Talk:Meg Whitman/Archives/2012

Attendance at Romney's planning session

This link shows that she attended Romney's planning session... http://reason4romney.blogspot.com/2006/11/volume-1-issue-5-11302006.html#links —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.87.160 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 1 December 2006

Who is John Robinson?

Check out the 'Background and Education' section. Looks like a —Gmchambless1 11:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to know who John Robinson is, twice, I have reverted what I think is vandalism, and it turns out that it is correct. What is it/who is he??

Relation?

Is she related to the Boston Brahmin Whitmans? Walt Whitman? What about former NJ governor Christy Todd-Whitman?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.72.215.225 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 18 May 2007

Uh... would any of that be notable? --Mrcolj, 68.47.137.29 (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Each fact need not be notable, only the subject of the article. --Coemgenus 20:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Hello. This article has at least four references which is great but I added a "citations missing" tag because inline citations might help the reader understand what material comes from which source. OK from my point of view to remove or change this tag in advance.-Susanlesch 07:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Speaking at GOP convention

This ought to be included.--68.56.17.70 (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal life?

Does anyone know if she is married or has any children?(MaxTheMan36 (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes - Meg seems to have two children and is married to a man named Griffith Rutherford Harsh IV - a medical doctor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Egyptoo (talk • contribs) 20:46, 25 January 2009

Does anyone know her religion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.29.189 (talk) 23:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed poorly sourced libelous information

"Whitman's business activities have provoked criticism from international monitors of sweatshop labor conditions, including the activist National Labor Committee and drawn attention from the liberal Huffington Post. In business roles for Hasbro, Stride Rite and the Walt Disney Company, Whitman has overseen operations and supported practices in Asian factories where 13 hour shifts are worked 7 days a week, toxic substances are handled without protection by child laborers and unsafe conditions prevail. [12]"

The link involved attempts to connect Whitman to practices by her former companies when she was not in their employ--in some cases over a decade has gone by. In fact the National Labor Committee makes no reference to Meg Whitman in their reports. The Huffington Post author attempts to make the link for obvious political reasons and should not be considered a credible source.

This wiki article goes even further than the Huffington Post article. Chris Kelly makes allusions to connections while this submission used verbiage such as her "business activities" and "supported practices." —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScotti (talk • contribs) 11:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's true - the section that these claims are made is the "criticism" section and it is, actually, criticism. She did support sweatshop conditions, and she has drawn criticism for that. There's another article in the Huffpo today: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/wikipedia-cant-handle-my_b_174745.html

And gawker did call her a homophobe. That is also true. That is why it is in the criticism section. She may not actually be a homophobe, but, certainly, truthfully, gawker *did* call her one. It's criticism, and therefor belongs in a criticism section.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.181.250 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 14 March 2009

Chris Kelly says of Ms. Whitman "This sad sack shell of a human being named Meg Whitman wants to be governor of California" and "Everyone knows this Wikipedia page is constantly rewritten by the politician's staff and constantly unwritten by the Asperger cases who police Wikipedia like it's their job." He is deliberately inflammatory and considers it a huge win that this material is being put on Wikipedia. "To my childlike delight, this observation was added to her Wikipedia entry."

Kelly is not a primary source, neutral, or reliable. He is passing along information from another source (without a reference), that is in turn may be a reference to a primary source. Wikipedia standards for biographies are very high and this in no way meets it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.95.83 (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Huffington Post isn't a news source. It's an ultra-left-wing 'blog site. It's ALL editorial and opinion, and as such essentially useless as an unbiased reference for Wikipedia articles, especially biographies of any person, living or dead, to the right of just slightly left of center. Ditto for gawker.com —Quicksilver^{T @} 20:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

There seems to be an edit war with the entry ending with the phrase:

"...and led gawker.com to name her as a homophobe[21]."

The gawker.com link provided points out that Whitman employed an openly gay personal assistant for some time. By definition that would mean that Whitman is not a homophobe (a person who fears or hates homosexuals). If she was afraid of homosexuals why did she employ an openly gay personal assistant?

Further, the entire claim of homophobia in that article is based upon Whitman's support of California's Prop 8. Prop 8 passed with the support of the majority of California voters and similar propositions pass in even greater margins in other states. Thus the link's claim of homophobe (used only in the article's header) is unfounded--unless, of course, similar tags can be applied to the majority of Wikipedia entries.

While I can support an inclusion of Whitman's support of Prop 8, I can't support such a poorly sourced claim as homophobe.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScotti (talk • contribs) 00:57, 15 January 2009

I think it's a reasonable conclusion that anyone who votes or takes any other action to restrict or deny the rights of a select minority has a bias against that minority. As Whitman campaigned, financially supported, and voted in favor of repealing homosexuals' right to marry, terming her a homophobe is not unjustified. At a minimum, she has latent homophobic tendencies. Simply citing large majorities that share her bias doesn't render her homophobia untrue, it simply illustrates how widespread homophobia is.75.39.219.104 (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This wiki needs a lot of work

Couldnt help but notice a lot of dated material on this page. I would be happy to help track down updated information if people wouldnt mind helping with the correct formatting of the citations. The proposition 8 information, for example, doesnt have a very good citation to it. Where in public domain, for example, is there direct quotes from Meg Whitman about her support of Prop 8? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.84 (talk) 16:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

A bit of cleanup, need further help

Background intro was cleaned up with up to date info. Need help on properly referencing the information. Its obvious through a basic search that Whitman is not a "billionaire" as of 2008/2009, given her stock holdings consisting of millions of shares of Ebay stock at market prices. This should be clarified for obvious reasons. Net worth estimations based on publicly available information suggests that she has paper wealth of around 250 million based upon the 20 million shares of ebay in her portfolio and stock price as of today, along with reported gross sales through 2007 of around 500 million. So, its incorrect to identify her as a "billionaire" just because it sounds good. Can somebody help with this? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.45 (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the Prop 8 cite, but the page seems to have been removed. 130.156.31.240 (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Prop 8 issues

While I think its fair game to discuss her politics on relevant California issues(ie Prop 8), this piece is biased and links to an oped(Meg Whitman, homophobe) as a source. It needs to be reworked or removed all together. Ryanx7 (talk) 05:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing insertion of false information

Some anonymous liar has been inserting false information into the article regarding Whitman's start at eBay. This is just untrue; I was the thirtieth employee when I became Whitman's first hire in April of 1998. Continued insertion of misinformation will be treated as vandalism. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Keeps happening. Weird. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I realize this is an old post....but perhaps the reason it keeps appearing is that at least the portion about EBAY already on it's way to success can actualy be referenced. The original founders where not doing anywhere near the business Whitman brought in but it is a documented claim that the company was already a financial success--Amadscientist (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The company was already undergoing exponential (or at least geometric) growth in terms of both income and number of employees when she (and I) arrived, indeed. However, precise lies like this are peculiar; she did not join the company in late 1998 -- the IPO had already occurred by then -- but in early 1998; and the claim that there were already 200 people when she joined is also inaccurate. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Whitman's voter registration and voting record

Whitman making her own claim that she is a "lifelong republican" is not relevant to the facts that she was not a registered Republican until late 2007, and didnt vote as a Republican for the first time until February 2008. Her claim is a transparent political ploy. Facts only please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.47 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposition 4 was parental notification, not parental consent

Big difference. Another example of how poorly done this wiki is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.47 (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My bad. Sorry for that. You did a great job following the source. My 3 revert rule is in effect or I would revert to it. —SusanLesch (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Career information

