Talk:Anita Hill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is not a forum for general discussion of Anita Hill. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anita Hill article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

	This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
???	This article has not yet received a rating.

Contents 1 2 Edited David Brock part 2 3 New Job 4 David Brock Furthers doubts 5 Vandalism / Errors

[edit]

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Vandalism / Errors

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