Talk:Mary Cunningham Agee

Obviously they are the same person -- merge ASAP!! WaltzingMatilda 06:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-POV statements do not belong here

The first paragraph of this article is decidedly non-POV to the point of libel. --KJRehberg 16:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I found some actual online articles and referenced them under a new section, "Bendix scandal," before deleting most of the questionable first paragraph. I looked for articles to reference about how Agee and Cunningham "torpedoed Bendix's attempt to acquire Martin Marietta," "destroyed Bendix," and "[destroyed] Morrison-Knudsen Corporation." Alas, those appear to be gross oversimplifications at best and unsubstantiated accusations at worst. --Kjefferson 21:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV tag

It seems the neutrality dispute is resolved and almost every statement is well sourced. I'm removing the NPOV tag. Please do not re-tag simply because this article includes facts of a negative nature.--Bodybagger (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Article has apparently been heavily revised since previous entry, and now swings the other direction to the point of flattery. The unsourced sentence "Her book struck a chord with young professionals as it documented the role of corporate politics and media bias in undermining the talents of successful women and individuals from non-traditional backgrounds" is but one glaring example. In addition, much of the content appears to be gleaned from the subject's own autobiography, hardly a neutral source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheezeman2011 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

```` RE NPOV TAG I read this article for NPOV and updated some biographical information based in large part on published sources - my volume of Cambridge Who's Who, the website of Mrs. Agee's organization and a recent online post (www.dspt.edu/fellows) which announces an honorary doctoral degree awarded to Mrs. Agee. It strikes me as unnecessary in this Wikipedia article to apply footnotes over and over again to Mrs. Agee's autobiography for each sentence that references her business career. One of the editors objected to a sentence regarding "young professionals" relating to Mrs. Agee's business experience. That information is factual based on her autobiography, multiple published articles and is totally within NPOV guidelines in my view. Additionally, it is reasonable to assume that a best seller written by a young professional would be read by young professionals - and many would relate. Not a stretch at all. To claim that material in someone's Curriculum Vitae inherently reveals a POV is not valid. This article is well documented. I recommend removal of the POV warning promptly.Omnibus170 (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What we need are third party reliable sources and no the tag shouldnt be removed because it is still completely appropriate to describe the articles unsourced non-objective characterizations. Active Banana (<sup>bananaphone</sup> 18:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I went through and chopped out the worst offenses and am willing to remove the POV tag, although it still reads like a resume and from what I can tell there may be significant chapters of the story which had been previously deleted from the article whose absence might rightly justify the POV tags return until the full picture as covered by reliable sources is reflected in the article. Active Banana (<sup>bananaphone</sup> 18:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Additional sources

The tag was added at a time when the article had seven references. It now has 78. While I have not investigated them fully, and will review some shortly (I just got called to a meeting) the quantity is not likely to be an issue. I have not yet reviewed the concern that the article reads like a resume, and will attempt to do so.--SPhilbrickT 19:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Addressing the resume tag concerns

An editor has noted that the article reads like a resume, which I read a "too much emphasis on positive items, using WP:Peacock language in some cases." I concur, and identified a few Areas of concern:

Overall, the edits offered in this revision are excellent and acceptable. A couple of changes that I feel are important are noted here and applied to the article so you and other editors can review them with good flow. I have deleted a few Affiliations and Awards and re-instated a few with solid references that I thought were more essential to the article. I offered this balance in order that the “resume effect” would not increase. Everyone’s effort on this article is commendable. I am impressed with the quality and the outcome.

I don't know what happened to your nice numbering of these points. The points are all still included here but something happened to the 1-17. My apoligies if my editing caused this.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "One of the first women in the U.S. to break through the corporate glass ceiling" Concerns – factual basis may be difficult to confirm; wording is not usual for encyclopedia. Done

This is probably the one point that I feel most strongly about being in the article. It is the entire reason that Powerplay was written. I have suggested a way to do this without adding detail about Bendix that other editors have removed for good reason. Please see my notes on this in your point #9.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " Her contributions in the struggle for freedom and equality for women" A little over the top Done AgreeOmnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " along with other pioneers including Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller and Eleanor Roosevelt" See NOTINHERITED hich is not exactly my point, but hints at it. Done

Agree that the reference to others should be removed. But a sentence about Ms. Agee’s inclusion in the book is very important. I have added it back in the intro section. It could be considered an Honor and go there but I liked the emphasis up front re: her role in the woman’s movement. Please consider best placement.