It looks like this article is being edited by biased people in favor of Whitman. Need better oversight of her people coming on to politically skew this article in her favor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.55.42 (talk) 16:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Partisan tone

I agree -- this article is beyond non-critical —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.69.93.106 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

adding a signature to my prior comment; usually confine myself to English rewrites and expanding fairly technical articles so I am not real familiar with the protocol on discussion pages, sorry. Trying to make Sinebot happy. Elinruby (talk) 06:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC) elinruby

Firing from FTD

Ok, not trying to start any controversy here, but merely relaying facts. I'm told by very trusted people that Whitman was fired from FTD b/c the Board of Directors disapproved of her performance. I've searched for online sources, but FTD was privately owned at the time, so her firing was not publicly reported. No one wanted the information to be publicized. I'm not worried in the least about defamation, b/c I've been told personally by multiple people involved with the situation about the facts. However, I have been unable to find enough public information to edit her bio on Wikipedia. Advice? —Reconfirmer444 (talk) 06:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

She says she quit: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/26/meg-whitmans-ftd-tenure-t_n_774064.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thadrd28 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV train wreck

This article is very biased against Whitman. Since this is a biography of a living person, I propose immediately deleting any dubious references or biased language per wp:blp. Until this issue is resolved, I'm tagging this article for neutrality.  EJNOGARB  14:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Does the current version of the article appear to be neutral? It appears neutral to me at the moment. If so, should the tag be removed? If not, maybe the article should be protected or semi-protected, since she is a major candidate for a major office, California governor. - gohlkus (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about the one thing that makes her worth mentioning? She doesn't even vote!

How can a whole page be written about a candidate that leaves out the one thing that matters? She, as far as can be proven, didn't vote for 28 years, and any claims about her voting in certain elections can't be verified and wouldn't be relevant anyway. Nothing in her entire life has demonstrated that she has any aptitude for politics whatsoever. I'm ultra right wing, this isn't the Huffington Post talking here, but I am sick of the party putting up people like Arnold and Romney who aren't qualified to do anything other than being photographed. This is a joke candidate and this article is a joke because it doesn't even contain the word "voting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.100.199 (talk) 02:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I agreed with you that this should be in this article and so I added it. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

She did vote. The voting registrar's office doesn't have records before 1992, I believe, for even people like Diana Feinstein, either. The original Sac Bee article has undergone a lot of scrutiny and has not stood up well against it if you look for the critiques.. 129.42.184.35 (talk) 23:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, she only registered to vote in 2007. She claims to have voted in 1984, but if you don't vote in two consecutive general elections in California then you get removed from the voter rolls, so she was removed after the 1988 election since she didn't vote in 1986 and 1988. 76.200.139.159 (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The current section on her voting record is misleading and biased. Her extremely infrequent voting history, which she has admitted to and apologized for before more recently defending, should be noted. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/06/08/ca-gov_meg_whitman_defends_voting_record.html Elemming (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Hello. I removed from the lead, "She favors initiatives that promote sound fiscal governance and job creation in California. She opposes the runaway spending and tax increase trends generated from the California legislature." I am happy to hear Ms. Whitman is in favor of something. But they are not cited and aren't summarizing part of the article. See WP:LEAD. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings. User:ValhallaBob has made no other edits to Wikipedia except to leave in place something that needs to be developed in the article, and to remove the part that is covered in this article. Ms. Whitman's first act if elected belongs here. I apparently have run into the three revert rule and into another "joke" Wikipedia biography. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

"She supports expansion of employment, control of state government spending and improvement in the quality of public education. She opposes same-sex marriage (but supports civil-unions and gay adoptions), and opposes the "green" initiative to stop global warming." (The first sentence relates to nothing else in this article. The second sentence summarizes a whole section.) -SusanLesch (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for LOCK on Whitman Wiki page

For the 2nd time, I had to correct a defective link pertaining to Whitman connections to Goldman Sachs, and in this particular case, it is the Sacramento Bee article on the subject. I do hereby request a LOCK be placed on this page to prevent further interference by Whitman supporters seeking to expunge any mention of her involvements with Goldman Sachs. The SacBee link that was modified (again) contains material biographical information of huge importance because, if a person chooses to form key business involvements with an investment bank facing criminal/civil charges, then they best be prepared to face the ramifications of their actions. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 00:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV; your biases are as welcome as their biases, which is to say not at all. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:12, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly resent your ad hominem attack and will be reporting you to Wikipedia for the personal attack. It is unacceptable and I cite ALL Wikipedia statutes on etiquette which you have categorically violated.

Let me give you a little history lesson:

I first placed the Goldman Sachs info on the Whitman bio page many months ago since it is material info about this person that had NOT been provided in the creation of her corporate history. Yet, on TWO separate occasions, that Goldman Sachs info was expunged from Wikipedia by various editors, and only when I interfered in the matter, was the material replaced, on the grounds of NPOV.

The fact that links placed on this page pertaining to her Goldman Sachs connections have been expunged and/or modified to prevent readers discerning her involvement with the company is pure VANDALISM. It is designed to omit a material chapter in her corporate involvements.

When I report an unwarranted link modification, I sure as hell do NOT need a lecture about NPOV from the likes of you. Consider yourself reported. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 01:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is this: I've read the various indifferent editor responses for my requests to have a semi-protect placed on this page, plus further investigation of JP Gordon edits. No surprise. Therefore, I plan to keep a DAILY watch on this biography in order to preclude further stealth modifications of links connecting Whitman to articles concerning her longstanding involvement with Goldman Sachs. The repeated corruption of these links mirrors the rampant flagrant corruption spreading through every corner of this nation, in terms of the US Treasury, Wall Street, monopolies, oligopolies, regulators, ratings agencies, Big Media shills, political puppets, and, in all likelihood, the judiciary itself. The passive acceptance of this dismal status quo dooms this nation since historical determinism proves all Empires have fallen in a welter of corruption that ultimately breeds cynicism and despair. If substantive remedial efforts are not effected ASAP, then any existential event is possible, anything from a military coup to God knows what, since, to reiterate, history proves that blatant, unfettered corruption breeds the kind of populist fury that cannot be contained nor suppressed. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to be getting much response because honestly, it's hard to tell what you're so angry about. You corrected a dead link with an active one, which was great. Your next edit was to accuse pretty much everyone else of POV editing, while establishing your own POV ("if a person chooses to form key business involvements with an investment bank facing criminal/civil charges, then they best be prepared to face the ramifications of their actions"). There's no need to threaten anyone, if you'd like to watch this article, go ahead. However, we should always strive to make Wikipedia articles neutral. Dayewalker (talk) 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Which is particularly challenging, often in a pleasurable way, when the subject of an article is someone we dislike. Which is what I'm doing here; if were to violate NPOV, it most certainly wouldn't be in Ms. Whitman's favor. Me: big Jerry Brown supporter, for 40 years. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Spare me your condescending crap! The fact is that it was NOT a dead link, it had been altered surreptitiously, the link was always active, the code had been tampered with (AGAIN!) in a clandestine fashion, via a spacing change and interjection of a single word. This happened in the past, and that is why I have had to redo these links several times over the past several months. Now you owe me an apology because you are accusing me of bias as well, when I have NO bias against the woman on any personal basis. Rather, I do NOT wish chief engineers of EBAY to arrive on the scene and obscure her longstanding involvements with Goldman Sachs, then have the sheer gall to suggest that the revelation of such facts is breach of NPOV, when it is NOT. I have NO hatred of this woman on any personal level, I've never met her, I understand she has a great sense of humor and a warm smile, but her associations with the firm in question are her REAL history, and that firm happens to be the focus of a high profile investigation (civil and criminal), one that suggests criminal links to the US Treasury itself, and that is a fact that must NOT be obscured, since the association is of material importance, no matter what ostensible sweetness she might exude. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

(OD) With all due respect, please review Wikipedia's policy on civility. You're being very agressive and accusatory above, and there's just no reason for it.

