Talk:Dahlia Lithwick

Untitled

Is it actually true that this article is still a stub? Possibly it should just be given the regular category tag, at this point. Auros 20:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Two and half years later... done.--CAVincent (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Column where she hopes for a "liberal Scalia"

Partial excerpt:

But beneath the claims that the court has shifted radically rightward with each successive appointment lurks the sense that the remaining liberals have somehow let us down...

If, then, we're totting up all the qualities the current court's liberals ostensibly lack, we'd need to blend boldness with passion and persuasiveness with volume and then hope the next candidate also comes with some sort of just-add-water Sweeping Constitutional Vision kit. Preferably this persuasive, passionate constitutional bomb-thrower is also a woman, and, with any luck, an African-American or Latina or Asian-American as well. Putting it all together, it's hard to come up with even one Scalia-like candidate, although some cross between Rachel Maddow and Emma Goldman sounds like a good start.

From the above excerpts, it is clear that Lithwick includes herself in the views she expresses. And yes, in the article she uses a form of "we" six times, "us" once, "my" once, and "our" once. Regardless of whether the title originates from a song title, she signs off on "I need a hero." If you still have any doubts, there are about five non-Slate sources that also ascribe those views to her. As far as length, the material can be trimmed. That specific column of hers is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in multiple sources (besides the WSJ and TNR reference I included, it is mentioned in The Volokh Conspiracy, How Appealing, The Washington Monthly, and The American Prospect). Drrll (talk) 23:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Dahlia Lithwick. 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:

• Replaced archive link http://www.webcitation.org/query?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.c-ville.com%2Findex.php%3Fcat%3D121304062461064%26ShowArticle_ID%3D11801904103191198&date=2011-09-17 with https://web.archive.org/web/20110716212923/http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=121304062461064&ShowArticle_ID=11801904103191198 on http://www.c-ville.com/index.php?cat=121304062461064&ShowArticle_ID=11801904103191198

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Possible COI

I'm going through and checking the edit by 142.115.92.239 (talk · contribs) who would appear to have some kind of relationship with the subject based on the promotional tone of his major edit. --William Graham ^talk 20:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I'm plenty willing to assume good faith on your removal, but surprised that the edit in question was stricken from the article history. That seems unusual for merely COI concerns, as opposed to more serious BLP concerns. Conceivably, something could have been salvaged with a little work. CAVincent (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah sorry, I just found that another user changed the visibility due to copyright violation concerns. CAVincent (talk) 05:51, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Chaos muppet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Chaos muppet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Chaos muppet until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

"Order muppet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Order muppet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 24 § Order muppet until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:52, 24 March 2024 (UTC)