Talk:The Real Anita Hill
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
[edit] Assessment
I assessed this book as a stub because, although it references the main points, a coherent picture of the issue does not emerge, even at cameo scale. For example, 'He claims he helped Thomas threaten another witness into backing down and accuses himself of being "a witting cog in the Republican sleaze machine."'
Which other witness? Who? What? Relevance? Clarity? Nat 11:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think this is a good point. What I would like to see is someone presenting an analysis of why The Real Anita Hill is to be considered a discredited book. I have seen a great deal of Brock's self-flagellation, condemning himself as having been wrong for being a conservative, apologizing to Bill Clinton, etc.. What I have not seen is the underlying reporting behind the book being taken apart. Brock's regrets, his feelings of being a gay man hated by conservatives, and (I suspect) his irritation at the failure of his Hillary book (a failure that seems to be where his change of heart began) are not a sufficient reason for dismissing the book. There needs to be something where the interviews, citations of published material, etc. in this elaborately footnoted volume can be demonstrated to be deliberate falsifications when Brock was an 'evil' conservative who was as he says 'blinded by the right.'
- As I recall, a couple of Wall Street Journal reporters named Jane Mayer and Jill Abramson did a Clarence Thomas book after Brock. I don't recall that they significantly engaged his work at all. (I remember standing in a bookstore right after theirs was published looking in the index for the references to it; there were a few paltry references that basically ignored it, while he essentially ripped theirs to shreds in this review in the pages of the American Spectator.) Brock's The Real Anita Hill essentially stood without significant challenge for a decade until the author decided to repudiate it because his politics changed. If it is as false and baseless as he would like us to believe, someone should be able to show us specific distortions and misrepresentations of facts that can be checked, to put its credibility to rest permanently. Can they? --MollyTheCat 22:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Realanasitasshill.jpg
Image:Realanasitasshill.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