As for the link, this is the link you replaced [1], which is a dead link. There's no call to refer to another editor's good faith discussion as "condescending crap."

You mention above fixing links on this article before, but your editing history only goes back a couple of days. Have you ever edited Wikipedia under another name? Dayewalker (talk) 05:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

First, that was NOT the link I replaced....I replaced a SacBee link having nothing to do with "All Business." The link I replaced had a very tiny alteration made, notably a spacing change, in order to create the impression it was a dead link, when in fact, the link remains active. In that link, the details of favors received by Whitman from Goldman Sachs were described in detail. I think it is perfectly acceptable to question a Wiki editor's "good faith," when that editor served as a key employee working for the subject of this listing, and admits as much. When you examine his many edits, it seems obvious the bias is in favor of his boss, NOT against her, despite his claims to the contrary. When he originally attacked me in ad hominem fashion for holding a bias against his boss, owing to my request for a LOCK on this page, I think that pretty much says it all. Previous edits to this listing were made under the same name, except without the number 2 added at the end of the title. If you wish to issue a "civility warning" against me, then you should issue it against the former chief engineer from EBAY as well, who impugned me from square one. You might discover, however, that your own bias is called into question, via a formal reciprocal complaint that I will file against you. The bottom line: there would NO mention of Whitman's ties to Goldman Sachs at this Wiki listing if I had not entered the picture many months ago, since all mention of that key association never existed in the original info likely supplied by her PR agent. THAT WAS A MAJOR OMISSION! Obviously, many people in America today are afraid of upsetting Goldman Sachs or its various political proxies given that its powerful tentacles reach into the highest areas of government, US Treasury, finance, regulation, media, and the judiciary itself. So instead of warning me, you ought to send me a "thank you" note, maybe some flowers too, otherwise you would only know what the former chief engineer of EBAY wishes you to know about Whitman, and that would not include a single mention of her notable ties to Goldman Sachs BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Collapsing COI accusations, editor referred to COI noticeboard
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please note the following info pertaining to JP Gordon, pulled from his USER Page: "Hi everyone! My name's Josh Gordon. I've got a ton of different interests and possibly interesting experiences that might or might not result in useful and informative additions to Wikipedia. For example, I've worked at IMSAI (my first job out of college), Autodesk (my longest job) and eBay (where I was Chief Engineer) as a programmer" Given that he acted as chief engineer at Meg Whitman's EBAY, I am requesting that he be BLOCKED from editing this page, owing to a blatant violation of NPOV, on his part, and would request that any previous edits he made on this Wiki listing be re-examined by the editors in order to determine if his edits are tendentious in nature. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

As of today, this page is protected against vandalism

The page has become highly visible. Vandalism and perhaps honest mistakes with copyrighted material recently added may have contributed to the lock, but it would seem the best idea for now.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

.......which doesn't seem to be helping much.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Article comes across as Pro Whitman article now

Too much like a pamplet.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I am going to alter the sections that are too detailed with no chance of expasion and that appear to push towards a campaign like agenda without removing information. I will condense sections in the Campaign area.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed everything in reference to her being competetive against Jerry Brown. This information is always time sensetive and was woefully out of date. This should not be returned as it is POV and considering the amount of time towards an outcome is attempting to use wikipedia for propaganda purposes and there is no nuetral way to write incorrect information and wikipedia is not a news source for political polls. This is sinformation that would be included after the fact not during.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The section was overweighted with non-nuetral original research and campaign promises that cannot be varified untill they happen. A promise is even less than a allegation and is a weasel word with no place in an encyclopedia except as to state what was said....and wikipedia is not a soapbox.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand how putting forward the campaign positions of a candidate is inappropriate for an article about a candidate; I think you removed far too much. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I made sure to post here on the discussion page and in the edit summary my explanations to each edit. The article had far too much information on the candidates positions. The subject has no context as a politician as yet to justify treatment of the page as such. The article seperated positions within the "Campaign" section exactly like the Mitt Romney article did in the "Politics" section. Overweighted. Wikipedia is not a platform for political candidates. It is not a current news source. The article should contain only pertanent information on the subject that is not the point of view of the editor (much of the campaign section was POV) or be original research not based on published findings or claims.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, I should add, nothing I removed was was done out of the bounds of Wikipedia policy, and in fact, most cases the information was written in a way to be incorrect, and not referenced properly. Youtube videos and self published blogs were used in an inappropriate manner. Dead links and citations that did not actualy support the claims being made. The only statemnet and reference I removed that I felt could be grey area was the cheney endorsement...but that is ONLY because it was published in a Newsper, but after looking it over I realised that the article was nothing more than a self written editorial by Cheney himself and could only be used to illustrate the fact and was not an appropriate reference to the statement.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with jpgordon and completely disagree with the evisceration of the reporting of her political positions. Every bio article I've ever seen about a major politician has information on this subject -- sometimes so much that it's broken out into a daughter article with only a summary left behind. I agree that we shouldn't include "campaign promises that cannot be varified untill they happen" in the sense of predicting what Whitman would do if elected; but we can verify, right now, the positions that she has publicly taken. This is information that some readers will value as being predictive of what her administration would be like if she wins; the cynics who mistrust her promises will still be interested to know which groups of voters she is tailoring her pitch to.

