User talk:FacultiesIntact/sandbox/David M. Cote

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... This is a draft version for proposed additions to the mainspace version. The person who made the speedy deletion claim does not appear to be acting in good faith and may have a negative POV stance against the subject of the article, due to them making this claim immediately after I raised this discussion on their talk page. --Silverseren^C 08:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Collaboration with CaroleHenson

@CaroleHenson: Since you're leaving comments in the tags on the draft, I thought this would be a more suitable place to discuss those particulars. Hope that's okay!

Regarding the unbalanced opinion tag, I used the source as another user had cited it for the news about Cote's successor at Honeywell. Forbes gives the same number for the market value, but after looking at the SEC filings, the 10-K cited their market value at December 31, 2001 as $27.6 billion. As such, I think striking the bit about shareholder value is the way to move forward, and remove the "14 year period" bit with it. I'll go ahead and make those edits now.

Thanks again for taking so much of your time to really vet this article, I truly appreciate the level of detail you've put in. Please let me know if there's anything else I missed.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:49, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

FacultiesIntact, Actually, this is perfect timing.

I have been browsing articles from this query, because I know that major process changes that result in such significant bounties for the leadership team and shareholders are likely to have negatively impacted someone along the way. It was just a point about the entire section, to ensure that not just the "good news" is being provided - and that there is balance.

I don't have an issue with the source used for the statement - it's just that statement is the most positive, most likely to be considered SPAM kind of content - and we need to ensure that the article is balanced.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson: I get what you're saying now. While I completely understand that the statement in question is likely to be considered SPAM, especially coming from me, do you have a suggestion for how to temper it? By most if not all accounts Cote has turned Honeywell around from near-disaster during his tenure; citing the rise in market value of the company felt like the most neutral way to show that, without going into the subjective language that would otherwise arise.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

FacultiesIntact, I think the key issue is to show balance, based upon what is being reported in the media during his time at Honeywell. For instance, as I said, the kinds of changes that are needed to change a company around this dramatically always affects someone. We just need balance, because this is an encyclopedia not a postive news or good news site.

There are articles in the query that is in my response above. And, perhaps others that you know of that can help balance out the content so that it projects a NPOV.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson thanks so much for all your help. I'll be here sporadically for the next week or so (I'm trying to make the most of the holidays), and I'll jump right back in come January. Hope you have a happy new year!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:27, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good!--—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I looked through the articles in your query and did some more review of my own, and it seems to me that most of the criticism around Cote's career lies in his appointment to the board of directors at JPMorgan, and to a lesser degree, his involvement with Fix The Debt, both of which I think are covered well in the existing article. What are your thoughts?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

FacultiesIntact, Ok, I made the edits to the article, including paraphrasing one sentence that was a direct quote from the source. It seems like the concern about the article have quieted and I wasn't finding anything significant either.—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I made a few more edits to my sandbox, and I was hoping to get your opinion before I make suggestions on the talk page. I was doing some more research, and found a link to his appearances on CNBC, which I think helps gives greater context to his role at Honeywell and his public positions on everything, good and bad. I feel confident that this addition is an unbiased one, but I have some questions about the other changes I've tried out:

1. I removed most of the awards that I had initially proposed after trying to determine which ones were actually significant, and landed on the CEO magazine award (which is already on the article) and the Barron's 30 Best CEOs, as he has now been included for four years running, and the metric is based solely on shareholder returns, which I think is a fairly objective criterion. Additionally, he currently has only the one award in the section, and I think it would be worthwhile to list others. Is that a fair assessment?
2. Would adding the external link to his offical bio at honeywell.com be appropriate? I'm aware that it could, and most likely would be perceived as promotional coming from me, but for example, Tim Cook has a link back to his bio at apple.com.
3. My last question I understand would be the most contentious, as I am advocating for Cote, but I felt that the lead was negatively biased. Commenting on his position on the risk committee during that period is certainly fair, and I won't dispute that, but I do think that it gives a decidedly negative skew to the lead. I think his turnaround of Honeywell is a legitimate accomplishment, and I think it gives balance to his legacy. Perhaps it could be phrased differently than I put it, but do you think that information is a fair inclusion?

--FacultiesIntact (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

The intro is fairly thin, I think adding to it in an even-handed way makes sense. I think it would be good to also mention a bit of context regarding the JPMorgan Chase business: he was identified as one of the board members lack of banking experience.

I personally don't see an issue with adding a few other major awards.

I wouldn't add the external link, it looks like it's one of the items that shouldn't be in external links, per WP:ELNO (#19) and the spirit of the section in general. I am going to remove the Apple bio and the twitter external link from Tim Cook's page.

You may want to mention on the article talk page that you're looking to add to the intro + add a few additional awards as a "heads up" and see if anyone has any guidance or comments about that.—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

CaroleHenson I’m going to do a little more research into the JPMorgan Chase business before I add in the context myself, but I agree that it’s a good idea to add more volume to the lead.

As for the link to his bio at honeywell.com, I interpreted WP:ELNO #19 a bit differently. When it says websites of organizations mentioned in the article, I take that to mean the website of the organization itself. I’m more inclined to interpret both this case as well as Tim Cook’s along the lines of WP:ELYES #1, with it falling under the definition of an official link. I’m just trying to deepen my understanding, and always appreciate your input.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Ok, the intro should be a summary of his professional career. I am sure you're already aware of this, but it should be objective in coverage and encyclopedic in approach and tone, to avoid issues with WP:Promotion, WP:BLP, WP:COI, etc. guidelines.

I posted an item at Wikipedia talk:External links#Use of CV for WP:BLP.—CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Link to Int'l Business Directory

I didn't add the link to the content that was posted to encyclopedia.com purposefully, I just temporarily put it in the notes for anyone that may be traveling through... This is better, though, to have it here.

I've never used the "International Directory of Business Biographies" as a source, but see it is used in 15 articles, there's no reference to it in the WP:RSN - or anywhere that I can see - so I am guessing it is not considered a tertiary source, like an encyclopedia.

I think adding that link may muddy the waters, because that site is encyclopedia.com, which is thought of as a tertiary source. I had thought about putting a "via" parameter in the citation, but since it looked like you got it from the actual directory (by the page numbers), I thought it best to leave it out.--—CaroleHenson (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I thought I would search everything in the Wikipedia universe and found that you discussed this with Philafrenzy, who did not comment back about the source and also mentioned they didn't have time to work on the article. So that makes me feel better on both counts (the dictionary used as a source, my jumping in after the posting to Philafrenzy on the article page).--—CaroleHenson (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Succession at Honeywell

Darius Adamczyk has succeeded Cote as CEO of Honeywell, and now that Cote's tenure as CEO is over, I thought it'd be appropriate to update the figures regarding his tenure in the lead, as well as fixing the tenses of this succession in the career section. Silverseren and/or CaroleHenson, would you mind taking a look at what I've got before I post on the mainspace article talk page?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. I went ahead and made the change.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)