would ever make a statement like that, especially with the purpose of ingratiating one's self with or romantically propositing another person. The question is so puerile, it sounds like it was dreamt up by a 10-year old trying to be shocking. And it illustrates what a weak Democrat hack job the Anita Hill testimony was. 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)kolef 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Anita Hill article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 91 days |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 11, 2021. |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 14:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Since when did it become inappropriate on Wikipedia to be precise
- According to the file page, the photo was taken 24 September 2014 at 18:27:16. Would you support being that precise in this caption? No? Why not? Oh - because that would be overly precise? So showing less than the available precision in dates and times is in fact something you're familiar with, then?
In that case, let's move past the rhetoric and consider whether the month earns its keep in terms of reader value. We don't (or shouldn't, rather) include information that doesn't increase reader understanding, no matter how small. Can you say why a reader might care whether the photo is from September 2014 vs any other month in 2014? Even if one in a thousand did care, one click gets them the precise time to the second, and saving them that click is not adequate justification for showing the month to the vast majority of readers for whom it is superfluous noise.
and, in this case, by only one word?
- I freely admit it was a minor improvement. That doesn't change the fact that it was an improvement. I could just as easily argue "Why are you making a fuss about only one word?", but I don't consider that a useful argument. The magnitude of an edit is irrelevant. ―
Mandruss
☎
02:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
16 days is more than enough time for additional input, and I have reinstated the edit on the strength of the above comment. Thank you. ― Mandruss ☎ 23:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey folks,
In the "Later Life" section, I don't see a reason to have a 'page needed' tag on the following sentence:
Speaking Truth to Power,[42][page needed] in which she chronicled her role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation controversy[4][6]
The sentence describes the fact of her writing a book, and the fact that she chronicled her role in the controversy is documented in reference [6]. (I couldn't fetch reference [4] making me think it should be deleted.
Lcuff ( talk) 17:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone have a better photo that can be uploaded to the article of her testimony? Since this was just in 1991, a black-and-white photo does not seem appropriate as it seems to date the testimony for earlier than a color photo would. ManuelLopezz talk 06:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
There is no discussion of the credibility of Hill's allegation that Thomas said "Who put this pubic hair on my Coke can?" The issue is noteworthy because basically nobody would ever make a statement like that, especially with the purpose of ingratiating one's self with or romantically propositing another person. The question is so puerile, it sounds like it was dreamt up by a 10-year old trying to be shocking. And it illustrates what a weak Democrat hack job the Anita Hill testimony was. 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)kolef 98.244.137.86 ( talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)