Talk:Lilly Ledbetter

Merger proposal

Shouldn't this be restored to a redirect? The article's subject is notable for one reason only, and that topic is adequately covered at Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. and Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Coemgenus 23:37, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Merge. Ledbetter's story is short enough to fit into a paragraph in the article about the case. 21:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Those are two reasons, and there are more. Her campaign work should also be covered, and her intial attempts to pass pay equity bills. Keep. Moderate2008 (talk) 00:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you mean to assert sourced notability, this is the place to do it. What campaign work? Does it relate to the issues of her lawsuit, or is it some event of independent notability? Coemgenus 03:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added minor biographical info, and a transcript of Ledbetter @ the DNC EmanWilm (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Added a Forbes and Time biographies. Should be good for WP:N. Could use some major expansion, though.--Blargh29 (talk) 17:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Urgent! Link problem!

The link for the third reference does not work! 00:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nschoem (talk • contribs)

Please ignore the previous message. I have found a replacement link. Nschoem 00:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:BLP

I removed a section that was based on two blog entries and one primary source. The section was added by Creonitus in April 2012 [1], it was removed by multiple editors [2][3][4][5], and restored by Creonitus [6][7][8][9]. I would like to advise Creonitus against restoring material that clearly fails our BLP and sourcing requirements. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 15:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your facts are somewhat askew. One of the sources or the section was an article written in the National Journal by Stuart Taylor. Previous disputes have already been resolved. One prior complaint was regarding point of view concerns, which was resolved by rewording. One of the removals was by an unidentified IP address, providing no explanation for the removal. Another complaint was regarding lack of source material, which was resolved by the addition of the National Journal piece. The link to that piece is no longer functional, but its reliability as a source is not in question (the archive is obtainable via lexisnexis or elsewhere), and it has been cited multiple times by other sources, including other cited sources. Additionally, the Hans Bader piece, though published in a blog under the auspices of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, qualifies under the self-publishing exception for experts. Mr. Bader, a Harvard Law grad, has published several times on Supreme Court related matters (http://cei.org/expert/hans-bader). He performed the original research on the Ledbetter case to make this argument before even the National Journal piece. It was later picked up by other sources, include Hot Air's Matt Vespa, but it is hardly original to Wikipedia. Other sources have also supported Mr. Bader, including Megan McCardle of the Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/19/more-fact-checker-fail.html), and Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western University (http://www.volokh.com/2012/10/18/when-fact-checkers-have-trouble-with-facts/). Given that the Bader piece is a self-published source, perhaps you would rather move this criticism to the Ledbetter v. Goodyear page. But that would seem to be unnecessary because of the National Journal piece making the same criticism.

Significantly, there is no challenge or question as to the accuracy of the argument. It is unquestionably true that Ms. Ledbetter made two incompatible statements about her case between her deposition testimony and her Congressional testimony. The only question here is whether sufficient third-party research has been done to put that argument together. Given the National Journal piece and Mr. Bader's qualifications, there seems to be little doubt.-- Creonitus (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I just discovered that the National Journal piece by Stuart Taylor was moved/integrated into another article for NJ. The newer version can be found here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/does-the-ledbetter-law-benefit-workers-or-lawyers--20090131?mrefid=site_search. It would seem to place the question of sourcing beyond doubt.-- Creonitus (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

To resolve any concerns, tomorrow I plan to edit the article by removing the blog sources and the current National Journal source and replacing them with the following journal and newspaper sources: "Misconceptions about Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co." by Hans Bader in the Journal Engage Volume 13, Issue 3 October 2012 (http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/misconceptions-about-ledbetter-v-goodyear-tire-rubber-co); “Pay Discrimination Claims After Ledbetter” by David A. Copus in the Defense Counsel Journal, Volume 75, page 300, Oct. 1, 2008 (75 Def. Counsel J. 300 (2008)); and "Does The Ledbetter Law Benefit Workers, Or Lawyers?" by Stuart Taylor Jr. in the National Journal, January 31, 2009 (Updated January 30, 2011) (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/does-the-ledbetter-law-benefit-workers-or-lawyers--20090131?mrefid=site_search). Please let me know if there are any objections.-- Creonitus (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Previous disputes have not been resolved because this is the first time that you've used the article talk page to explain your reverts. I raised the issue over at the BLP noticeboard (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Lilly_Ledbetter). If the consensus is that your sources are good enough for a BLP you can go ahead and add them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I have significant concerns about undue weight. One minor discrepancy hardly merits a paragraph-long "takedown" parsing every sentence, in an article that contains very little about her life otherwise. polarscribe (talk) 19:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The other question is whether the proposed Federalist Society source is a RS when it comes to this BLP. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Firmly disagree to both points. To the undue weight concerns, this is not a 'minor discrepancy', as outlined in the sources listed. First, it is not a mere discrepancy at all. It is a case of two sworn statements made, both under oath, that are in inherent conflict. This is perjury. If the Senate so chose, they could prosecute her for Contempt of Congress. Second, the conflict is not minor. The entire basis for Ms. Ledbetter's status as a public figure is her participation in the Ledbetter v. Goodyear case. She alleges, along with many other activists and political figures, that the legal system (by way of the Supreme Court) did her wrong in dismissing her case--that the basis for the decision was a lack of concern for discrimination against women in the workplace. But the reason the Supreme Court never got to the underlying question was because of the statute of limitations. If, as a factual matter, the courts believed that she had not discovered the pay difference until 1998, then the case would have come out entirely differently. But that was never a part of the record, so the courts never considered it. Since the decision came down, her description of the story has changed, as has been documented on this very page, to characterize the Ledbetter decision as having little or nothing to do with the statute of limitations and everything to do with discrimination against women. In essence, the criticism states that the basis for her status as a public figure is fraudulent. This is clearly a central issue in her biography. Now, if you want to shorten it, that's another question. But I would add that the issue itself is critically important to include in light of the fact that the bio page otherwise includes the statement that the Supreme Court "denied her claim because she did not file suit 180 days from her first pay check even though she said she didn't know it at the time". This criticism is a direct contradiction of that assertion on her part.