I agree with some of your edits so I won't simply revert to an earlier version, although I'm sorely tempted, given the extent of the deletions. I'll make a first cut at restoring proper information but it's getting late and I'll probably miss some. JamesMLane t c 05:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above, the sectioning of the campaign positions are promotional and are undue weight given that she has never held a political position and never campaigned before this election. The seperation mirors that for Mitt Romney's page that does so correctly in his political view section. So...perhaps the compromise is to keep the information (as long as it is properly cited and is varifiable information) in the above section. Much of the things written are very new. I truely do object to much based on the fact that her overall life has not been in politics, but one can assume she may well stay in politics so this compromise would work for if it works for you. It does have some precedence and is based on logic not passion.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't place much importance on whether she's held public office before. The fact is that, right now, most of the people who come to this article will be interested in her because of her candidacy. It's logical for us to help our readers find the information they want. Her political views are relevant as part of her candidacy; most of our bios of business executives mention politics only in passing, if at all. Therefore, the political stuff should all be under the general heading for the campaign. Also, I don't see how it's "promotional" to report accurately what she's said. Her views on such hot-button issues as immigration and same-sex marriage will be appealing to many voters but abhorrent to others. JamesMLane t c 16:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What emphasis you may percieve in irrelevent. The fact is, Meg Whitman's biography should not be treated as "Special" because she is a candidate for a political position. This article has no right to go outside the norm to promote a candidate because a memebr believes this is what people come here to see. Meg Whitman has a life that that can referenced and cited nearly all the way back to her birth and there is but little of anything in the overall of her life. Right now the importance is overweighted. Politval views do not belong in the Campaign section but above it. There is precedence and there is no consensus here for it. A compromise is not one sided sir.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Whatever gives you the idea that "political views do not belong in the campaign section"? Why not? As you point out, she's not a long-term politician; with experienced politicians, you can express their political views one place and then discuss one or more of their campaigns distinctly. But Whitman has close to no political history; until she left eBay, she was publicly apolitical and perhaps privately apathetic. Seems to me, anyway, that her campaign and her political views are one and the same. I agree with JamesMLane -- listing political campaign positions, when well-sourced, is not promotion if presented with a neutral point of view, and at this point in the life of the subject of the article, is more interesting and more useful than her history as a businesswoman. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking in black and white terms of what "Must" be done. I repeat, it is simply mirroring similar artices. This is not me trying to take away a right of editors, but to establish some form of consensus. Consensus in the discussion, but if goodfaith compromises are simply ignored what hope is there towards civil disussion and debate. I have made my case and simply wait to hear what others base their opinions and ideals on as well. Guidelines are not brightline rules and I am not atempting to state that. But my editing is bold, not aggresive. There truely is a difference. I am not attempting to push the envelope.....just making sure the information is securely inside.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Also...I disagree with the statement that political views and campaigns are one in the same and respectfully submit that that is POV.(OK...it's just a discussion, but you get my point) What is campaigned on is the campaign and what has been established before the campaign is a view....in an encyclopedic manner at least. So, while if you do add each campaign....er....what... we agree promises shouldn't be added, so that leaves platform. A campaign platform.....just seems promotional, self serving (in a manner of each platform idea or ideaology is directly designed to elevate the candidate), and well...innappropriate. That's my argument basicaly. Will it hold up to consensus? Well...I hope so.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:41, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

"Article comes across as Pro Whitman article " That's an understatement! "Meg.." ??? Since when do encyclopedia bios refer to people by their Christian name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.68.16.200 (talk) 15:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox Image

The image in the infobox was submitted by a Wikimedia Commons member uploaded from Flicker and has had it's license verified from the original photographs. It is labeled as such and is a current image of the subject. It's only a few weeks old I believe. If the consensus of the editors is to use an image......please do not remove it without discussing why. Quality issues are POV and subjective. Many subjects of biographies do not have many free images. It is the policy of Wikipedia to only use free images when a free image can be found. Fair use on Wikipedia is contingent upon there NOT being an available free image. If a particular image is desired, you should contact the photographer or the subject though their professional representatives and simply request that they upload a creative commons image. That way they still maintain some rights and the image can be used on the article.--Amadcientist (talk) 19:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I just took a look at the image Jumbo Joe just linked. It is not verified yet...UPDATE. There may still be a problem with the licensing.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It is clear to me as an observer over the last couple of days that an honest attempt is being made to license the Whitman headshot released by whitman.com. The copyright has been altered to an old Creative Commons 2.0 Generic license on a new image. This license requires attribution by contact to the original copyright holder for use. It has been replaced by CC by 3.0, but the copyright holder must make that change, it will not occur automatically. Wikimedia Commons will only allow images released under specific CC license.. Please refer to Commons:First steps/License selection [2] for details about what CC license Commons accepts.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A closer look at the image uploaded recently from flicker is against wikimedia policy and was varified by a commons member who has had some "approvals" deleteted.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about holding back a good picture. It's about insuring that the copyright and the policy of wikimedia are respected. Consensus can always change but the policy is set at the moment and clearly states which Creative Commons images can be used. The best argument i can come up with for the current license.....is that is all that is available at Flicker. It is the closest to a CC Attribution 3.0 Unported. That is why the image needs to be given time to be fully varified with OTRS. It may well be (as I am not one who has ever uploaded via flicker) that is why varification is made with OTRS. Because Wikimedia does not allow CC 2.0 generic but as well does not stop it,(same at Wikipedia. Open source means things get uploaded incorrectly all the time. I err on the side of caution) confusion is rampant, but at the heart is the highly visible image in a highly visible article being properly used or deleted.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I have simply requested that the copyrightholder contact Wikimedia via OTRS email for varification. Hopefully this will put an end to the image dispute and get a good image to improve the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Scrubbing

Hello. I reverted this article back to some semblance of what it was before today. People have contributed to this article over several months, and I don't think you can just come in here and change it drastically and not expect some pushback. I am leaving now so don't expect any comments from me. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So I asked for help at Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#California_primary_elections. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the overall changes [3], is there anything specific you have an objection to? It looks like AMS is actively adding references and trimming unnecessary material out of the article. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I object to removing Whitman's political positions. Since my revert, some changes have made it through Amadscientist, which is a good start. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Made it through.....interesting wording. Are we here to promote a candidate and a campaign or write an accurate biography of a living person. I object to any editor using wikipedia as a platform for political ideology on the page of a person with little political experience, but a compromise was made in good faith and simply ignored. So I put it to those that edit here to work together to form consensus through proper policy and guidelines and many may want to acquaint themselves with Wikis policy on using proper references.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Levitt phone call

I've trimmed some of the detail -- that Arthur Levitt collects Depression-era glass doesn't tell us much about Meg Whitman. I left in the substantive point, that he was calling about the company going public, but I don't understand it. He couldn't have been calling about plans to go public because, as it's presented here, the call came at a time when eBay's stock price was fluctuating, so it must have already gone public. Did Levitt have a concern about some aspect of the stock offering that had already been done? JamesMLane t c 16:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That's is not how it was presented. It was even copy edited to be specific clarify past tense. The information added is pertanent to Meg Whitman is that the Chairman of the SEC called to "Chat", not for any fear Whitman may have had at the time. Inclusion of all the details is pertanent to the story itself. This is a biography not an article about an inanimate object. There are things said by others that have a direct relation to her and her position at Ebay. The Depression Era Glass statement shows that even the Chairman of the SEC had interests in what Whitmans business provided and called her personaly at the time to disucc it.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your copy edit is incorrect and changes the information considerably. Did you read the reference. You made this a discussion of "Going" public. It is about having gone public, the volitle market, and a call whitman thought might be negative was just a call to say how proud he was and discuss his own collectables. This is a relevent story to the life and the career of the CEO of eBay and is not promotional, self serving or innaccurate. I fel I have the right to change that edit back as you have actualy made the reference no longer substantiate the claim.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

OK...I have copy edited that part further to make the prose not stray from the subject, add the proper context and I think I moved it for chronologic order.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The conversation was both a call about the pulic offering and how he personaly felt about Ebay. It it written somewhat crypticaly in that it matches the way Levitt is supposed to be speaking. It is unclear if this was an anology alone or if he was talking directly about having an account and selling anything himself, but Whitman goes on in the next page to explain what this meant to her. That could go in notes, but....I felt I should mention that suddenly, 24 hrs after using that reference....the Google Book preview now skips that page. I have never experianced that before and felt it was notable enough to disclose here on the talk page. The reference is still valid but I did want to re-read the Levitt quote...so now i have to order the book through the public Library or find it through barns and noble. I will not object if this information is removed, even if I still stand by it....only becuase I now cannot varify any information myself to debate untill I have the book in front of me physicaly.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the point being made here. Why does it matter that they chatted? About Depression glass or anything else? Sounds like fluffy bunnies to me and tells me nothing. The footnote provided here is a reference to The World Is Flat, whose relevance is fairly mysterious to me. As best I can tell the point of including it seems to be in order to answer some allegation that Levitt investigated the eBay IPO, but if so no such controversy is mentioned. And if not why include it, especially in this level of detail? All of us have chatted with someone about something at some point in our lives 12.69.93.106 (talk) 10:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC) eliruby

Ebay Section Is Almost Totally Incoherent

"Originally, when Whitman had joined eBay, she found the website as a simple black and white webpage with courier font."

apart from the grammar issues what does the font have to do with anything?