As argument for inclusion: This is a 600 page volume that Agee didn’t write and didn’t ask to be included in. The author of this book also wrote “The Encyclopedia of Women’s History in America” and in this subsequent book selected Agee’s writing to feature among 60 other women from Betsy Ross to Hilary Clinton. I agree that we should not mention the names of others who were included but I think we need to mention the book specifically: “Agee’s contributions to the women’s movement in America were recognized by inclusion in the American Women Activist’s Writings – 1637 to 2002.” I noticed that the internal link Wikipedia link for History of Feminism (which would be an appropriate internal link for this reference) is flagged as being too long and needing work. Does that make it a weak reference that we should avoid?

1. " positive alternative to abortion" Let’s discuss the word "positive" Done

Placing the focus on resources and counseling as edited is good. Please see Point #6.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " who draws upon her business experience and faith in addressing diverse audiences" Why is "diverse" in here? Done Diverse doesn’t need to be included but I feel that mentioning faith and business experience as the themes she brings to her teaching is important. Please see the article for the way I edited this phraseOmnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " Agee relates the story of the Network’s 50,000 resource members who have provided for the practical needs of 21,000 women and their children over 20 years." Maybe OK, but fits in with a theme. Done With so many other “resume sounding” aspects covered, I feel strongly that a sentence about Mrs. Agee’s book needs to be added back I propose:

In her book, Compassion in Action,[29] she presents the story of the Network's service program over 20 years through the words of the mothers and children whom the Network has served. I chose this wording in case you have an issue with mentioning the size of the network (50,000 volunteers who have served 21,000 women. I actually like the earlier wording. This level of service by volunteers and staff (even to counting the hours) has been a footnote in the audit each year. It is a fact. But maybe for some reason, you don’t feel that the statistics are encyclopedic.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " Cunningham graduated from Hanover High School in 1969 near the top of her class. She was elected an officer of her class and won "Best Actress" in a state wide drama competition. She worked summers on Cape Cod as a short order cook and as a bank teller to supplement her college tuition scholarship. Her family could not afford an Ivy League college so she enrolled at Newton College of the Sacred Heart (now merged with Boston College) in Newton, Massachusetts and was elected Class President." Is all this supported in footnote 15? Not done

No, those school honors are not documented and can stay removed. I am wondering though who would contend that someone who has accomplished all that Cunningham did academically including numerous scholarships and scholarly awards didn’t graduate near the top of her high school class? Could that one element stay in your view? Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " Unwittingly, what was to become Cunningham’s life-long work" Why "unwittingly"? Done

AOK, no issue.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " This time there was no gossip campaign", I don't like the phrasing, not a bigdeal, but let's discuss. Done

The edit is good. Agreed; we should leave out all reference to gossip but I feel we need to get something back in about the glass ceiling that is non-contentious. Suggestion: Please take a look at the length and depth of the internal Wikipedia link on the glass ceiling. This is a huge issue for women and we should be able to talk about it without stirring up controversy in this article. Footnotes #2 and 17 in that link are particularly telling. #2: Progress for women was so slow in coming that in 1991 Sen. Robert Dole sponsored The Glass Ceiling Act which was Title II of the Civil Rights Act. The “Report of the Glass Ceiling Act of 1991” is 240 pages long. In 1991, Secretary of Labor, Lynn Marlin reported that only 3% of CEO’s of Fortune 1000 companies were women. Footnote 17 documents that women in top management positions rose from 1.2% in 1993 to 5.2% in 2002. It also reports that Fortune 500 companies claimed only 1 CEO in 1995 and 7 in 2002 – a rise from .2% to 1.4%. Now go back 10 to 15 years (the 80’s) and picture Ms. Cunningham as Exec VP reporting directly to CEO’s in two Fortune 100 companies prior to the age of 30. Who would intelligently argue that Cunningham wasn’t an early challenger of the glass ceiling. That was the Powerplay story and why it was a best seller. As edited, there is very little in the article about Cunningham Agee as a woman’s activist. That isn’t a bad thing; it is actually very commendable and why she deserves to be in Wikipedia. We can say it without going into all the contentions details about Bendix which I agree are better left out. Footnotes cover all of that is just fine. My suggestion is an addition in the Career section: “Following contention that centered on Cunningham’s rapid rise in the company as a female executive, she resigned on October 8, 1980.”Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " the path she blazed for other women who were intent on accomplishing equality in the workplace" Let's find a more neutral word than "blazing" Done Good suggestion; I edited to read “create a path” Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " Agee founded the Nurturing Network…" " This caused …" nit picky point, but the sentence structure implies "this" refer to the founding. It does not. This can be easily fixed Done

