Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Never held public office

... a highly notable aspect of this person's bio, given that she is a politician. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting talk page section. Yes, it's 100% true, and is a notable part of her biography. The issue, however, is whether it belongs in the lead, instead of only later in the article. Notice that it is a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). That Fiorina has never held public office is primarily an argument against her presidential candidacy, and it ought to be presented in the context of that candidacy together with other context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course it belongs in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

We are already aware that you think so. A further reason for introducing this material later in the article is that it is somewhat redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your argument does not make sense. Clinton is not applying or attempting to be a CEO. We are describing Fiotina as a politician in the first sentence, and yet she never held public office. That is a very notable aspect that should be included in the lead. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

(and BTW, the fact that she never held public office is not a negative, if one is to follow the current public sentiment is about politicians). - Cwobeel (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

This is no more appropriate for the lead here, than a statement to the effect that Sanders has never held a job in the private sector would be in the lead to his bio. This is a bio, not a discussion on her fitness for public office.CFredkin (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

red herring. Sanders is not running to be a CEO. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Clearer citation needed

The current citation for Carly Fiorina's ability to speak in Italian is a link to Google book search result of her book Tough Choices: A Memoir. If that means a piece of evidence can indeed be found in the book, please change the citation to reflect that.--Quest for Truth (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Campaign Debts

This edit has been repeatedly restored despite having a number of issues: It uses POV language (e.g. use of "finally"), removes part of response by Fiorina's campaign, and includes redundancy. Since this is a WP:BLP, the burden is on the editor making these changes to establish consensus for them before restoring them.CFredkin (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The content seems WP:UNDUE for a biography and Davenport1974 obliterated the source for some reason.- MrX 17:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Top line vs bottom line

... explained [1]. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry?

@Wsmorganv: Why is that relevant? Without sources we can't assess the relevance or notability of that material. Deleted. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Goodthink vs wrongthink

Fiorina supports eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The use of federal funds for abortions is mostly banned under current law.

References

Look how Wikipedia inserts rebuttal arguments before and after any wrongthink by anyone they don't like is mentioned. You won't find the reverse. It is not allowed to do things like this surrounding sentences describing the positions of goodthinking Democrats.

They do not, for example, put, "The law already requires background checks for gun owners." immediately following, "He is also in favor of instant background checks for gun owners." on the Bernie Sanders page, and if you tried to add it, a zealous Sanders supporter would get rid of that, no matter what sources you have. They'd be able to claim it's irrelevant. And nevermind the double standard, because doublethink.

Anytime any wrongthinker's position on anything is mentioned, there is a sentence immediately after providing a source attempting to refute whatever they said. Because bb goodthink doubleplusgood duckspeak. I call this "sandwiching"

I could start an edit war on this. I could explain how it's a complete non-sequitur to have that sentence there, but what's the point? Best case scenario is that it gets replaced by some other attempt to refute the position, which again, is not allowed to stand on Democrat pages. Conservative statements are sandwiched because they're wrongthink. Progressivist ones are not sandwiched because they're goodthink. --BenMcLean (talk) 01:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ben, I suspect your objection (if we are to keep this within TPG, otherwise your complaint is a violation) misses the point. Those statements complement each other. Either comment alone would misinform readers and leave them with a misunderstanding, or at least an incomplete understanding. Together they tell the whole story and make the content more NPOV. You just don't like the whole story because it makes Fiorina look foolish.

If either one of the comments came from a source which did not mention Fiorina, then you could rightly cry "OR and SYNTH violations", but those statements are in the same paragraph in the NPR source. The author makes that very proper synthesis for us, and for that we are grateful. Many other very reliable sources also ridicule the GOP for using their opposition to abortion, sex education, and birth control, as excuses to defund Planned Parenthood, in spite of the fact that Federal funds are generally not used for abortions. The consequence is a removal of essential health care from millions of women. These actions are then used, by these RS, as more evidence of the GOP's War on Women. We base our content on RS, so you're in a bind if you wish to keep such content out of Wikipedia.

I think you would do well to drop this matter. The RS back up this content, and RS trump your personal objections and bizarre "Goodthink vs wrongthink" idea. You claim that "Wikipedia inserts rebuttal arguments...", but that's not true. Editors insert content from RS. That's what we're supposed to do. Your statement is an attack on the integrity of other editors by failing to AGF. They are just doing their job, and even if you don't like what is written, you are supposed to write for the enemy. If you can't even allow other editors to present the opposing POV found in RS, what are you doing here? You belong somewhere else. Stop and rethink your purpose here and try to edit in an NPOV manner, rather than complaining. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You just don't like the whole story because it makes Fiorina look foolish.

