Talk:Jessica Mathews
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] criticism of Jessica Mathews by the Georgetown Solidarity Committee and its removal by a user with only two edits
See this edit of the Jessica Mathews page and this edit of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace page.
It's true that the version of the text on the Mathews page was written quite POV, and the versions on both pages needed some NPOVing and better referencing. However, the material is sourced and seems related to what seem to be relatively objective claims about her professional activities, nothing about her personal life, so removing criticism totally is not something required by the biography policy. In any case, User:Janesmith9001 presumably has not yet had much experience of wikipedia apart from familiarity with the living persons biography guide, since she only has two edits, so this is an understandable error. :) Welcome to the wikipedia, Janesmith9001 :). My suggestion is that you read a bit through WP:NPOV and you look for more sources on the controversy. The HanesBrands workers quite clearly claim that are subject to the "sweatshops" system of human rights violations, they are supported by the International Labor Rights Forum, and the documentation about their protest in front of the Carnegie Endowment building seems reliable enough for what it claims.
i've rewritten both versions, trying to NPOV them. If you think any facts are not consistent with the external documentation, then please improve them. If Mathews has made any reasonably verifiable, documented response to the HanesBrands workers and protestors, then of course, please add that information with appropriate referencing.
Boud (talk) 23:59, 25 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) 21:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
