Talk:Laura Lederer

Untitled

The disputed lead line has been changed to a factual statement. Tiptext (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Each sentence is a factual statement. There is no discussion that could be construed as "unbalanced." Tiptext (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no quotes from a lobbying group in this article. Tiptext (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no subjective wording in this article. It states factual information only. Tiptext (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Says you. There are no "quotes", but its clear that the information is entirely taken from sources directly related to the subject or favoring the subject. Language describing her as an "expert", "instrumental in", etc. are "peacock" terms (subjective wording) – a great deal of rephrasing is called for here. (I'm also worried that some of the text may be plagiarized from some of these sources.) Also, exclusion of sources who have a less-than-favorable view of her role in the controversy around the Bush administration policy of treating all sex work as human trafficking, the TVPA, etc, represents a clear lack of balance. I should also note that it is out of line for an editor (such as yourself) who is the source of disputed content to unilaterally remove warning tags until the dispute is resolved. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

1. Expert: "skilled or knowledgeable person; someone with a great deal of knowledge about, or skill or training or experience in, a particular field." Encarta World English Dictionary; If Lederer's J.D. degree, 10 years gathering the laws worldwide that address human trafficking and related issues, and building a database; work on the Trafficking Victims Protection Act; testifying as a subject matter expert on human trafficking; serving on the U.N.'s Experts Working Group on Trafficking in Persons; being hired as a subject matter expert on human trafficking; teaching the first law school course on trafficking in persons doesn't qualify her as an "expert," then what does? This is not a peacock term.

2. Whoever I am curious blue is, he/she is incorrectly stating the Bush Administration policy on human trafficking. It does not conflate sex work and human trafficking. The commentator may want to/should write a treatise on the debate on sex trafficking and prostitution (please do!), but it is not appropriate here.

3. This commentator attacks the Wikipedia sites of all feminists with whom he/she disagrees politically. Tiptext (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiptext, you should have a look at WP:CIVIL. I've just checked Iamcuriousblue's edits of the last few months, and with the exception of this article, he only battled vandalism. Your last edit summary and this comment are way out of line.

Concerning this article, if Lederer is so much of an expert, it should be easy to find a secondary source calling her that. If it's sourced to, say, a newspaper calling her that, we can pobably agree that she's scknowledged as an expert.

I definitely don't know the Bush administration policy on human trafficking, but if there's some controversy involving Lederer, we should definitely add what sourced information we can find.

As an aside, the article sports several "references" of very poor quality. Most of them seem to be of the "go find the information yourself" type. Surely we can do better? Huon (talk) 01:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Huon: Iamcuriousblue has posted subjective warnings on five feminists who are working to stop human trafficking. Iamcuriousblue posted warnings on this site but did not make an entry supporting his warnings until after his warnings were taken down by other editors. I'm not being uncivil here: just stating what his/her modus operandi seems to be. Iamcuriousblue is a play of words on the pornography movie, "I am Curious Yellow."

Huon should note which references he objects to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptext (talk • contribs) 03:11, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no quotes from any lobbying group or advocacy group in this article. This article is original material written and then sourced to support it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptext (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiptext, you seem to have both a very long memory and a history at Wikipedia longer than your current User account. I just checked Iamcuriousblue's edits of the past half year, and the only addition of tags to anything resembling a feminist biography except this page was this edit. I couldn't find edits of any kind to five feminists.

My objections to the references:

1. The first says "archived online", but doesn't provide an URL or a link. It also looks like one of the activist group sources.
2. The second looks like a primary source, written by one of the co-founders.
3. The third does give an URL, but does that URL really provide the information it should? That Lederer moved the Protection Project? If not (and it doesn't look that way), where is the relevant information found?
4. The fourth is once again a primary source, and while transcripts of the commission hearing are probably available either online or in some sort of published form, no indication of where they're to be found is given.
5. The fifth sounds like a book, but no page numbers are given. Where in the book can I find the relevant information?
6. The sixth is a primary source, and I don't think it's likely that the law explicitly mentions Lederer's role in its own origin.
7. The seventh isn't really a reference at all.
8. The eighth looks similar to the sixth and seventh: A mix of primary source probably not mentioning Lederer and background information that's not really a reference at all.
9. The ninth gives a source so vague it's useless (Georgetown Law Center as source for Lederer's involvement with the Georgetown Law Center? I could have guessed as much before reading that), and adds unsourced claims.
10. The tenth is but little better than the ninth; it actually adds a date and her supervisor. But if I doubted that, where would I find confirmation? I'd have to search for information almost as much as if that "reference" weren't there. Are there no secondary sources for her Cum Laude BA?
11. The eleventh is once again a primary source so vague it's useless.

That sums up the problems I see with the current references. Since no reference for her status as an "expert" was provided, I'll re-add a tag. Huon (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Huon. I just looked up well-known feminists and went to the discussion section. At least five feminists have had the same tags put on their articles by iamcurious. It's easy to find: just go to the disussion section of any feminist working to stop human trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation of women and children. You can look at full history and discussion. Here are my responses to your concerns about the footnotes:

1. I couldn't get the URL link because apparently its an internal on-line archive at UC Berkeley. It is the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force materials. They have the early archives for the first work done in S.F. I will attempt to link to another Wiki site that quotes this, but maybe someone else has this link. In any event, other Wiki websites cite this archive and aren't being challenged for having weak sources.

