![]() | A news item involving Lani Guinier was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 January 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Lani Guinier is the SECOND woman of color appointed tenure at Harvard Law School. Straight from the Harvard newspaper: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/
"We welcome the announcement last week that noted scholar Lani Guinier '71 accepted tenure from Harvard Law School (HLS) and hope her appointment will be followed by offers to others from a diversity of backgrounds. ...Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"
Though for some reason she quietly became the first woman of color sometime later.
Not sure what the point of this section is. Is it a dig at Harvard or at Eliz Warren? We all know now (as of 2018) that Eliz Warren is a white woman who (like many white people) has a family story of Native ancestry and perhaps a few genes to indicate a distant Native biological ancestor. For reasons that she states were sincere at the time, but not accurate, she clicked an additional or wrong box on a Harvard survey, but Warren is not a woman of color. That Harvard page has been corrected. Lani Guinier was clearly the first. David Couch ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"Journalists, both those fed erroneous data by right wing Republicans as well as those who simply misunderstood (or failed even to read in context) her law review articles, also alleged that Guinier supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as 'race-conscious districting.'"
Unencyclopedic tone. The article is merely seething with outrage than Guinier was not appointed. It is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia absent substantial revision and insertion of balance. John Paul Parks ( talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In 1993 President Clinton nominated HLS Prof. Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, but after a negative reaction by some conservatives got traction in the mainstream media (she was labelled her a "Quota Queen" among other things) her nomination was withdrawn, after Clinton claimed he read her law review articles and found them too liberal.
Fast forward to the Bernard Kerik dust up, and all of the sudden Lani Guinier has gotten lumped in with Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Clinton nominees for U.S. Attorney General who got derailed by "nanny problems." One might expect this from Fox News (see e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141228,00.html) and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6696925/). But Jon Stewart also got in the act, making fun of her for having a nanny problem on Comedy Central (see clip here if you scroll down to the Kerik clip on12/14: http://www.crooksandliars.com/). Even the Washington Post make this unfounded accusation ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A57960-2004Dec11_2.html), although unlike Fox et. al., on December 14th the Washington Post issued a correction, the text of which was:
"Correction A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Department's civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a "nanny problem." There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier's legal writings."
On December 15th, just a day after the WaPo correction, however, the Baltimore Sun ran a whole new story alleging that Lani had a nanny problem, and countless bloggers have picked this up as "fact." One starts to wonder whether there are only a handful of reporters in this entire country, whose sloppily researched stories get picked up and republished a million times without the least bit of factchecking. And then, enter the Internet. Once a few websites published the erroneous accusation, other sites,and many blogs, linked to them for "support" on this contention. Within a short amount of time a Google search revealed so many sites that made this false claim that her fictitious "nanny problem" seems entrenched, well document and irrefutable.
I reprint below the text of Lani's letter to the Baltimore Sun about this:
User:194.215.75.17 added these two statements (among others):
1. During this two week process, she was also made famous as the "object of a modern, instant witch-hunt".
2. Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.
These do not sound WP:NPOV. I would like to see these backed up with sources. If they can't be, they need to be removed. Even with sources, I have a feeling they probably will need to be rewritten to include the perspective they originate from. Lawyer2b 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.
Number 2 above is simple fact, not really provable because you'd be trying to prove a null hypothesis. We'd have to prove the reverse -- that there were various articles published at the time in which Clinton defended Guinier or in which Guinier corrected/engaged these critics. You won't find any. Virtually every major news source noted that Clinton failed to defend his choice, and that Guinier was not given the hearing in which she would be able to explain her writings to Congress.
She did take the unusual step of going on TV newsshows, as the Times of London later noted, but only to insist on her right to a trial, saying `Fairness requires that I be given an opportunity to present my views in the Senate,' [“Clinton faces liberal backlash as he drops civil rights radical,” The Times (London, England) (6/4/93, p14.] After the fact, Clinton himself "acknowledged that Ms. Guinier had fought until the end to be able to appear before Senate Judiciary Committee to explain her views." [NY Times, 6/4/93 p.A1]
The same news sources tended to repeat phrases like this, also from the Times: "Among other things, Ms Guinier has appeared to challenge the principles of one-man, one-vote, and majority rule, and has advocated extreme measures to increase black political power." Again, please find a reasonably accessible news source that even tried to address these very complex legal concepts (any of Guinier's writings touch on these ideas).