I don't like the whole story because the reason it's there is in order to attempt to make Florina look foolish. There are a multitude of ways in which the funding that Planned Parenthood gets indirectly benefits their abortion business, which is their main business. That could in turn be sandwiched with even more counter-arguments from the Left, which could be sandwiched again with counter-arguments from the Right ad infinitum. The only reason it stops in the place where it does is intentionally in order to make Florina look foolish for partisan reasons, and that's the problem. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ben: Leaving aside the silly Orwell references (reminiscent of Godwin's Law) and turning to brass tacks: The content (which is not a "rebuttal" or argument, but fact) is vital to understanding Fiorina's position. It is well-sourced: in fact, it is sourced to the very same reference as the previous one—signaling that the source itself (NPR, I believe) thought that omitting the clarification would be misleading in the extreme. So it is misleading here to omit this statement, especially because the statement is under the "Abortion" header here. If the second sentence doesn't appear, the reader might naturally think that that federal money going to Planned Parenthood for abortions - which is incorrect. Neutrality^talk 21:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The content is a rebuttal, and you know it. This does not preclude it from also being a fact. What I am objecting to here is bias in the selection of which facts are thought to be important and relevant. --BenMcLean (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I discovered that there is a page on this: Wikipedia:Avoid thread mode. This sentence I'm objecting to is a prime example of it. It is The Mighty Sword of However. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:15, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Obtuse statement about points needs revision

Article says, " lost the general election to incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer by 10 points.[15][16]." Last I knew persons lost elections by so many votes, not points. What does points mean here? (EnochBethany (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC))

It should be 10 percent. I assume the original intent was 10 (percentage) points.- MrX 15:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to be clearer, along the lines suggested by MrX; the wording is now identical to that found at Barbara Boxer#Elections. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Layoffs and severance package

It is really quite absurd not to include the dual facts that Carly:

• laid off 30,000 people
• took home a $22 million severance package

These are important, verifiable facts about her time at HP. They are not POV, they are not "she reinvented HP" or "she ruined HP," they are factual and let the reader decide. 209.2.223.3 (talk) 13:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

If we're going to mention the layoffs, then we should mention the change to employee counts pre and post merger as well. This has been discussed at length above.

The severance when she left HP is mentioned in the body of the article, but is not significant enough to warrant mention in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 15:13, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, for example here and there was no consensus for adding this borderline original research to the lead. The significant fact is that a lot of people were laid off under her leadership. It is a far lesser point that the net headcount was eventually offset by a merger and subsequent hiring activities. - MrX 15:29, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There was indeed extensive discussion on this subject. The last stable version included references to both the layoffs and the employees counts. They were then both removed with this series of edits. We should either include neither or both until there's consensus otherwise.CFredkin (talk) 18:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

There was discussion about it at the original research notice board as well, and there was certainly no consensus there to include only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The previous discussions related to adding the material about subsequent hiring and net headcount resulting from a merger. I don't see that there was much objection to the layoffs being summarized in the lead, especially given the extensive coverage in sources.- MrX 19:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The noticeboard discussion is here. Selectively including only the anti-Fiorina data in the lead is vastly more objectionable than including balanced data in the lead. Which would you prefer, MrX, including the balanced data in the lead, or leaving it all for the main body of the article? The absolute worst option is what we have in the lead now. I tend to agree with User:Blueboar that, "I don't think any of this belongs in the article's lead. Putting it in the lead give the entire issue UNDUE weight", but would be willing to include the balanced data if you insist. The lead now is POV rubbish, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the ORN discussion involving only four editors only shows that two people favor inclusion of just the layoffs; one favors inclusion of the layoffs and the net headcount following the layoffs; and one favors leaving both being left out of the lead. The layoffs are a discrete fact. Whether it's significant enough to merit inclusion in the lead is a matter of debate. The information about the later employee headcount is one that seems to be manufactured by Fiorina or her campaign. As far as I can tell, it is a fringe view that does not belong in the lead. If I had to make a choice, I would prefer to leave both out of the lead, rather than include both, but I still prefer just the layoffs in the lead per WP:DUEWEIGHT.- MrX 20:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I object to the inclusion of this in the lead. This is a minor issue, but should be in the body. But look at say hillary's lead and the absence of emailgate or benghazi. Or eric holder and fast and furious, or any number of other articles. This is not a topic that defines Fiorina's reputation (much as some would like it to) and should not be in the lead. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this bit is sufficient to describe her tenure at HP in a neutral manner:

In 2002, Fiorina oversaw the biggest high-tech merger in history up to that time, with rival computer company Compaq, which made HP the world's largest personal computer manufacturer.[7][8] On February 9, 2005, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman over disagreements about the company's performance, disappointing earning reports, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads.[9][10][11]

This bit is gratuitous and undue:

Its stock price had fallen by approximately half its value compared to when Fiorina had started, while the overall NASDAQ index had decreased by about a quarter owing to turbulence in the tech sector.[12][13][14] She took home a US$22 million severance package.[15] HP stock jumped by 6.9 percent when she was fired.[16]

CFredkin (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The stock market is notoriously fickle, and so putting data like that in the lead seems like undue weight to me. If people insist upon it being in the lead, then I support including some balance, like the NASDAQ figure. Why include the severance info without saying whether it was unusual or not? We don't say what salary she had, so why say what severance pay she got?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:04, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with removing the "gratuitous" three sentences from the lead. If we are to praise her for overseeing "the biggest high-tech merger in history" then I don't see how we can omit that she laid off a small city's worth of employees. Perhaps we need to conduct a straw poll to see how many editors support layoffs in the lead. It's a matter of editorial discretion, so I don't think we need full-blown RfC. - MrX 20:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

You really think it would be NPOV to say in the lead how many people she laid off without giving the slightest clue how many people worked in the company? And without giving the slightest clue that she also hired tens of thousands of people?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Our sources (Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Times) are silent on the size of HP during the layoffs, so no, we should not give the size of HP's workforce at various times during the span of the layoffs. Including that original research may seem neutral, but our policy is clear that our content should be proportional to coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't allow for false equivalence. - MrX 21:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The LA Times, Politifact, WaPo and others provide context. You support stripping off the context and putting this factoid in the lead. Several other editors have objected to that, and for very good reason. We have considerable editorial discretion about what goes in the lead, and I emphatically oppose including this factoid devoid of context. We would be better off either providing the context or following Blueboar's advice. Sometimes factoids are misleading by themselves, or create a problem of undue weight, or both.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The 30,000 employees that were laid off is the significant fact. The context is important, but not a significant, fact worthy of inclusion in the lead. We seem to agree that the lead is a matter of editorial discretion. I will start a poll (below) to try to determine how other edits view this.- MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll: Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 HP jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership?

Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 HP jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership between 1999 to 2005, irrespective of any other content? Please add your signature under the appropriate heading and ,if you're inclined, discuss it under threaded discussion.- MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes

1. - MrX 21:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
2. - - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
3. -[[User:Anythingyouwant|Anythingyouwant]] (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
4. — Of course, it's a major issue. Binksternet (talk) 01:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
5. - Absolutely, it's one of the highlights of her career. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
6. - Yes. Heavy coverage in reliable mainstream sources, and it touches on a core element of her biography. --Aquillion (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

No

1. - -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

It is a defining aspect of her tenure at HP according to a massive preponderance of sources, which in turn, is the most notable aspect of her bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to include it in the lead, but only if context is provided as it was for quite a while until yesterday. Without the context, the factoid is highly misleading, undue weight, and pov.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe the straw poll accurately represents the discussion. It would probably be more accurately phrased as "Should the lead include a mention that 30,000 jobs were cut under Fiorina's leadership, without mentioning that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001?"CFredkin (talk) 21:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that would be a much better poll question. It is also significant how many people worked at HP. If ten trillion people worked there, then that would put the information in a much different light than if ten people worked there. When she left, there were 150,000 workers there. This is significant even apart from how many she hired and fired.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It would be a different poll question, not a better one. Feel free to start a poll to see if there is support for including the additional content proposed by CFredkin.- MrX 22:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the point in having a useless poll question? If everyone answers "yes" to the poll (as I have done) then I will still revert any edit that inserts this factoid improperly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll also quote a pertinent part of WP:BLP:

“ The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. ”

I cannot support including a snippet of anti-Fiorina material hoping that it will eventually be properly balanced and contextualized in the lead. I can only support it with context.Anythingyouwant (talk)}

So this is a vote to ignore the NPOV Policy?Jadeslair (talk) 23:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It's something that, in the lede, would be a statistic-pick-and-choose of what's important to highlight and what's not. And that, in my opinion, is going into POV territory. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The last stable version of the lead

There is presently an RfC in progress regarding whether (and how) layoffs should be discussed in the lead. The lead has been very unstable in that regard since this edit at 00:21 on 16 September. Prior to that edit, this material had been stable for at least 26 days, i.e. since 21 August. After the edit at 00:21 on 16 September, the material has been continually disputed at the talk page, and continually changed back and forth, for example with these article edits:

• 03:30 on 17 Sep;
• 03:37 on 17 Sep;
• 03:40 on 17 Sep;
• 13:54 on 17 Sep;
• 14:53 on 17 Sep;
• 14:57 on 17 Sep;
• 17:32 on 17 Sep;
• 19:19 on 17 Sep;
• 19:43 on 17 Sep;
• 23:33 on 17 Sep;
• 23:40 on 17 Sep;
• 01:13 on 18 Sep;
• 01:40 on 18 Sep;
• 02:26 on 18 Sep;
• 04:42 on 18 Sep;
• 15:58 on 18 Sep;
• 16:21 on 18 Sep;

Wikipedia policy is pretty clear in a case like this. Per WP:BRD, bold edits are fine, but when reverted they should be discussed rather than repeated without consensus. WP:BRRR is not helpful or productive (click on that last link to see illustration). Accordingly, I will revert to the last stable version because I do not agree with the latest version, and we can continue discussing this matter by way of the ongoing RfC. I note that the last stable version was discussed at the original research noticeboard where there was no consensus that it involved any original research.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The RfC is trending 2:1 against the material you just twice restored to the lead, but by all means, edit war to get your way. FYI: WP:BRD is not a policy, or a guideline, and there's no such thing as a "stable version" on a wiki.- MrX 02:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

If you favor WP:BRRR over WP:BRD then by all means we can continue the edit-war that's been going on since September 16 (which I documented above in this talk page section). If you'll be patient with the RfC then you can potentially get your way entirely. Isn't that good enough for you?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have made one revert, so I will let you decide whether that's one B or one R. You can continue to edit war; I find such behavior childish.- MrX 02:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I find willful disregard of the last stable version childish. I also find impatience to short-circuit an RfC childish. And I'm not referring to a nice, well-behaved child either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrX.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Present headcount

It appears that User:MrX and User:VictoriaGrayson would prefer not to await the results of the RfC to determine whether or not there is consensus to insert the 30,000 layoffs into the lead without context. They assert that such consensus exists already. This is refuted by the comment of MrX on 17 September: "Feel free to start a poll to see if there is support for including the additional content proposed by CFredkin."[2] Now MrX does not want to await the answer from the RfC on that exact point. Let’s consider opinions that have been expressed on this matter since August 21 (the date mentioned in the third sentence of this talk page section). As of now, in the RfC (which started on 18 Sep), there are four !votes against MrX’s position (me, CFredkin, Fyunck, ErnieCohen) and six !votes for MrX’s position (Binksternet, MrX, Cwobeel, IHES, VictoriaGrayson, Neutrality). In the slow-motion edit-war that I documented above in this talk page section, aside from the people who have !voted in the RfC, MrX’s position was supported by three other editors assuming that the IPs are not named editors editing while logged out (173.2.236.247, 209.2.223.3, Somedifferentstuff) and MrX’s position for immediate insertion of the 30,000 figure without context was not favored by one (SuperCarnivore591 as of latest edit). Additionally, in the previous straw poll above, Winkelvi !voted against including the 30,000 in the lead. Moreover, at WP:OR/N, Aquillion opposed the stable version that MrX also opposes, whereas Blueboar opposes including the 30,000 in the lead. So the total !vote as of now is 10 for MrX versus 7 against MrX’s desire for immediate inclusion of the 30,000 figure into the lead without context. Even if we disregard the strength of arguments, that !vote is rather close, especially considering that the RfC has been open for less than a day. I therefore view the continued reversion of the last stable version to be disruptive. If the RfC turns out to be inconclusive, then I will support restoration of the last stable version, and doubtless the opponents of the last stable version will support whatever they manage to force on everyone else. Such is the deliberate state of affairs at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The version that you are calling the "last stable version" was always wrong, as it implied wrongly that there was a connection between the large size of the combined market share of the merger between HP and Compaq, and the laying off of US workers. There was never any such connection; the layoffs were planned without regard to increases in market share. Let's not push so hard against NPOV to restore an obviously incorrect version, however longlasting it may have been. Binksternet (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's not push so hard against NPOV that we delete every last positive thing about the BLP subject from the lead. The merger created redundancies, which led to layoffs. According to Politifact, "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq...."[3]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's look at the broader context of the PolitiFacts article:

"It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad. A company as large as HP is very dynamic, so it's possible that the initial layoffs resulted in a stronger company that contributed to job growth in the long run. That's good in the macro sense, but it doesn't cancel the fact that 30,000 workers lost their jobs. So we rate the claim Mostly True."
— PolitiFacts

emphasis added

So, the widely-held view point in our sources is that 30,000 employees lost their job under her leadership. The rest of the information is insignificant detail and political spin.- MrX 14:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

You cannot seem to bring yourself to say what you must know: that after the firing of 30,000 she hired tens of thousands. Why not say it? You would sound a lot more credible if you would acknowledge plain facts. Then we could discuss whether those facts are noteworthy or not. That conversation is impossible until you acknowledge the facts.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not up to me, or any of us, to SYNTHesize conclusions from unrelated facts. Was I not clear before when I said our sources are silent about subsequent hiring activities? Of the eight sources that I listed above, only the Tampa Bay Times/PolitiFact mentions the material that you wish to add, and only because they are commenting on the truthfulness of Barbara Boxer's ad. It's not as if the 30,000 people who lost their jobs were later rehired. Unless you come up with a reasoned argument that's grounded in our policies, I'm not going to bother responding anymore, because I think you're just NOTGETTINGIT. - MrX 17:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

One thing that is very odd to me is the way it's worded regardless of whether extra statements are included. Fiorina did not lay off 30,000 workers. That's not the way these things ever work. It's a management team decision with Fiorina at it's head. It should really be more like: Hewlett Packard, under Fiorina's leadership, laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Iran

I've restored content removed without explanation. The date that the partnership was formed and HP's response are definitely relevant. Also, the source doesn't say the SEC conducted an investigation. It says they sent a letter.CFredkin (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC) Also, the previous content doesn't reflect the fact that HP's Dutch subsidiary formed a partnership with a company in Dubai.CFredkin (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I have moved some of the material to the main HP article and linked to it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin and User:Professor_JR's deletion of an allegedly important sentence

Both are deleting an important sentence, such as in this diff. Huffington Post is a reliable source used all over Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

restored with additional supporting source. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, that paragraph is severely out of whack. Consider this quote from that paragraph of this Wikipedia article: "Others have defended her business leadership decisions and viewed the Compaq merger as successful over the long term." It is not NPOV to quote Sonnenfeld and others trashing Fiorina's business career at length, while only briefly alluding to the fact that some people disagree. WP:Sofixit is no answer in a BLP like this, per WP:BLP. The biography is supposed to remain neutral at all times, and editors who insert stuff should not rely upon other editors to balance it out.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The preponderance of sources describe Fiorina's tenure at HP as a disaster, and the Compaq merger as ill conceived. NPOV does not imply a false balance. Read the policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sonnenfeld and various other commentators and opinion writers are not reliable sources, in contrast to major newspapers, books from reputable publishers, et cetera. If you cannot find criticism of Fiorina in the latter, then try harder please.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Sonnenfeld's quote is properly attributed to him. He is not being used as a source in the general sense. I have worked in various highly contentious articles, so I can tell you from experience that this is the way its done in Wikipedia.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:44, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I have also worked at a lot of contentious Wikipedia articles, and I know that the best way to turn up the temperature and make them even more contentious is to describe third-party opinions rather than describing facts from neutral and reliable sources.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

In Wikipedia we don't report just "facts". We report significant viewpoints, per WP:NOPV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

My highlight: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. Note that the policy does not use significant facts, and for a good reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

[4]Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Eeyoresdream:, the issue raised was sourcing and additional sourcing was provided. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the Talk section above, evidence disputing Sonnenfeld's reliability as a source for commentary on Republican candidates has been provided. Also, I believe the statements being inserted in the article are inappropriate for a bio. In any case, I believe consensus should be established here before the disputed content is restored.Eeyoresdream (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't get to decide if a person is reliable/notable or not. What we get to decide is if a source is reliable, and we have the New York Times and other WP:RS that consider his opinion to be significant. I'd like to hear what are the arguments about the lack of reliability of the NYT. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

The NYT is full of all kinds of different stuff having different levels of reliability. There's advertisements, letters to the editor, opinion columns, et cetera. Their news articles contain too much to fit into a Wikipedia article, so we should emphasize factual material rather than third-party opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) If Wkkipedia articles were bases solely on "factual material" we will end up in nowehere land. There is a good reason "facts" is not included in any of our core content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