"On her first day, the site crashed for eight hours.[18]"

Because of the Courier font no doubt. If this incident actually happened (I have not yet tried to verify it) then we need to clarify that there were infrastructure issues. A Fisher-Price website might be an example of this, but as written the section gives me zero confidence that Whitman had any understanding of the scalability issues.

"She believed the site to be confusing and began by building a new executive team.[15]"

Why? Does she really think that team-building improves UI? I am assuming that what we have here is poor writing, but it scares me that this may actually be intended seriously.

"Whitman organized the company by splitting it into twenty-three business categories. She then assigned executives to each, including some 35,000 subcategories.[19]"

Is this intended to demonstrate some sort of accomplishment? Most reorganizations involve assigning personnel to business divisions...Bizarrely, the footnote at the end of the sentence seems to refer to some sort of Management 101 textbook.

"In 2004 Meg Whitman made several key changes in her management team. Jeff Gordon took over PayPal, Matt Bannick took control of international operations and Bill Cobb was placed in control of U.S. operations,[20]"

What significance does this bit of corporate administrivia have in a biography?

"which has the colorful U.S. logo, while each international site has its own unique branding.[21]"

Again with the emphasis on the user interface. Why is this logo considered the most important thing about US operations?

Meanwhile the article fails to address a number of thoughtful criticisms of EBay's business strategy, such as can be found here: http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/undoing-meg-whitmans-ebay/

\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 21:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

• • this is so biased**, what are the "thoughtful criticisms"? The article in the NYTimes you are citing is very biased from the first word. "That seems a great deal more sensible than Ms. Whitman’s plan to build sales of mainstream merchandise easily available elsewhere by using eBay’s structure — seven-day auctions, high merchant fees and sellers of varying reliability. "

Copyright, Fair use, Creative commons and Wikimedia Foundation

I think there are a few misunderstandings about copyright, fair use and Creative commons Licensing as well as Wikipedias role. Let me see if I can sort this out in prose here;

The image from the Meg Whitman Campaign was at full copyright on Flicker and released through her website for promotional use, granting permission to her supporters for it's use. When the image began to appear at Wiki it had not yet had an open CC copyright and was speedily deleted a number of times. The License at Flicker changed and a Creative Commons License was given from the choices available at flicker. These CC licenses at flicker DO NOT include the two CC 3.0 licenses Wikimedia requires on their site. CC 2.0 Generic is an older License and is no longer listed at Creative Commons. Creative Commons is NOT Wikipedia or Wikimedia. They are not connected. What is a valid Creative Commons license is not necessarily a valid license to use at Wikimedia Commons or on Wikipedia. Why? (edit; because not all licenses at Creative Commons meet the needed release to be used freely with attribution only and these are marked seperate) Because Creative Commons 2.0 Generic (Edit:CC-by and CC-by-sa) has have a specific right withheld by the copyright holder (remember CC is still a copyright license). That right is in the specified manner of attribution. The holder of the CC 2.0 Generic has the right to determine how attribution is made. That goes against the spirit of Wikimedia for free use with simple attribution (Edit; This would appear to be as free as it gets). This (Edit; Attribution) is still a right. My CC 3.0 unported images have shown up on a McClatchy Internet site attributed to an author of a book incorrectly. Because I uploaded my image to Wikimedia I had proof of my copyright and the right to ask that the attribution be corrected or the image removed. A major Newspaper incorrectly used my copyrighted CC image. It happens. In fact the same image is on several blogs and I have simply requested that they attribute the image as specified by the license I released it with. I, as the copyright holder still have rights.

The same is true of all copyright holders. It is not just a matter of respecting the image and the owner, its a legal obligation.....it's a license. Now....I have made good faith attempts to contact the copyright holder through my flicker account where i use the same username as on Wikipedia and Wikimedia in an attempt to have them contact OTRS for verification. But It seems that some users are not willing to allow consensus in the discussion as is required for license disputes to make it's natural course and have removed the Deletion discussion tag against Wikimedia policy. I have gone out of my way to find a legal way to use the image that does not put Wiki Foundation in danger of a legal dispute over a highly visible image and a highly visible article. If we cannot wait for the outcome....the only other choice is Fair use. In order to use Fair Use it must be uploaded to Wikipedia and a rational given to why it is being used and requires that no other free image is available (this is not just wikipedia's policy, but appears to be a brightline rule here. It is not required by US Fair Use law). For Meg Whitman there are several free images, but one of them is also CC 2.0 Generic and is in a deletion discussion.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

• Update A lot of this is my own confusion of the descriptions on the first steps page, but the original reasons for removing the images are still justified as the cinfusion of two of the exact same image with different lcenses is bound to do that. The innapropriate fair use rational of the uploader made it look unusual. When a closer look was made under a wrong assumption real mistakes were discovered that only made it more difficult to understand the visual varification of one image. I won't do any editing on the images but perhaps it will eventualy get taken care of and I accept the consensus of the editors to use both. Perhaps we can get the Romney/Whitman photo in full version for the career section. Each person at the table is a Bain employee and Romney could certainly be added to the section and referenced inthat regard. The full crop picture is just better anyway.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

megwhitman.com

Do not place official website reference into news source formating with inline citations. Official website may be used to reference information as information and ideas cannot be copyrighted...however megwhitman.com is not a public campaign website. Since she holds no position within the U.S. government she maintains her copyright. Site terms of use specify no linking and no use of any material without permission.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

The former head of dot.com has a website which forbids linking to it? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.42.76.202 (talk) 13:25, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think I speak for all of us is saying we would look forward to any such lawsuit, as would the voters of California. ;-) Of course deeplinks need to be used for references, as no one checking the references should be required to go through the entire website to find the source. Flatterworld (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, in biographies of living persons a main website may be used if no restrictions exist. As long as only information is used that is only found there it may be used as a reference. You do not speak for anyone but yourself.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Net Worth

I removed the net worth statement from the DIRECTORSHIP category since it has NO business being placed there, except for the reason that her supporters seem to think that self-dealing stock trades amounting to almost two million dollars have little consequence since she is a billionaire. Such insider trades may seem to be of little consequence to her but the inappropriate gain of some two million dollars based upon her special relationship to Goldman Sachs is a hell of a lot of money to a paramedic, nurse, fireman, policeman, soldier, etc., who must work long hours for an entire lifetime to amass that kind of money. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to sign previous paragraph BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Allegedly

Removed the word "allegedly" inappropriate inserted by one of her supporters into the following statement:

She was appointed to the board of Goldman Sachs in October, 2001 and then resigned in December 2002, amidst controversy that she had ALLEGEDLY received shares in several public offerings managed by Goldman Sachs.