In late 1993, the cover story of the Columbia Journalism Review (arguably the #1 journalism school in the country) concluded: "Opponents of Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Dept's Civil Rights Division successfully distorted select bits of her previous academic writings and sparked a media frenzy surrounding the candidate. The press was manipulated by political opponents who were quoting Guinier out of context. Media representatives are guilty of not thoroughly researching the writings in question. Instead, a caricaturized representation of Guinier and her philosophies was perpetuated by an uninformed media quick to seize the negative sound bites of her detractors, chief among whom was Clint Bolick." (abstract, Columbia Journalism Review 32:3 (Sept-Oct 1993): p36.
All of which makes Clinton look worse than Lani herself, but that's another story... [--malinchista, 5/31/06]
Whatever. An article in the CJR is not an opinion but a scholarly conclusion based on an objective, substantive study, reviewed and approved by scholarly peers. It's very much a wiki-approved source. [malinchista, 6/2/06]
"I was ordered by both Justice Department and White House staff not to speak to the press in advance of confirmation hearings. This was the one area in which the White House both took charge and remained unambiguous in its directives: as an executive branch nominee, I must remain silent." (Guinier, Lift Every Voice (Simon & Schuster, 1998), 50.)
L2b, will you please quit wasting our time? That the media blasted on Lani is not controversial --conservatives are proud of the fact that they derailed a nomination, and liberals are chagrined. Big whoop.
Further, I've provided citation after citation and you have provided nothing but "uh uh, I don't think so." Do some research, read another piece of Guinier's work, add something substantive instead of nitpicking at nonexistent slights. Please.
Malinchista
08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable. To every one of your queries, I have provided sources documenting Guinier's enforced silence:
All of these are, according to wikipedia,verifiable sources:
Verifiability, not truth.
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true....
And every time, you've provided no substantive argument for a different or additional interpretation; indeed, you've done no work at all. --mali, 6/11
Apologies, L2. I didn't mean to characterize you, but rather my opinion of your behavior as documented on this page. Nevertheless, I'm sorry. I tried to go back and remove the offensive term, but was unable to figure it out..can edit the discussion text, but not the summaryline. Malinchista 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)malinchista
Tagged as pov. Very biased and needs to reference some of the bold statements it makes. Aaрон Кинни ( t) 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't just randomly mark. Be substantive, make specific suggestions, per wiki policy....[ [2]] Malinchista 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
She's a Harvard law prof and was a nominee for Assistant Attorney General of th U.S. for Civil Rights - I don't think it's a stretch to call her one of the leading civil rights scholars in the country. And she talks about growing up biracial, with a Jewish mom and AfrAm dad in pretty much all of her books. Malinchista 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Teehee. Thanks for the support, L2B; such a good sport! I thought adding "arguably" would make the reference a bit more ambiguous. I didn't say "most popular" or "most well known to 14-year-olds," because she's not. But to her peers, to those in the field of law and civil rights, and certainly, to a former president and attorney general for civil rights, she is clearly a leading figure. Besides, by your[Epee's] logic ("I didn't know her"), no one in atomic science or engineering is "leading" because _I_ don't know them. And if that's true, we're all in trouble.... Malinchista 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the reasoning behind making "Jewish Black American" the very first thing we learn about Lani. Certainly, it's relevant, but I think the identification of her mother and father in the third paragraph communicates the same information effectively, and more naturally, in the context of her family heritage. Why don't you move the links down to that sentence instead? Malinchista
Under Wiki standards, generally I would agreee. But the exception is where ethnicity is notable. Here I believe it is. She is, for example, listed under the Wiki list of Black Americans. So my thought would be to leave it in the first line. Tx.-- Epeefleche 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked the heading categories a bit to more accurately reflect content. I don't really think the "early life" category makes much sense --I think I would move that up to the intro/overview, and delete the category--or did someone put that there as standard Wikiness? Malinchista