I added “loss” as an antecedent. We need to say that she “founded” the organization rather than “caused” it. Opening the paragraph with “Agee founded the Nurturing Network following the loss of her first child etc. is just better writing.

1. " Agees sold their vacation home for start-up funds and The Nurturing Network opened its doors" wording can be improved Done Done OKOmnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " providing women with access to practical resources, counseling" I suggest excising "practical" Done AOK as edited. Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "counseling and empowerment advice through its website" Not the right way to include an external link Done AOK Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. "have been featured in diverse publications including…" I suggest "multiple" rather than "diverse" Done

One of the editors removed this entire section. I believe it needs to go back in? The articles are very well documented and I feel need to be there. All were written by others not by Agee. The wide distribution of these national publications and the range of readership communicate a level of stature without being self-promotional.

I would like to keep all of the TV interviews in. They all happened but are hard to document when they happened so long ago. I left only those with definite references. Can we add the others back without risking a return of the warning banner re: resume like? Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Affiliations – needs citations, does footnote 15 work? Not done No, it does not cover. I prefer to accept these deletions, make a few additional deletions and then add back in a few concepts throughout the article that really matter.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1. " She is the mother of two children – Mary Alana, and Will Agee" Opinions differ on whether non-notable children should be named. I'll need to do some homework on this. Done I feel it should be in. Everyone is entitled to a personal life and I see this in many other articles. This sentence is currently in the Careers section which seems like odd placement. Would you be OK with a Personal paragraph placed in the middle of the article as I now show? Or it could go back at the end if more appropriate there.Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional points:

Awards and honors

I am OK with taking out the first sentence of the last paragraph at least until I can find references – provided that we get glass ceiling, the Anthology and one sentence about Mary’s book back in. I have a specific reference for Ms. Agee’s contribution to an Amicus Brief for Supreme Court so would leave that it. It is an honor to be invited by the Pope to address a congregation in Rome. Those two speeches exist and can be referenced so I would include them. I have documentation on Agee’s Testimony Before the Senate Committee On Labor And Human Resources on May 30, 1990. I think we should add this too. Please see placement in article. Do you agree?Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Education

The reference to “How to Crack A Marketing Case …” is strong and the accomplishment very unique. Let’s consider putting it back in. Please see article for wording.Omnibus170 (talk) ~

Thank you for considering these ideas. Omnibus170 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the authority either to say that every single one of them must be addressed, or even that if all are addressed, all is well. However, I think if we review each, and reach a reasonable decision, the tag regarding resume could be removed. I'll emphasize that I have concentrated on reviewing the material I front of me; there are hints that some, less flattering material may have been removed, and separately, we'll have to consider whether addressing the points above results in a balanced retreatment of her life.--SPhilbrickT 23:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

collapsing detail summarized above
padding
