Talk:Jessica Mathews

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)

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The claims of rights' violations are outdated and present only one side of a dispute that is in the process of being settled by the two parties concerned: Hanesbrands Inc. and The Workers Rights Consortium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)

The current version of the article still violates Wikipedia's policies

1. First, the last paragraph of the biography relies upon “solely questionable sources or sources of dubious value”, which Wikipedia’s policies state “should not be used either as a source or as an external link.” Here, such sources are used for both. The cited source material includes a labor rights organization website, the AFL-CIO website, and a policy-focused student organization website. 2. Second, the entry violates Wikipedia’s policy regarding a neutral point of view. Wikipedia’s policy states that “the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.” The policy continues “Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented.” Even if the statements posted in the last paragraph of the biography were true, which as discussed below they are not, the last paragraph gives undue weight to these statements. The paragraph containing the objectionable content is, by far, the largest paragraph contained in the biography and contains more sentences and content than any other paragraph in the entry, giving undue weight to her role as a member of the Board of Hanesbrands Inc. and to the alleged labor and worker rights problems at the TOS factory owned by Hanesbrands Inc. 3. Lastly, according to Wikipedia’s policies, Ms. Mathews is viewed as a non-public figure, and as such “editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability.” The policy goes on to state that “Material from third-party primary sources should not be used unless it has been first published by a reliable secondary source.” None of the sources used as support for the last paragraph of the entry have been published by a reliable secondary source.

The fact that I am a first time poster does not change these facts. It is my hope that this libelous content will remain deleted from Ms. Mathews entry and that further avenues of resolution including mediation, oversight and/or arbitration will not have to be pursued.

Reavis1 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hanes Material

I'm concerned by people's insistence to remove this, especially since it does not violate WP:BLP. There is plenty of material showing that this event occurred (there are even photos on some websites) meeting WP:V. The AFL-CIO is a major organization, and meets WP:Reliable sources. This section also doesn't violate WP:NPOV, as it is simply stating facts (noting people were directing thier attention to Mathews, not saying anything derogatory about Mathews herself). I didn't put this material in originally, but I am now paying close attention to this article due to the intense, unjustified efforts to remove it. Otebig (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The AFL-CIO is not a news organization and has no reputation for accuracy and independence of reporting; the event in question is a special interest of the AFL-CIO (labor rights), et cetera. I don't consider them independent or reliable on this subject. And the full weight of the AFL-CIO is not behind this reference, it's merely a local affiliated group. Effectively, this is a self-published source. Mangojuice^talk 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Mangojuice - the BLP policy indicates that for a non-public figure material of this nature should be "corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources", and I don't believe this standard has been met. In addition, the policy indicates articles concerning non-public figures should "include only material relevant to their notability". I don't consider that you have proved this event is relevant to the subject's notability. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

There are no other corroborating sources? Has anyone attempted to look for other sources on the subject? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jossi, I couldn't find any. For example this search doesn't produce any relevant results. PhilKnight (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I could not find anything either in newspaper archives or other online resources. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I just remembered that the reason I had any interest in this is that there is an OTRS ticket about the Hanes issue. I'll try and find it. John Reaves 21:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Another note on the source material. Wikipedia's guidelines on BLPs states "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." The references are clearly websites and do not meet this standard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.218.23 (talk) 01:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jessica Mathews. 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/20060315210400/http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=18&prog=zgp to http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=18&prog=zgp

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) 12:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)