The whole argument above is by this late date, moot. The talk page offers all too good a history of what happened to Wikipedia. Malinchista, by late 2007 nobody would take this page as anything more than an essay by you. You think you won, but all that happened is the dream of a fair, collaborative encyclopedia has vanished. And by the way, do you really understand what a "malinchista" is? It hardly seems appropriate for you, given your politics. Profhum 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that Guinier is a "red-diaper baby" (two communist parents)? Black-Jewish couple in the 1940s -- you know her parents met at a CPUSA meeting Kauffner ( talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This whole article needs more citations and to be completely rewritten by someone other than a freshman for social studies class. It lacks NPOV, is steeped in original research, and is just not up to Wiki standards. I realize it's already been talked about but clearly nothing happened. "She wanted this, she did this..." what is that? What kind of encyclopedic writing is that? And according to who? The prime contributor/writer or an actual verifiable source? If I knew how to tag this or cared enough to start editing I would but I will leave up to someone who knows more about this subject. 144.92.85.41 ( talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article to reflect a more balanced nonPOV tone. Please remeber that wikipedia requires NPOV. Media outlets are only considered good sources for either unequivical facts (i.e. it is day outside), or good sources for the fact that a certain POV exists! Many of the arguments in the discussions above miss this crucial point. Whatever the NYT (or the Columbia Journalism Review etc.) says is certainly not considered a fact. Rather, the NYT is a good source for a certain POV. Please familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and then I am sure we can reach a solution. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoever placed the NPOV tag was right to do so. That section of the article, on Ms. Guinier's nomination, was heavily slanted and biased against Republicans, and had a very non-neutral tone. I changed to make it very, much more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lani Guinier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Guinier.1993When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Lani Guinier. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I’m here to discuss the lead section summarizing the backlash to Guinier’s AAG nomination. I interpret the current sources cited (and others I have read) as this being led by right-wing politicians and media. However an IP editor has repeatedly changed the descriptor to “bipartisan”. Opinions? CC LifeHopeJoy and AleatoryPonderings who have read through the entry recently. Thanks. Innisfree987 ( talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving Lani Guinier was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 January 2022. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Lani Guinier is the SECOND woman of color appointed tenure at Harvard Law School. Straight from the Harvard newspaper: http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1998/2/4/welcome-guinier-pwe-welcome-the-announcement/
"We welcome the announcement last week that noted scholar Lani Guinier '71 accepted tenure from Harvard Law School (HLS) and hope her appointment will be followed by offers to others from a diversity of backgrounds. ...Harvard Law School currently has only one tenured minority woman, Gottlieb Professor of Law Elizabeth Warren, who is Native American"
Though for some reason she quietly became the first woman of color sometime later.
Not sure what the point of this section is. Is it a dig at Harvard or at Eliz Warren? We all know now (as of 2018) that Eliz Warren is a white woman who (like many white people) has a family story of Native ancestry and perhaps a few genes to indicate a distant Native biological ancestor. For reasons that she states were sincere at the time, but not accurate, she clicked an additional or wrong box on a Harvard survey, but Warren is not a woman of color. That Harvard page has been corrected. Lani Guinier was clearly the first. David Couch ( talk) 21:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
"Journalists, both those fed erroneous data by right wing Republicans as well as those who simply misunderstood (or failed even to read in context) her law review articles, also alleged that Guinier supported the shaping of electoral districts to ensure a black majority, a process known as 'race-conscious districting.'"
Unencyclopedic tone. The article is merely seething with outrage than Guinier was not appointed. It is not worthy of a place in Wikipedia absent substantial revision and insertion of balance. John Paul Parks ( talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In 1993 President Clinton nominated HLS Prof. Lani Guinier to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, but after a negative reaction by some conservatives got traction in the mainstream media (she was labelled her a "Quota Queen" among other things) her nomination was withdrawn, after Clinton claimed he read her law review articles and found them too liberal.
Fast forward to the Bernard Kerik dust up, and all of the sudden Lani Guinier has gotten lumped in with Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, Clinton nominees for U.S. Attorney General who got derailed by "nanny problems." One might expect this from Fox News (see e.g. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,141228,00.html) and MSNBC http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6696925/). But Jon Stewart also got in the act, making fun of her for having a nanny problem on Comedy Central (see clip here if you scroll down to the Kerik clip on12/14: http://www.crooksandliars.com/). Even the Washington Post make this unfounded accusation ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/articles/A57960-2004Dec11_2.html), although unlike Fox et. al., on December 14th the Washington Post issued a correction, the text of which was:
"Correction A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Department's civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a "nanny problem." There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of controversy over Guinier's legal writings."
