Talk:Sarah Weddington
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Texas, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Texas. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. |
[edit] Picture
- Any chance we can get a more recent picture of her? She's still a notable person outside of Roe v. Wade for her many other accomplishments and is active on the public speaking circuit. The current photo makes the article look on first glance like the biography of a long dead historical figure. Sperril 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC) (This comment was deleted without a stated reason. I think it was an accident. I'm readding it.) Sperril 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Denied Employment
Ms. Weddington was told at the only law firm interview she was granted that to practice law, one had to curse, and it just wouldn't be appropriate to curse at women. She was also told that women had to be home in time to cook dinner, but that sometimes lawyers had to work late. She wasn't given an offer.
This type of explanation doesn't fit in that section (discussing Roe v. Wade and how she got the case) and only clouds an otherwise clear and concise bio. I'm disappointed that this type of explanation even became necessary, but the self-imposed ignorance that a few people have about a common situation for most women who graduated from law schools before the mid to late 1970s apparently requires this type of discussion.Lawguy 16:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)lawguy
- I've removed the statement completely until we can come to an agreement. I'm not arguing that she wasn't denied employment due to her gender. When you first changed it, you said that your version was verifiable. I'm fine with the explanation you've given above, but you still haven't provided any verification for it. Until we can find independent verification of why she was denied employment, we can't include it. From the very line below the edit window I'm currently typing in it says "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This isn't optional. The only thing I've been able to find is her claim. I know for a fact that women were employed by law firms, as lawyers, long before Ms. Weddington passed her bar exam. Out of curiosity, do you know the name of the law firm that interviewed her? And if we can't independently verify the reason she couldn't find a job, maybe we can find a statement that we'll both be happy with. (Also, please be careful not to delete other editor's comments from talk pages.) Sperril 17:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- After re-reading what you posted here, I have a second thought.... Would you be happy if we just left the entire statement out altogether? I wouldn't have a problem with that at all. It doesn't really seem to add anything to the article. Sperril 05:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be the most appropriate solution to me. Lawguy 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Lawguy