If you want to take up space with opinion material rather than neutral facts, then we should describe the opposing views clearly, using secondary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint, rather than sources that only present derogatory third-party opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources have also noted that his reliability as a source for commentary on Republican candidates has been questioned. I haven't seen attacks by partisan sources included in bios.Eeyoresdream (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Partisan sources? What do you mean? Is the NYT a partisan source? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reposting from above.... The reliability of the source for these claims (Sonnenfeld) has been publicly disputed. This is mentioned in the Business Insider article..... If you can't see that this commentary is inappropriate for a BLP, maybe you should take a break.CFredkin (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A self-serving comment on Fiorina's PAC website and a sentence in the Business Insider that confuses her PAC with her official campaign? May be it is you that needs a break. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Since when is using sources from political campaigns against opposing references valid and considered objective? Since no neutral third-party sources for these claims exist, there's no reason for these references to be excluded from the article. By definition, using a source from a political campaign is propaganda. Alon12 (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I provided a source in the form of a book published by Simon and Schuster. Is that not enough? If so why no? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

A book by Paul Begala, an American political consultant and political commentator, adviser to President Bill Clinton, and chief strategist for the 1992 Clinton–Gore campaign. Might it be possible that perhaps this is not the most neutral source to consult here?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You can't have it both ways. First you say that Sonnenfeld is nit reliable, and I provide a NYT source that describes his viewpoints. You asked for additional sources, so I provided a book. The issue here is not Begala, but Sonnefeld. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the first occurrence of that comment from Sonnenfeld was to the New York Times back in 2008: [5] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I find the comparison between whats going on in this debate, and the one going on here Talk:Hillary_Clinton#Revert_explain quite illuminating. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We are discussing this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the standards for BLPs of political candidates should be the same. Either well sourced (but biased) notable criticisms are reelvant, or they are not. Having a different standard where liberals get hagiographies, and conservatives get attack pieces is bullshit. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Hey, relax. I don't see any indication that Clinton is being treated any different than anybody else. Just see the large number of articles on Clinton describing the many controversies she has been involved in the past 30 years. Please don't compare apple to oranges. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, and how much of that is reflected in her BLP? There's currently no reference to the determination by IG's and an Intelligence Review Board that there was classified info on her email server, that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation of the situation, that she and Bill have used their Foundation as a personal ATM, that there have been allegations regarding pay to play while she was Secretary of State (all of which is reliably sourced). And how many quotes from her political opponents attacking her appear in her BLP?CFredkin (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about????? See Whitewater controversy, Travelgate, Filegate, Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy, Hillary Clinton email controversy all of which are articles linked from her main bio article. Again, please discuss that article there, not here. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What are YOU talking about? Those articles aren't her BLP.CFredkin (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

???? - These are all sub articles and fall under BLP as well. Clinton has been in the public stage for many years and one article was not enough. Again: 'please discuss Clinton in that article's talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina has never held public office, and she touts her credentials as a business woman when doing politics. It is only predictable that her career as a business woman has attracted numerous significant viewpoints in reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@VictoriaGrayson: Two candidates for president: Fiorina & Clinton (apples & apples). Sonnenfeld wrote his opinion of one apple, Fiorina: "You couldn’t pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer." Dick Cheney wrote his opinion of the other apple, Clinton: "She has been the worst Secretary of State of the 20th Century." Guess it's OK with you, User:VictoriaGrayson -- based on your logic(?) and reasoning(?) as displayed on this TalkPage -- if we just insert Cheney's quote into the Clinton articles, sourced to Cheney's own book? Or, would you have a problem with that? We would all really be much better off avoiding opinions, sourced to the person stating the opinion, and sticking with facts from neutral and reliable sources when editing BLP articles, as 'Anythingyouwant' has suggested. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are we discussing Clinton here? There is a page for that. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing Clinton here -- merely drawing upon an analogous comparison in hopes that User:VictoriaGrayson might get the point we're trying to make, duh. --- Professor JR (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, that never works. That is why this talk page is not the place to make comparisons. You may say apples to apples, and I can very easily counter that it is apple to oranges. If you an issue with the Clinton article, do it in that article's talk page. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no proof that Sonnenfeld is politically biased. He disputed Fiorina's claims of him being a "Clintonite" as she called him, as "absurd" [6], so again, no one is disputing Sonnefeld except for Fiorina. Furthermore, Sonnenfeld's opinions are held in high regard by major publications such as the New York Times, Fortune Magazine, etc. and are often referenced there. Alon12 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheney is not an academic. Cheney is viewed universally as unreliable.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What universe is that? I am so done here. . . --- Professor JR (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

May I remind all of us of WP:NOTFORUM? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Business career