On December 15th, just a day after the WaPo correction, however, the Baltimore Sun ran a whole new story alleging that Lani had a nanny problem, and countless bloggers have picked this up as "fact." One starts to wonder whether there are only a handful of reporters in this entire country, whose sloppily researched stories get picked up and republished a million times without the least bit of factchecking. And then, enter the Internet. Once a few websites published the erroneous accusation, other sites,and many blogs, linked to them for "support" on this contention. Within a short amount of time a Google search revealed so many sites that made this false claim that her fictitious "nanny problem" seems entrenched, well document and irrefutable.
I reprint below the text of Lani's letter to the Baltimore Sun about this:
User:194.215.75.17 added these two statements (among others):
1. During this two week process, she was also made famous as the "object of a modern, instant witch-hunt".
2. Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.
These do not sound WP:NPOV. I would like to see these backed up with sources. If they can't be, they need to be removed. Even with sources, I have a feeling they probably will need to be rewritten to include the perspective they originate from. Lawyer2b 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Throughout the process, Guinier was not allowed to defend herself against critics and media who chose select excerpts from her academic work without context, reducing complex legal arguments to simplistic phrases.
Number 2 above is simple fact, not really provable because you'd be trying to prove a null hypothesis. We'd have to prove the reverse -- that there were various articles published at the time in which Clinton defended Guinier or in which Guinier corrected/engaged these critics. You won't find any. Virtually every major news source noted that Clinton failed to defend his choice, and that Guinier was not given the hearing in which she would be able to explain her writings to Congress.
She did take the unusual step of going on TV newsshows, as the Times of London later noted, but only to insist on her right to a trial, saying `Fairness requires that I be given an opportunity to present my views in the Senate,' [“Clinton faces liberal backlash as he drops civil rights radical,” The Times (London, England) (6/4/93, p14.] After the fact, Clinton himself "acknowledged that Ms. Guinier had fought until the end to be able to appear before Senate Judiciary Committee to explain her views." [NY Times, 6/4/93 p.A1]
The same news sources tended to repeat phrases like this, also from the Times: "Among other things, Ms Guinier has appeared to challenge the principles of one-man, one-vote, and majority rule, and has advocated extreme measures to increase black political power." Again, please find a reasonably accessible news source that even tried to address these very complex legal concepts (any of Guinier's writings touch on these ideas).
In late 1993, the cover story of the Columbia Journalism Review (arguably the #1 journalism school in the country) concluded: "Opponents of Lani Guinier's nomination to head the Justice Dept's Civil Rights Division successfully distorted select bits of her previous academic writings and sparked a media frenzy surrounding the candidate. The press was manipulated by political opponents who were quoting Guinier out of context. Media representatives are guilty of not thoroughly researching the writings in question. Instead, a caricaturized representation of Guinier and her philosophies was perpetuated by an uninformed media quick to seize the negative sound bites of her detractors, chief among whom was Clint Bolick." (abstract, Columbia Journalism Review 32:3 (Sept-Oct 1993): p36.
All of which makes Clinton look worse than Lani herself, but that's another story... [--malinchista, 5/31/06]
Whatever. An article in the CJR is not an opinion but a scholarly conclusion based on an objective, substantive study, reviewed and approved by scholarly peers. It's very much a wiki-approved source. [malinchista, 6/2/06]
"I was ordered by both Justice Department and White House staff not to speak to the press in advance of confirmation hearings. This was the one area in which the White House both took charge and remained unambiguous in its directives: as an executive branch nominee, I must remain silent." (Guinier, Lift Every Voice (Simon & Schuster, 1998), 50.)
L2b, will you please quit wasting our time? That the media blasted on Lani is not controversial --conservatives are proud of the fact that they derailed a nomination, and liberals are chagrined. Big whoop.
Further, I've provided citation after citation and you have provided nothing but "uh uh, I don't think so." Do some research, read another piece of Guinier's work, add something substantive instead of nitpicking at nonexistent slights. Please.
Malinchista
08:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Unbelievable. To every one of your queries, I have provided sources documenting Guinier's enforced silence:
All of these are, according to wikipedia,verifiable sources:
Verifiability, not truth.
One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors.
"Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true....
