Talk:Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the District of Columbia WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to District of Columbia-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is within the scope of the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of listings on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 Map 2 s/advertisement/NPOV/ 3 WikiProject class rating 4 reference did not contain info directly relating to wikipedia text 5 reinstatement of criticism of Jessica Mathews by the Georgetown Solidarity Committee by a user in violation of NPOV and BLP

[edit] Map

Which map? This map:

http://mapsforus.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/09/1941world.jpg

I'd love to get a bit of history behind this map made by the Endowment for International Peace in 1941. Does anyone know anything about it? Unfortunately i found it on a joke website, but i think it's legit. If anyone has a higher res version so I can at least read the fine print.

Arthurian Legend 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] s/advertisement/NPOV/

Nearly everything in this article has been lifted directly from Carnegie's website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

i started by putting a bit of info from a Cambridge Uni journal, but lots more work is still needed... Boud (talk) 10:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] reference did not contain info directly relating to wikipedia text

This URL does not seem to contain anything specifically mentioning either Hanes or J Matthews. i substituted a URL which does say something along these lines. Also, i replaced "spring" by "early": wikipedia is not a northern temperate zone encyclopedia, it's global. Boud (talk) 01:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] reinstatement of criticism of Jessica Mathews by the Georgetown Solidarity Committee by a user in violation of NPOV and BLP

The entry previously removed violates both NPOV (neutral point of view) and BLP (biographies of living persons) policies in multiple instances. In fact, Jessica Mathews has not become a source of controversy for the Carnegie Endowment. The statement is conjecture - the anonymous authors of this entry cannot speak on behalf of the Endowment without being identified as such. The language is therefore patently misleading with the malicious intent to spread controversy and should be removed.

The claims of rights' violations are outdated and present only one side of a dispute that is in the process of being settled by the two parties concerned: Hanesbrands Inc. and The Workers Rights Consortium of Hanesbrands Dos Rios Textiles. The facts are that the claims have been investigated by an independent investigator as well as by Hanesbrands Inc. A summary of the findings of those investigations can be read at http://www.hanesbrands.com/NR/rdonlyres/FF1D2B9D-6068-46A6-A9BE-410D51580D46/32/HBIResponsetoWRCDosRiosAssessmentandIndependentInv.pdf

Both investigations found the significant majority, but not all, of the allegations to be false. Several managerial issues related to overtime pay practices, employee contract language and improved corporate management oversight regarding certain local decisions were discovered and addressed. Hanesbrands has already made changes in these areas and has communicated them to employees, including new overtime policies and the retroactive payment of overtime, above the legal requirement, to all current and former employees. Hanesbrands is currently awaiting their reply to a full proposed contract.

As the BLP policy states, the burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material. The authors that initially added incorrect and incompletely sourced language failed to satisfy this burden. The editor that restored the language on the basis of subjective claims assumed the language as current and factual without any attempt to determine whether any claims are in fact true or current, also failing to satisfy this burden. Both actions create significant doubts about the legitimacy of the entire entry as a trusted source of factual material and degrades the value of Wikipedia. As also stated in the BLP policy: when in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic. Removing the language will restore the entry to this editorial benchmark and fulfill the BLP policy. If and until this language can be factually stated from reliable sources, it should not appear in the entry at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.74.99.100 (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)