Talk:Hanes

Please go to

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bought a pack of 10 at Walmart for 18.97? So far I've tried 3 pairs and all the legs have very little elastic.Been buying the same ones for years. 173.93.124.35 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious about the story of how this company went public. 71.7.247.58 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few years back I saw a video starring a girl who appeared to be a slave for Hanes. I came to this article to get a quick understanding of the situation, and get to the bottom of what really happened. But it turns out while Wikipedia had quite a robust section on the contoversy it has slowly been scrubbed away over the past decade, before eventually being removed entirely. Now I can't say that any of the removals are definitively uncalled for, the controversy section often had wild claims about stuff like euegenics, or clearly non-neutral or off-topic content. (However, the alleged abuses by Hanes were never not "wild".)

However, the fact that the entire controversy section was removed without so much as a line stating the allegations of abuse to replace it doesn't seem right. I'd argue given the severity of what it is that Hanes supposedly did, it's down right suspicous. (In fact the entire page, and talk page is remarkably small for such a large company.)

When I first saw that there was no mention of the child-labor in the article I assumed I had the wrong company. One would assume that it something as noteworthy as allegations of what was effectively slave labor would be present in a Wikipedia article. And so its absence implies that whatever the readers thought they heard about a contorversy was so far out there and so spontaneous a joke or lie, that it never became widespread enough to warrent a mention (let alone might be true). Thus the absence of a controversy section is even worse than the off-topic remark(s) that were formerly in it. So while I would like the controversy section to be rebuilt to its former size, in the mean time can we at least re-create the section and stub it out? (You know I probably should have just done that instead of writing this stupid topic. This is taking forever.) 50.39.216.120 (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]