There are a variety of news sources that indicate categorically that she received such special shares from Goldman Sachs and, rather than go to court to fight the issue, Ms. Whitman settled the matter by dispensing the proceeds to "charities." If she had wished to clarify the ambiguity of her stock trades and expunge the significant innuendos surrounding her actions, then she should have fought the issue in court. Wouldn't it be wonderful if the fellow who steals a loaf of bread from 7-11 in order to feed his family could simply return the loaf of bread to the store or make a donation to the United Way in order to avoid hard time in prison? Wouldn't it be grand if everybody in society who misappropriates almost two millions dollars of capital could have the same option granted Ms. Whitman, namely the chance to make "charitable" donations equivalent to the amount of capital purloined in order to appease the authorities and avoid prosecution for their actions? BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please stop inserting what appears to be unsourced POV. At the very least, "Given that Whitman is seeking the governorship of California, it is especially disturbing to note Goldman Sachs many links to the State" is an opinion that does not appear in the source provided. Though it might well be accurate, it's inappropriate. I'm not reverting it because you have this odd idea I have a conflict of interest; however, I ask other editors to evaluate these most recent insertions for neutrality. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Primary source is CALIFORNIA WATCH, the largest collective of independent investigative reporters in California. Incidentally, JP Gordon, given that you were the former senior engineer at EBAY, I find it most amusing that you jump onto this wiki page anytime info is placed here that does not cast your former employer in the most favorable light, yet somehow you wish readers to believe that you are "impartial." BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

One final point worth considering: how is it possible that I can post new info on this Wiki page, having not posted a single word in more than a month, yet within 30 minutes of doing so, you are aware of that info??? If you are not acting as a watchdog for Whitman campaign interests, then I do not know the definition of "watchdog." BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith here. When one edits a Wikipedia article, the article is put on ones watch list; clicking on the tab that says "my watchlist" then allows you to see the list of recently changed articles on your list. That's one way I was aware of the info; I tend to check my watchlist first thing in the morning. Secondly, I check my most recent contributions to see if the articles have changed since I last edited them -- since I spend much of my time fighting vandalism, it's a good way to tell if the vandals have returned. (I'm not by any means implying you're in that category; vandals are usually bratty school children with no redeeming characteristics.) As far as my association with eBay is concerned, that's not particularly relevant; I've removed non-neutral-point-of-view material from this article regardless of whether its pro-Whitman or anti-Whitman -- the same as I do with any article. Now, to get back to the particular material under discussion -- I couldn't find where in the California Watch article the phrase Given that Whitman is seeking the governorship of California, it is especially disturbing to note Goldman Sachs many links to the State appears; could you be more precise in the citation so its clear to the reader that this is a sourced opinion rather than the opinion of a Wikipedia editor? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:13, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do agree with you, that sentence likely violates NPOV, and I removed it.BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Boromir123 Removal of "Controversy, Conflict of Interest, and Goldman Sachs"

Please note that the entire section, "Controversy, Conflict of Interest, and Goldman Sachs," has been expunged unilaterally by editor, Boromir123, without any compelling explanation other than his terse claim of "bias." Furthermore, all references to the source article from, "Whitman's Fortune Entwined with Goldman Sachs," have been erased.

http://californiawatch.org/money-and-politics/whitmans-fortune-entwined-goldman-sachs

Please note that "California Watch" provided the source material and it is anything but a biased organization and here is the info pertaining to the group:

In the summer of 2009, the independent, nonpartisan Center for Investigative Reporting launched a new reporting initiative called California Watch, the largest group of journalists dedicated to investigative reporting in the state.

The team at California Watch pursues in-depth, high-impact reporting on issues such as education, public safety, health care and the environment. Our reporters also produce stories that hold those in power accountable, while tracking government waste and the misspending of taxpayer resources.

We place a major emphasis on solution-oriented reporting intended to have an impact on the quality of life for Californians and our communities.

We plan to engage the public by building and creating interactive tools that make it easier to connect with leaders and decision makers about key issues. And we offer searchable databases through our Data Center and other resources, links and guides that enable anyone to do their own basic watchdog reporting.

We distribute our stories as widely as possible through collaborative relationships with local and regional news organizations and through social media. California Watch has established working relationships with California news organizations of all kinds – newspapers, online publications, television, radio, ethnic media and other new forms of media – to help localize and distribute our reporting. We also publish unique, original content on our Web site that isn't available anywhere else.

California Watch is supported by major grants from the James Irvine Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. We have offices in the Bay Area and in Sacramento and hope to open an office in Los Angeles in the near future.

Founded in 1977, the Center for Investigative Reporting is the nation's oldest nonprofit investigative news organization.

California Watch's distribution partners have included:

Bakersfield Californian Cali Daily Center for Public Integrity Contra Costa Times CSU Long Beach Daily 49er educatedguess.org Eureka Times Standard Huffington Post Investigative Reporting Program at UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism Fremont Argus Fresno Bee Hayward Daily Review KABC—Los Angeles KCRA-TV (Sacramento) KGO-TV (San Francisco) KQED KQED-FM, The California Report La Opinión Lodi News Sentinel Long Beach Press Telegram Los Angeles Daily News Manteca Bulletin Marin Independent Journal Modesto Bee Monterey Herald National Public Radio New America Media New York Times Nguoi Viet North County Times Oakland Local Oakland Tribune One Viet Orange County Register Sacramento Bee San Diego Union Tribune San Francisco Chronicle San Gabriel Valley Tribune San Jose Mercury News San Mateo County Times Santa Cruz Sentinel Santa Rosa Press Democrat Sing Tao Daily Stockton Record Sun-Reporter TheLoop21.com Torrance Daily Breeze Tracy Press Tri-Valley Herald Truthdig.com Tulare Advance-Register USC Annenberg School of Communication and Journalism Vacaville Reporter Vallejo Times Herald Ventura County Star Viet Tribune Visalia Times Delta Voice of OC

Voice of San Diego Whittier Daily News

---

So Boromir123, given these facts, please explain how info provided by "California Watch" is "biased?" BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the abrupt edit. I still feel that the section was written in a biased manner. I tried to make some changes to streamline and ensure neutrality.Boromir123 (talk) 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly with several of your edits, however, I will leave the resolution of the dispute to other Wiki editors. For one thing, I do not think it is a minor matter to eliminate mention of the following key facts:

The firm has sought other state business as well. In 2007, Goldman and the now-defunct Lehman Brothers investment bank pitched Gov. Schwarzenegger on an ambitious plan to boost state revenues by privatizing the California Lottery, according to news reports.

Goldman also urged the governor to raise money by selling EdFund, the state agency that insures student loans. Schwarzenegger expressed interest, but the ideas weren’t carried out.