2. It's true that the book describing the Global Fund for Women was written by one of the founders. Does that make it any less informative? It states the fact that the co-founders of the Global Fund for Women were Dame Nita Barrow, Frances Kissling, Anne Firth Murray and myself. It's a fact and is supported by this book. Not a weak source for factual statement about founders of an organization.

3. The URL is directly to the Protection Project itself, now at SAIS. It allows the reader to view the statutes and other material, and supports the fact that TPP is now at Johns Hopkins.

4. Can't get any closer to the hearings themselves than the actual site that holds the records of all the hearings.

5. Will look for the relevant page numbers and add.

6, 7, and 8. I merely meant to help the reader find the law. Will remove this reference.

9. URL to Georgetown will take you to course materials, including listing of Lederer as adjunct professor and syllabi from Lederer's course on international human trafficking. Doesn't this prove, or source, the statement that she teaches this course?

I'm happy to keep footnote on "expert" until further information from newspaper articles is added.Tiptext (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Tiptext - you are rapidly crossing the line in to POV warrioring here, and I really suggest you take a deep breath, take a gander at WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY, and understand that these are the rules of Wikipedia. Slanting an article in favor of a person representing a particular political point of view, while that might happen to fall in line with your own politics, is out of line on Wikipedia. And, yes, I have edited articles related to feminism and sex work before, mainly because I find that writing on these subjects is so often in direct violation of Wikipedia's clear guidelines on the subject. All to often, articles that have anything to do with "abolitionist" feminism and the people behind it are written as essentially advocacy of that position, and that's what I'm seeing here.

I'll also note that your personal attacks on me are way out of line. I have every right to edit articles on this topic no matter what my politics are, so long as I adhere stringently to Wikipedia's guidelines on NPOV, no original research, etc. I expect the same from you. (And I'll also add that your charge that because I take my user name from a "pornographic" film (actually, it wasn't pornographic, but whatever), I Am Curious Blue, that I can't edit this article is particularly ridiculous.) Right now, I don't think this article is so far off of NPOV that it can't be fixed with a small amount of editing, but biased, peacock terms like "expert" have to go. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the "references" Tiptext agreed weren't really references, added lots of {{Fact}} tags to unsourced statements, and added a reference. That's still not a good reference because it is, in effect, her employer, who will be less likely than an independent source to note criticism of Lederer, but it's better than anything we had before. I've also removed excessive detail, such as the course she teaches. Unless there's a secondary source taking note of the course, such information is too much detail for an encyclopedia article. And Tiptext, unless you can actually provide a link to one of Iamcuriousblue's edits you object to (the way I did above), I won't listen to what amounts to slander any more. Huon (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Tiptext is on about when he's talking about multiple articles, but I was involved in an edit war over at the Melissa Farley article, the long history of which is given at the archived talk pages for that article. And quite honestly, I don't think I was the one who was trying to inject bias into that article. In fact, I'll note that the most recent major edit to that article by me was removal (as original research) of a paragraph by an editor (User:Catherinebrown) who could be seen as being on "my side" of the issue. I also wrote about half of the article on Women Against Pornography, but I've never seen any negative comments on the neutrality of that article.

I edit articles on this topic because I happen to know a lot about it, and can back up my writing with citable, verifiable sources, something I'm working on vis-a-vis this article now. While in my off-Wikipedia writing, I clearly have a point-of-view about this issue (as does, Tiptext, clearly) it is not my intention to slant the article to my own biases. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 01:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind someone editing articles that are about sex work or women against pornography, however, this is an article that state what Lederer has been doing over the past ten years. It doesn't have to do with sex work. It doesn't make any claims about a particular point of view. It states that Lederer founded The Protection Project in 1997. The arguments about sex work are perfect for the point of view pieces on Women and Porgraphy or even on human trafficking. There is no "slant" in this article.

The places iamcuriousblue (like the porn movie "I Am Curious Yellow,") has placed similar labels ("cherrypicking," "advocacy and lobbying" "subjective" are: Melissa Farley; Dorchen Leidholdt, Diana Russell, Nikki Craft, and Laura Lederer. There may be others. These women have advanced degrees, and are teachers, scholars, researchers, and attorneys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptext (talk • contribs) 03:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First, although I've been involved, often peripherally, in the articles you mention, the only one I've done any significant degree of editing is the Melissa Farley article, and yes, there was a very good reason that was tagged – there was a content dispute (of which I was part) that lasted over a year. The article about Nikki Craft was already disputed long before I ever edited a thing there, mainly due to User:Nikkicraft having written a large portion of the article (most of this now excised, and not by me) in direct violation of Wikipedia's prohibition on autobiography. The Dorchen Liedholdt article was tagged because in its original form, it was simply a cut-and-paste from another website – again, Wikipedia has clear rules against this.