As for the Federalist Society source, we're not talking about a news report from the Federalist Society. We're talking about a legal journal more than a decade old that is edited and reviewed by lawyers. Not to mention, as I discussed earlier, that Hans Bader is an acknowledged expert in the field. If you want to add a reference to him being a conservative (assuming you can source it, I'm actually not sure that he is; perhaps a libertarian?), that's fine, but to exclude that source you would have to also exclude many sources on this bio as quite left-leaning and self-serving (such as a passage from a minority opinion from the left-leaning members of the Supreme Court). --Creonitus (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your accusation of perjury per WP:BLP which applies to articles and article talk pages.

There are many legal journals (even more if we include student-run law journals) and their reliability depends on context. "Engage" is published by the Federalist Society. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard is the best place to determine if the FS is a reliable source or an advocacy organization that is inappropriate for this BLP. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Please reread my statement: "two sworn statements made, both under oath, that are in inherent conflict. This is perjury." I am simply stating a definition of perjury, not making an accusation that Ms. Ledbetter is indeed guilty of it. Based on the facts described, Congress very well could choose to prosecute Ms. Ledbetter. Would they succeed? I don't know. But the reason for this reference is to respond to the erroneous claim, to which you agreed, that we are discussing a 'minor discrepancy'. The accusation is in the sources provided. I do not know whether there are other facts, yet undiscovered, which might disprove the facts as described. But they are facts, as far as I'm aware, and not mere claims. So I ask you again, as a substantive matter, is there a response? Are these claims simply falsified? Has the record been altered? Is it being misread? I would very much appreciate it if you would defend your unsupported agreement to the assertion that this is a minor discrepancy.

On the Federalist Society journal question, you are correct that reliability is dependent upon context. But, as explained on the WP:RS page, "[w]hen available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." You are challenging the publisher of that journal. But if you read further down on the page, "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Given the fact that we are discussing a decade-old peer-reviewed journal, and not some news publication from the publicity department, I believe the burden is on you to demonstrate the unreliability of this source rather than the reverse, keeping in mind that bias is not unreliability. That being said, if you wish to make such a case, the Federalist Society is not some conservative blog or tabloid. It is probably the most widely respected conservative legal organization in the country. Its members and advisers have included Supreme Court Justices (including several of the sitting members) and many appellate judges, Solicitors General (including Ted Olson and Charles Fried), Attorneys Generals (including Edwin Meese), architects of modern legal theories that have had enormous influence on current law (including Robert Bork, author of The Antitrust Paradox and Richard Epstein, author of Takings), and many other prominent legal scholars. In terms of the quality of legal scholarship, the reliability of the organization is difficult to attack, even for those who disagree with the conclusions drawn from that scholarship. If you wish to make your case at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, that is fine, but I do not believe that the matter is sufficiently disputable to merit much debate. --Creonitus (talk) 22:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

You stated that Ledbetter made two contradictory sworn statements, both under oath, and that "this is perjury". I ask you again to strike what is obviously an accusation that violates WP:BLP. You then claimed that the accusation that Ledbetter perjured herself is in the three sources provided. Please cite the relevant passages.

Please provide evidence that "Engage" by the Federalist Society is peer-reviewed and take it to WP:RS/N. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Not so much concerned with WP:RS, but with presentation and editing. Courts determined and sworn depositions both established that Ledbetter knew of her pay disparity, and her Congressional testimony and speeches are inconsistent with facts established in trial, and what was and was not part of the Supreme Court pleading. This cannot be under the topic of the Supreme court decision, as it had nothing to do with THAT decision. It might be a better approach, given that there is much mis-information about LvG to have a section about the prior lawsuits. The original lawsuit included the allegation that her bad evaluations immediately before taking early retirement were discriminatory, and this was rejected by every court that considered it (the Supreme Court did not consider). Similarly, her original suit alleged that she had no knowledge of a pay disparity, and courts decided she did. It is also highly prejudicial to simply refer to the pay differential, without also including that this was partly due to her taking of frequent voluntary furloughs; the connection between an evaluation and her pay 20 years later was highly disputed, as was whether any discrimination happened at that time. I would not include the details of the prior suits under the LvG heading, since those factors do not relate to LvG, nor under "Women's Equality", since the disproved suits can't be included; it's pretty arguable that they have anything to do with the title, and including a claim about them in the title is an NPOV violation. --Anonymous209.6 (talk) 02:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lilly Ledbetter. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120906084942/http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Lilly-Ledbetter-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3797182/ to http://www.c-span.org/DNC/Events/Lilly-Ledbetter-at-the-2012-Democratic-National-Convention/C3797182/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)