Again, it seems you are determined to mitigate sharply the impact of this section, but I think the matter should be determined by a collection of Wiki editors (ideally at least five of them), and that is all I can say BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I posted this comment, you have continued to cut the section pertaining to Whitman's many ties to Goldman Sachs, and so I request other Wiki editors re-examine this sharply edited cleaner version vs. the original I posted. I believe your elimination of various key points in the original paragraph is designed, not for purposes of maintaining NPOV, but soley as a means of hiding her numerous connections to Goldman Sachs, not to mention the Goldman Sachs many connections to California State. Nor does placement of her assets into a blind trust, as indicated by her attorney, serve to mitigate matters, since the one key defect of blind trusts is that the beneficiary always knows full well the composition of the initial assets. A blind trust merely precludes trading of those assets by the beneficiary, yet that fact is insufficient to preclude bias in business dealings by the beneficiary. Interestingly, Henry Paulson's assets were placed in a blind trust, yet blind or not, he always knew full well that most of his holdings were in bonds. During the 2008 financial debacle, the one asset that had an extremely sharp rally happened to be bonds. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please, please stop impugning the motives of other editors. It goes very much against our community policies, and will just get you into unnecessary conflicts. There are multiple experienced editors working on this article, and between us, we'll be able to get this important information into the proper, neutral form required of Wikipedia articles. It might take some time -- cooperative processes often do -- but it will get there, and angry and suspicious words aren't helpful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, now why would I "impugn" the motives of editors like you and Boromir123???? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that you served as chief engineer for EBAY (as per your webpage) and you repeatedly make edits here that seem biased in favor of your former boss? Or maybe it's because, after spending almost TWO ENTIRE HOURS placing a new info section at this Wiki, an editor by the name of Boromir123 appears within minutes of the completion of those efforts, then immediately and unilaterally ERASES the entire thing in mere seconds by the rapid swish of his mouse, claiming that the new info is "biased???" On the basis of that one word, "BIAS," without so much as any elaborate justification or explanation....without thoroughly checking the distinguished media sources I provided.... he nullifies hours of effort. Gee, I wonder why I am touchy about these issues? And why, in a million years, am I bothered by your condescending lectures aimed my way concerning the Wiki process each time I post here? You know, duuuh, I just can't figure out what is wrong with me, duuuh, but I'll try to become a better person, just for you....really!!BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 21:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully, someone else will help you understand why you are getting no traction with your edits here; I'm clearly wasting my time. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Immigration

Is this the correct title to this section or the wrong information being addressed? Is the term "Immigration" to be applied to movement from one country to another in general or to the role it plays in the controversial subject surrounding illegal immigration. Are the two subjects exclusive to each other or separate issues. As a policy, I would have to wonder if this is truly the persons views on immigration itself or if the is a touch or OR or POV there that has been overlooked. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's POV; it's just laziness. The term "immigration", when used in journalese nowadays, is almost always shorthand for "illegal immigration". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Failblog incident

I removed the text of the letter that the operators of that site sent to Ms. Whitman. I'm not sure exactly what explicitly attaching the text of the letter to this article added, and I generally don't see these kinds of letters quoted in other biographical articles. The story and link to it, which does contain the original letter, remains. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I suggest making it clearer in the article that the whole Failblog screenshot was faked by this cheater, because now it's unclear. --77.109.220.144 (talk) 23:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What was faked...? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Further reading

Something very odd was going on here, and I'm not sure how much was well intentioned or just nonsense. Virtually everything listed Ignatius Press as the publisher, which I assume was vandalism, but most of the books were also generic books about business. The blurb on Amazon for one especially stood out: "The Promotable Woman presents important strategies to overcome career obstacles and stereotypes and achieve business success." I removed everything but the book by Whitman, the publisher of which has been corrected. If there's anything else worth listing, feel free to bring it up here. Thanks. Recognizance (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ties to Goldman Sachs

Various anonymous editors have appeared here and edited this paragraph. In doing so, they made it unwieldy, ungrammatical, and virtually incoherent, not to mention excising its empirical tone, and changing it into a theoretical paragraph. The worst offense: they created a paragraph that suggested that the only reason there is controversy surrounding Whitman's Goldman ties are the fact the company made a large donation to her campaign, and that omits the key piece of info, namely that Whitman made a huge sum of money through IPO favors granted by Goldman during the IPO boom. So I have reworked the paragraph, inserted the clause concerning the IPO spinning, such that the litany of reasons for concern surrounding Whitman-Goldman ties now appears at the front of the paragraph, as it should, and that allows for a much more effective syllogistic presentation, in which A plus B plus C = D.

Bottom line: the original paragraph I created was edited into an unintelligible mess, a purely non-syllogistic jumble. I have corrected that error, excised all the theoretical clauses inserted by Whitman supporters, reverted the paragraph to a more fluent empirical form, and now the paragraph reads smoothly and, most importantly, makes sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add my Wiki signature to preceding paragraph BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The "huge sum of money" she made in connection with her IPO favors is huge in isolation -- the article says something about $1.78 million (is that correct?) -- but is it really huge in comparison with the billions she made from eBay stock? The amount of money isn't really the point, I know -- the highly questionable legality and morality of the interactions is. My guess would be that she barely noticed a couple of million as a blip in her portfolio, which is part of the problem. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

For somebody who claims to dislike Whitman, you remain her number one apologist. Yes, it's true the figure pales in comparison to her net worth, but by the standards of middle class wealth, it is huge. The fact is that people have gone to prison for equal or lesser crimes, e.g., Martha Stewart, yet Whitman avoided prosecution by turning the monies over to charity. Again, I reiterate, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all purloin around $2 million bucks, then make a deal with the SEC, hand the monies over to some charity, and avoid a trial and incarceration? Unfortunately, the average person can NOT do so, and yet Whitman claims she will be a champion of the average Californian. How can she pretend to have any sensitivity for the guy on the street when her main defense concerning the approx. $2 million in IPO spinning profits is that the figure was so small in relation to her net worth that it hardly seemed of consequence. I think $2 million is of significant consequence to the average Californian, and if she is inclined to poo-poo that kind of money figure, then how can she ever represent the people? Seems like that kind of perspective concerning money would make her best suited to representing billionaire cronies and fat cats on Wall Street. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Hard to disagree with that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 03:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Charitable foundation

I just added a section about her charitable foundation. It seems to be worth many millions of dollars, but I have not been able to find a website for it or much record of what its mission is or what it does with its money. Does anyone have any sources? Blue Rasberry 23:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

It says here that Mitt Romney was Bain's CEO. This is simply untrue. The linked article does not say this. Bain has no CEO and Bill Bain ran the company while Romney was an employee. Can this be changed? Paknightpa (talk) 04:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Changed "Bain Capital founder" to "Bain Capital employee". Does that take care of it? If not please go ahead. -SusanLesch (talk) 04:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone read Romneys Wiki article?

"In 1990, Romney was asked to return to Bain & Company, which was facing financial collapse. He was announced as its new CEO in January 1991 (but drew only a symbolic salary of one dollar)."

--Amadscientist (talk) 23:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Undid that change. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this a reliable source for a citation?

http://valleywag.gawker.com/5060675/ebay-founder-factchecks-john-mccain --Amadscientist (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Also is reference 16 formated correctly with sufficient information?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Illegal worker

Gee, this is only the BIGGEST story of the entire gubernatorial campaign, and may indeed determine the outcome, but Republican WP editors have limited it to one little paragraph in the immigration section? It should have its own section, under "Controversy." Qworty (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What is the controversy? That she employed an illegal worker, or that she fired an illegal worker when she found out that she was illegal which is now being used for a political attack against her? Arzel (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh christ, not you again. I remember you from the Mitt Romney days, two years ago. You are the worst kind of WP editor--fanatically right-wing, just constantly pushing pushing pushing a far-right point of view in all of the thousands of edits you make. You don't care what the truth is, and you have no interest whatsoever in building an encyclopedia. You are here purely as a Republican Party operative. Your very presence here is against WP guidelines, but who cares, right? Well, you go right ahead, dearie. Spin this article any old way you like. Edit, edit, edit, and be feverish about it! You won't get an edit war out of me, because you and your ilk are not worth it. Meg is going to lose, just as Mitt lost. And whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, this illegal worker business is exactly what is sinking her. Just a brief report to you from the real world. Okay, now go back to your little right-wing click-and-send planet. It's a terrible way to waste thousands of hours of your life, but somebody "has" to do it, right? Qworty (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Are those black helicopters I hear in the background? If you seriously think I am a right-wing fanatic then you have just fallen off the left side of the world and smacked your head on the closed box containing your world view. Arzel (talk) 03:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

A-hem. You two can take this elsewhere or nowhere. As far as the story is concerned, WP:DUST -- give the dust time to settle. If this is the BIGGEST story of the entire campaign, overshadowing that of a lifetime apolitical person with no history of service of any sort putting up over a hundred million dollars of her own money in order to become the governor of a state with a legislature that's already made it clear it won't be bullied by political dilettantes -- sheesh. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for the tenor of my remark, Arzel. I can't tell if you found it insulting, but apparently others who read it did. And so I will withdraw it. Qworty (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Abortion - how exactly did she "vote" in favor?