Second, your objections to my editing carry more than a bit of witch-hunting tone that's distinctly uncivil – you accuse me of being "pro commercial sexual exploitation" and somebody who is anti-feminist. Basically, I'm not even going to respond to this, except to say, there is no political litmus test for who gets to edit what articles, so long as that editor does not try to inject bias into article. I'll add that its pretty clear that you have some pretty strong views on the subject, and that doesn't disqualify you from editing this article.

Finally, so what if the above-mentioned have "advanced degrees" – that in itself doesn't make someone an authority on any given subject, or automatically mean that they conduct good research, or are any less partisan than many others without "advanced degrees". It is not Wikipedia's job to designate who's an "expert" on a subject and who is not, only to report the facts of their biographies, their research, and their views, without editorial comment, including peacocky or disparaging language. Also, get your facts straight – Nikki Craft doesn't hold an advanced degree from any institution.

Oh, and the movie in question is I Am Curious (Blue), the sequel to I Am Curious (Yellow), and neither is movie is porn, really (though they were considered a bit of breakthrough in terms onscreen eroticism in cinema). But in any event, the movie that I take my screen name from is in no way relevant to this conversation.

Iamcuriousblue (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move: "Laura J. Lederer" to "Laura Lederer"

This would be a minor change in the title. Right now, "Laura Lederer" redirects to "Laura J. Lederer". I think this should be the other way around, based on the guideline that Wikipedia biography titles should carry the most commonly cited version of the individual's name. The results of several Google tests are as follows:

"Laura Lederer" -wikipedia:

Google: 5320 hits Google Scholar: 372 hits Google Books: 638 hits

"Laura J. Lederer" -wikipedia:

Google: 814 hits Google Scholar: 70 hits Google Books: 52 hits

It seems pretty clear the former is more common. Looking at Amazon.com, it seems that's the name that appears on her published books as well. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did the move, since I don't anticipate any objections to it. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources by Natfbey

Natfbey has added several sources to the article. While more sources are always commendable, unfortunately I had to remove some of them.

• The Protection Project website linked to as proof that Lederer published the first "Annual Human Rights Report on the Trafficking in Persons". Unfortunately the source (to which we already link in other places) doesn't say so. It says that Lederer founded the project, and that the project has published the report. While it's likely that Lederer had a hand in doing so, that's not what the source says. For all we know, the project might have published the first report after Lederer's tenure as director.
• The Radio Free Europe source for her status as "expert on human trafficking". It's subtle; the article mentions Lederer and experts in human trafficking, but it doesn't include her among them. It's explicit in talking of two experts, and those are Bradley Myles and Louise Shelley. Besides, I always thought people get called "expert on X" only if they have no better credentials - Lederer's former job as Senior Advisor should imply expertise.

I left the other two sources, but I have some doubts: The DC Stop Modern Slavery Group looks not quite reliable by Wikipedia's standards, and the American Enterprise Institute pdf looks more like lecture notes than like the result of a research program. Huon (talk) 22:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Problems with article

First, I want to thank Huon for the efforts he's made so far to clean up this article. For my part, I went over the article trying to clean up some of the peacocky language in the article, but ultimately cleanup is very difficult. The article reads like a promotional resume, and although not always overt, seems to promote Lederer as a kind of anti-trafficking hero. Also, there's the fact that the majority of this article is either non-referenced, unsupported by its cited references, or supported only by very weak, ephemeral sources. Finally, there's the fact that Lederer and her views on pornography, hate speech, and human trafficking are extremely controversial, which is 1) not mentioned at all in the article and 2) the language in article is subtly POV and promotional about some of her more controversial views. For example, her "efforts against harmful speech" – anti-censorship activists who are opposed to the views of MacKinnon, Delgado, and Lederer might see things differently and see the term "harmful speech" as slanted. Similarly the "bi-partisan coalition" against human trafficking – actually this was a coalition between evangelicals and radical feminists toward a particular approach to the human trafficking issue that conflated it with sex work. There has been a lot of opposition to that approach (and I'll note that Luis CdeBaca, Obama's head of the anti-trafficking office, takes a very different approach to the issue), and "bi-partisan" falsely creates the impression of consensus.

Those are just a few of the key problems I see with the article. I think 1) the article needs some severe editing – if statements can't be properly cited, they simply need to go, even if that means shortening the article. The article needs to then be expanded from what good sources can be found. There needs to be balance here – the article so far draws heavily on sources supportive of Lederer, but as per WP:CONTROVERSY, critical sources (like the "Enslaved by his Sources" article in the External links) need to be used as well. In all cases, care must be taken to use as neutral of language when describing areas of controversy. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 03:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Lederer. 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/20040614053550/http://www.worldmag.com/world/issue/06-15-02/cover_1.asp to http://www.law.depaul.edu/alumni/dialogue/fall_2002.pdf

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).

• 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) 07:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Laura Lederer. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.lsa.umich.edu/umich/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=775aefcfa1354210VgnVCM100000a3b1d38dRCRD&vgnextchannel=fa958155c592d110VgnVCM100000a3b1d38dRCRD
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090514160932/http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080917_Ledererremarks.pdf to http://www.aei.org/docLib/20080917_Ledererremarks.pdf

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).

• 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) 04:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)