The problem we have in this article is that an overwhelming number of sources, post her HP tenure and with the benefit of hindsight, describe Fiorina's business career as flawed and underwhelming (to put it mildly). Such scrutiny is expected of a person that sets herself as a candidate for the Presidency of the U.S. And yet, the article as it stands now presents an outdated overview of her career, and does not include the detail analysis and commentary that such scrutiny has generated. Granted, supporters of Florina among us may want to suppress such analysis and commentary, but given that her business career is a central claim of this person's notability, we ought to put our partisanship aside and present all significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources, in the correct proportions. Otherwise, we are not serving our readers well, and we are violating WP:NPOV by presenting a false balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some sources

"With hindsight, it's hard to see how Carly Fiorina, America's pre-eminent female executive, who was fired as CEO of Hewlett-Packard last week, could have survived. The centerpiece of her career - a $ 24 billion merger with Compaq - was a flop; HP's board was threatening to strip her of day-to-day responsibilities at the firm; As one of only eight women heading Fortune 500 companies, the HP/Compaq deal was Fiorina's fatal error: not just because the strategy was flawed - two years on it has not achieved its goal of improving cost efficiencies in HP's PC business - but also because she alienated too many people in the process of pursuing that goal." […] "Since the merger, HP has lost market share and failed to revive its profit margins. It lost the number one position in personal-computer market share last year to Dell. While the share price of Dell has soared over the past 18 months, HP's has floundered. Indeed, the merger was so disastrous that Fiorina fought off three attempts to spin off HP's highly profitable printer business and cut the PC business adrift. After her departure last week, shares in the company rose nearly 10 per cent on that prospect." [London Observer, 2/13/05][7] "Fiorina's personality and management style ultimately led to her demise. She used hardball tactics to suppress the opposition of Walter Hewlett, the company's largest shareholder and the son of its co-founder William Hewlett, to the 2002 Compaq merger...Last year, when the company's struggling corporate computer division failed to meet its sales growth targets, she abruptly fired three top executives in what many people, both inside and outside the company, saw as a public hanging." [New York Times, 2/10/05] [8] "Carly Fiorina's nearly six-year reign at Hewlett-Packard Co. ended abruptly Wednesday as board members forced her out, disappointed by her inability to transform a plodding technology giant dominated by printer sales into a more nimble innovator. H-P's stock, which has gone nowhere for two years and is down two-thirds from its peak in 2000, rose almost 7 percent after earlier soaring almost 11 percent on the news of her ouster." [Associated Press, 2/9/05] [9] But until recently, Fiorina's claim to fame was 5 1/2 rocky years at Hewlett-Packard, where she battled the company's founding families to push forward with a $19 billion purchase of Compaq Computer in 2002, then failed to create the profitable computer giant she had promised. In February 2005, she was publicly ousted by HP's board, but not before she ordered the first of a series of leak investigations that would spin into a highly publicized scandal." [Washington Post, 4/2/08] Asked to describe her relationship with her board of directors, the embattled Hewlett-Packard chief executive, Carly Fiorina, replied with a single word: "Excellent." Perhaps she was in denial, or just out of the loop, but Fiorina's confrontational tenure as chief executive of the world's second-largest computer company was unraveling." [New York Times, 2/10/05] [10] "Fiorina had a vision, and she did a phenomenal job acquiring Compaq and combining the assets. But we had to make the assets deliver. We had an execution problem. The stock took a big hit. She was a better saleswoman than a manager.'" [The New Yorker, 2/19/07] [11] "In the midst of all the competitive pressures bearing down on her, and in the struggle of managing the unwieldy company she created, Carly Fiorina sometimes talks as if she sees a vision all her own. She hauls it out in the opening lines of internal speeches, articulating her goal of making HP 'the world's leading technology company.' The ambition is a curiosity rouser because it implies that she has firmly in mind what company right now holds that title. But that turns out not to be true. ... But then, you wonder, if she doesn't know who the leader is now, how would she know whom HP has to pass and when to claim victory?" [Fortune, 2/7/05] [12] "Although the effort to acquire Compaq was successful, Fiorina subsequently struggled to manage the now sprawling enterprise. By August of 2004, Hewlett-Packard’s stock had dropped below seventeen dollars, from a high of more than sixty dollars, in 2000. The price was so low that some directors felt that Hewlett-Packard itself had become vulnerable to a takeover, and blamed Fiorina." [The New Yorker, 2/19/07] [13] "The problem with all these structural virtues {of the merger], good as they may look on a sales call, is that they cost HP shareholders $24 billion to get, resulted in the bargain sale of 37% of the printer business, and aren't producing decent profits. In other words, the merger may have improved HP's status, but it did so only at an indefensible cost and without producing a company of merit. Stay with us as we de-layer just how much HP makes. Bottom line, according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), 2004 profits were $3.5 billion. That's a dull 4.4% of $80 billion in revenues. Nor does it stack up well against assets of $76 billion (the ratio is 4.6%) or stockholders' equity of $37.6 billion (9.3%). When the next FORTUNE 500 comes out with its performance rankings for such key measures as return on equity (in which the 500 median is likely to run about 14%), this huge company will place way down the list." [Fortune, 2/7/05] [14] "That's what she herself has claimed to believe again and again. Her pride, which she is not short of, is bound up with somehow making this company work, even if not by the definition detailed in the merger proxy. Some people fault Fiorina for having rapidly moved out of jobs at two previous employers, AT&T and Lucent, without having really "finished" her work. Those critics think she might speed from HP also, perhaps by riding the rumors into some kind of Republican post. But her HP job seems unlike the others in that her managerial reputation is thoroughly and publicly on the line--in a company that hasn't succeeded--and would be badly tarred if she walked out." [Fortune, 2/7/05] [15]