And every time, you've provided no substantive argument for a different or additional interpretation; indeed, you've done no work at all. --mali, 6/11
Apologies, L2. I didn't mean to characterize you, but rather my opinion of your behavior as documented on this page. Nevertheless, I'm sorry. I tried to go back and remove the offensive term, but was unable to figure it out..can edit the discussion text, but not the summaryline. Malinchista 19:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)malinchista
Tagged as pov. Very biased and needs to reference some of the bold statements it makes. Aaрон Кинни ( t) 00:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Don't just randomly mark. Be substantive, make specific suggestions, per wiki policy....[ [2]] Malinchista 19:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
She's a Harvard law prof and was a nominee for Assistant Attorney General of th U.S. for Civil Rights - I don't think it's a stretch to call her one of the leading civil rights scholars in the country. And she talks about growing up biracial, with a Jewish mom and AfrAm dad in pretty much all of her books. Malinchista 07:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Teehee. Thanks for the support, L2B; such a good sport! I thought adding "arguably" would make the reference a bit more ambiguous. I didn't say "most popular" or "most well known to 14-year-olds," because she's not. But to her peers, to those in the field of law and civil rights, and certainly, to a former president and attorney general for civil rights, she is clearly a leading figure. Besides, by your[Epee's] logic ("I didn't know her"), no one in atomic science or engineering is "leading" because _I_ don't know them. And if that's true, we're all in trouble.... Malinchista 00:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the reasoning behind making "Jewish Black American" the very first thing we learn about Lani. Certainly, it's relevant, but I think the identification of her mother and father in the third paragraph communicates the same information effectively, and more naturally, in the context of her family heritage. Why don't you move the links down to that sentence instead? Malinchista
Under Wiki standards, generally I would agreee. But the exception is where ethnicity is notable. Here I believe it is. She is, for example, listed under the Wiki list of Black Americans. So my thought would be to leave it in the first line. Tx.-- Epeefleche 14:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Tweaked the heading categories a bit to more accurately reflect content. I don't really think the "early life" category makes much sense --I think I would move that up to the intro/overview, and delete the category--or did someone put that there as standard Wikiness? Malinchista
The whole argument above is by this late date, moot. The talk page offers all too good a history of what happened to Wikipedia. Malinchista, by late 2007 nobody would take this page as anything more than an essay by you. You think you won, but all that happened is the dream of a fair, collaborative encyclopedia has vanished. And by the way, do you really understand what a "malinchista" is? It hardly seems appropriate for you, given your politics. Profhum 08:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the article mention that Guinier is a "red-diaper baby" (two communist parents)? Black-Jewish couple in the 1940s -- you know her parents met at a CPUSA meeting Kauffner ( talk) 19:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
This whole article needs more citations and to be completely rewritten by someone other than a freshman for social studies class. It lacks NPOV, is steeped in original research, and is just not up to Wiki standards. I realize it's already been talked about but clearly nothing happened. "She wanted this, she did this..." what is that? What kind of encyclopedic writing is that? And according to who? The prime contributor/writer or an actual verifiable source? If I knew how to tag this or cared enough to start editing I would but I will leave up to someone who knows more about this subject. 144.92.85.41 ( talk) 20:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I edited the article to reflect a more balanced nonPOV tone. Please remeber that wikipedia requires NPOV. Media outlets are only considered good sources for either unequivical facts (i.e. it is day outside), or good sources for the fact that a certain POV exists! Many of the arguments in the discussions above miss this crucial point. Whatever the NYT (or the Columbia Journalism Review etc.) says is certainly not considered a fact. Rather, the NYT is a good source for a certain POV. Please familiarize yourself with how wikipedia works, and then I am sure we can reach a solution. 38.117.213.19 ( talk) 03:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Whoever placed the NPOV tag was right to do so. That section of the article, on Ms. Guinier's nomination, was heavily slanted and biased against Republicans, and had a very non-neutral tone. I changed to make it very, much more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cali11298 ( talk • contribs) 19:47, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cali11298/Archive. If you see any editing like that, you are dealing with a Cali11298 WP:Sockpuppet. I'm certain that this editor will not quit WP:Sockpuppeting. You can contact Mike V and other WP:CheckUsers if you suspect WP:Sockpuppetry. Or you can, of course, start a WP:Sockpuppet investigation. For anyone it will help, on my user page, I list ways of identifying WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Lani Guinier. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c0/Guinier.1993When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Lani Guinier. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I’m here to discuss the lead section summarizing the backlash to Guinier’s AAG nomination. I interpret the current sources cited (and others I have read) as this being led by right-wing politicians and media. However an IP editor has repeatedly changed the descriptor to “bipartisan”. Opinions? CC LifeHopeJoy and AleatoryPonderings who have read through the entry recently. Thanks. Innisfree987 ( talk) 02:44, 9 January 2022 (UTC)