1 Glass Ceiling phrasing Starting with the first, I'm inclined to rewrite the phrasing for two reasons: Finding evidence that she was "one of the first" sounds problematic, because of the softness of the claim – how many before one is no longer of other first, and more importantly, what is the precise level of the glass ceiling (VP,SVP, EVP)? Second, I'm not quite convinced that "glass ceiling" is encyclopedic wording. this search indicates that the phrase is often used in Wikipedia, but in many cases, it occurs in a discussion of the socio-economic phenomenon, as opposed to being used in a descriptive form. That said, the term was used ubiquitously when she was prominent in the news, and it may be improper to completely avoid the term. However, I think there maybe a better way to use it. 2 Struggle for Freedom The phrase doesn't sound encyclopedia to me, Any suggestions? 3 Susan B. Anthony, Helen Keller etc It is well-established in Wikipedia that we talk about the accomplishments of people, and list others to the extent there is a direct involvement. To list some other people who happened to be profiled in the same book sounds like trying to establish notability via association, and a weak association at best. My inclination is to simply strip it back to mentioning the book, without listing the other notables in the book. 4 positive alternative to abortion Sound like a possible violation of NPOV – I suggest simply removing the word "positive" 5 in addressing diverse audiences I suggest simply "when addressing audiences" What do others think?--SPhilbrickT 21:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I was hoping to enter into a dialog to discuss these issues. I'll give it a few days, if hearing nothing, I'd be bold and make appropriate changes.--SPhilbrickT 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 6 Agee relates the story The phrasing fits in with a theme of being overly positive, but this one by itself isn't too bad, or maybe I just don't have an obvious improvement. Let's see if we can resolve the others. 7 Support I don't have access to the source in footnote 15, so I'd like to know whether all those claims can be supported by the source. 8 Unwittingly The easiest solution is to simply remove it--SPhilbrickT 01:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

In light of the fact that all but the referencing questions are addressed, I removed the maintenance tag. I'll add a citation needed to the affiliations section. I presume Omnibus170 has access to Cambridge Who's Who Registry - Executive & Professional Biographies, 2009 Edition and can confirm whether that source supports the claims. --SPhilbrickT 14:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work. Span (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks SPhilbrink

I received your email and see your suggestions for the article. Thank you. I will respond soon. Is this talk page the appropriate place to share my thoughts? Can I use my talk page just as easily and you will see my notes in either place? Thanks.Omnibus170 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is the best place to discuss possible changes to the Mary Agee article. I may see notes posted at your talk page, but other editors who may be watching this article won't know to check there. My talk page is the right place to prod me if you've posted here, and want me to know about it (not necessary if I'm actively posting here). I may see a note on your talk page, as I have watchlisted it, and I monitor a list of all changes to the watchlist, but the list has over 4000 items on it, so I get a notice every few seconds, and may miss it. A note to my talk page sends me a message I cannot miss.--SPhilbrickT 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please note that an editor has gone ahead and made a number of edits relating to issues I raised, although I think the action was independent. Please comment on the issues I've raised above (after looking to see the latest version) and add your comment to each section above. Just clock on the edit link on the right side of the page, and add your comment. Unfortunately, timing is not perfect, as I have very limited editing time over the next few days.--SPhilbrickT 02:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

SPhilbrink, I didn't see all your comments here till recently. I concur with your above take. Yes, the affiliations still need refs. I think all the above solid cites have greatly helped to strengthen the article and it is a much more neutral place after swinging one way and then the other. Thanks to all the editors who have add input on this one way and another. Best wishes Span (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all

Thank you for getting this article more in line with encyclopedic style and removing the banner. We can work with this as a starting point - and systematically strengthen it even further. I will offer some edits and also search for additional documentation as suggested. Truly appreciate your efforts. Enjoy the 4th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omnibus170 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

NPOV/Non-notables

I have removed as "non-notable" "Her notes on How to Crack a Market Case: continue to be used as a teaching aid for first year HBS students" and presentations to the Committee on Labor and the Pontifical Athenaeums. To say that Agee was one of the first women to work in senior management of a Fortune 500 company is more specific and citable than saying she helped to break the glass ceiling. Again I would note that the task is not to present Agee in a glowing light so much as a neutral light. I again toned down the resume glow. Span (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)