I agree that our article should reflect, as you said, all significant viewpoints as reported in reliable sources in the correct proportions, including the criticism as well as the praise. The '07 New Yorker piece, in particular, is the kind of in-depth piece we should try to draw from. Neutrality^talk 03:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You are a good editor and able to compose good prose from sources, so please lend a hand. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the next few days. Neutrality^talk 05:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As long as this ridiculous stance is being maintained, I think all negative commentary regarding Fiorina's tenure at HP should likewise be relegated to Hewlett-Packard.CFredkin (talk) 03:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Supporters of Hillary Clinton who edit both these bios are trying to maintain a double standard. I'm happy to conform to whatever standard is agreed upon, but to maintain that different standards should be applied to these bios is completely unacceptable.CFredkin (talk) 04:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

What has this to do with Clinton? The RFC there is about presenting an opinion as a fact, which we should never do. What we are discussing here is presenting a prevalent opinion as opinions. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And by the way, I am not a supporter of Clinton. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin are you a Fiorina supporter? - Cwobeel (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

She's not my top choice as a presidential candidate by a long shot.CFredkin (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Cwobeel, stop with the BS argument that the Hillary Clinton article does not apply here. Of course it applies here. There is no way that long, negative quotes from political opponents of Hillary Clinton would be allowed in the Clinton article. All of that information and quotes are pushed into other articles, articles about Whitewater or Monica Lewinsky, Ken Starr, etc. We are not editing this article in vacuum. The redundancy and undue weight issues are not being ignored by the editors of the Hillary Clinton article like they are here. The Hillary Clinton article is quite instructive so stop attempting to shut down anyone who brings up the double standard.--ML (talk) 10:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources provided above are NOT political. These are sources from the date in which Fiorina was fired, which was covered by a multitude of sources. If you take the time to read these sources then you will see that these sources are pretty neutral. They could not be political, because Fiorina was not into politics at that time. These assessments are 100% on her performance as an executive. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

(OT: I don't usually edit articles on Democrat politicians, so please do not tar my name on issues of double standards). - Cwobeel (talk) 16:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG. You sound like Br'er Rabbit. The comments above concerning the Hillary Clinton article are not about you. (You obviously are trying your best to make them about you.) The comments about the Clinton article make the excellent point that the long list of negative quotes about Fiorina would never fly in the Hillary Clinton article. That's a fact. It is not about you and it is not about politics. It is about making a point about editing this particular article. This article has way, way, way too many long negative quotes about Fiorina--some by dubious sources like a college age member of the Packard family--that have been jammed into the article, making the article out of whack with NPOV. Its not about you. Its about making this article better.--ML (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

If there are a lot of quotes and critical commentary, it is because her career has attracted that type of criticism. In WP we report what reliable sources say, in proportion of its coverage. That is what NPOV is all about, otherwise we will be presenting a false balance. The article requires much more material about the reception she has received over the years by the financial press while she was an executive. We are not even close to complete the article in that regard. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the false balance references. That is not even a Wikipedia policy. Please stop acting like it a Wikipedia policy because it isn't. Also, you don't own the article. Please stop acting like you own the article because you don't.--ML (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, WP:FALSEBALANCE is in fact Wikipedia policy (it's part of WP:NPOV and our policy on undue weight.) Essentially, giving WP:UNDUE weight to an aspect in order to 'balance' an article is still giving that topic undue weight -- our policy requires that we reflect the weight and balance present in reliable mainstream coverage, and forbids us from "adjusting" that weight in order to achieve some sort of artificial balance. --Aquillion (talk) 01:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)