She's never held office before right? Just asking. Should this say that she "supports"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 05:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Allred support of Brown

I removed the clause saying that Allred is a Brown supporter. The reference provided for this went to a TMZ blurb quoting Whitman making this allegation. Allred herself seems to have denied acting for Brown or contributing to his campaign. If the characterization is reinstated better documentation is indicated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 05:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Partisan tone of 2010 campaign for California Governor section

Why does the section 2010 campaign for California Governor read like her opponents wrote it? Instead of having things like the date she started, some polling data, etc.. (things you normally find summarizing a run for office), every point brought up about her campaign is negative and meant to paint her in a negative light. This is POV. JettaMann (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead

An IP address (who is most welcome by the way) has control it seems of the lead. I made a compromise and decided to leave in the IP's addition (that Whitman, if elected, would be the first woman governor) but the IP removes my addition (that Whitman broke the record for a self-funded candidate for any elected office in the U.S.). I don't think that is fair. So I restored what the IP removed and will ask him or her to discuss this here. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The "first woman" assertions seems out of place in the lead. Not to minimize it, but many people become the "first" something when elected. For example, Brown would become the first person to serve three non-continuous terms. Another issue is that it's conditional on her election - it's not something she's actually achieved yet. While it's informative in the body of the article, it's too speculative for the lead. We could add a thousand "ifs" to the article, but let's stick with what we know has happened.   Will Beback  talk  22:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I took it out. Female politicians are downright commonplace now; there have been plenty of women governors, though not in California. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 00:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I support Susan's addition to the lede and don't really have an opinion on the first woman governor bit other than to say that there are several articles about female candidates that have language to that effect. That Whitman broke the record for a self-financed campaign is both interesting and factual. I'll restore it unless there are any objections. Gobonobo ^{T C} 00:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I've urged the IP to engage in this discussion rather than simply reverting. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:21, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:CRYSTAL the "first, if" comments should be removed. The other two statements are factual and sourced. Her wealth probably is worthy of the lead, but the triva about how much she has spent should probably be limited to the body of the article within the 2010 election section. Arzel (talk) 04:49, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is a good candidate for semi-protection at this point. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Whitman's ex-maid

I think this section should be clear that this is a major issue because California has heightened illegal immigration problems and Whitman is relying on the Latino vote to reach a majority. A specific quote I saw but might not be best here -

Lisa Garcia Bedolla, associate professor of education at UC Berkeley and author of the book "Latino Politics," said Diaz's story is as much about the personal as the political because it conflicts with Whitman's image as an inspiring boss and a decisive leader. Although Whitman said Diaz was "part of the family," Latino voters will wonder why "someone with (Whitman's) privilege, her resources and her tremendous luck did not think she should use any of those gifts to help the person who cleaned her toilets for nine years," she said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munijym (talk • contribs) 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a pretty biased opinion against Whitman. Arzel (talk) 01:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this quote is bias but the point is that this may be THE issue that turns the crucial Latino vote away from Whitman. The above quote is typical of what is being reported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munijym (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The section is already included, but it is not really the purpose of WP to discuss how this might impact a future race. Perhaps you could present what kind of expansion you think this should have. Arzel (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I found a better quote, ""If Whitman considered Santillana part of her extended family, completely washing her hands of Santillan after nine years upon hearing she was an undocumented worker can be perceived as an uncaring billionaire trying to avoid a housekeeper gate situation as she considered running for public office," writes CBSNews.com's Dan Farber

Two points likely should be included, Whitman was actually Nicky's employer and there is little excuse for faulty paperwork being undetected for nine years.[4] And that this issue alone can tip the Latino votes Whitman has to get to win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Munijym (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If the fact that she was the actual employer is notable....I don't think it would be because of a voting issue. This is an article about the person, not the election. There may be some POV and OR in that conclusion. Also I am beginning to see an awful lot of information in the article that appears "dropped in". While referenced properly and even relevant and notable for the article....we need to make this more cohesive and relevant as a biography. Thanks!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The employement agency that provided Nicky to Whitman was the actual employer in charge of documentation. Unless Whitman had proof that Nicky was illegal, there was little she could do to determine this fact because of privacy laws in place to protect Nicky, oh the irony. Nicky breaks several laws but it is Whitman's fault. When are people going to stop treating the victim like a criminal and the criminal like a victim? Arzel (talk) 14:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The employment agency referred Nicky but Whitman was the actual employer and - surprisingly for a CEO of a major corporation - feigns ignorance on an issue she certainly should have known was suspect. This is the point that is being made and Nicky is very much the victim here, she was the employee not the employer, she was only paid for fifteen hours but compelled to work more than tha fo fear of being fired or deportation. Please don't pretend that a billionaire with all her resources is the victim and couldn't even help her find a lawyer when asked. Munijym (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is.....this is an article about Meg Whitman not Nicky Diaz. I am not questioning the notablity of the controversy for inclusion, but would remind editors that Wikipedia is not a news source. The controversy does not seem worth the amount of space it is being given for the size of the article. It may be disproportionately large for the over all life of the subject. Something to think about.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nannygate kerfuffles shouldn't be over-played. It's an issue, but it's not Armageddon. Let's edit BLPs conservatively, even those of conservatives.   Will Beback  talk  10:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Could this copy edit work?:

=====Housekeeper Controversy=====

In September 2010 it was revealed that Meg Whitman had employed an illegal alien, Nicky Diaz Santillan, as her housekeeper from 2000-2009. Whitman's campaign provided documents that they said Santillan had provided, a copy of a Social Security card and California driver's license, stating that they had relied on the employment agency to verify Santillan was a legal resident. Santillan claims Whitman knew she was unducumented, producing a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration stating that her Social Security number did not match her name. A note scribbled on the letter, stated “Nicky. Please check this. Thanks.”. Whitman initially stated that they "never received those letters.", however, Dr. Harsh later said he may "perhaps" have received it, but forgotten about it for years. Diaz attorney, Gloria Allred, said that Santillan was fired for political reasons and Whitman was aware of the Social Security number mismatch since 2002. Whitman's campaign maintains that this is a political attack, stating that Allred is a Jerry Brown supporter.

Crystal Williams, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association has stated "Not only is accepting the documents all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents." --Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this would be more accurate and neutral. Munijym (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

=====Housekeeper Controversy=====

In September 2010 it was revealed that Meg Whitman had employed an illegal alien, Nicky Diaz Santillan, as her housekeeper from 2000-2009. Whitman's campaign provided documents that they said Santillan had provided, including IDs and application. Santillan claims Whitman knew she was unducumented, producing a 2003 letter from the Social Security Administration stating that her Social Security number did not match her name. A note on the letter, stated “Nicky. Please check this. Thanks.”. Whitman initially stated that they "never received those letters.", however, Dr. Harsh later said he may "perhaps" have received it, but forgotten about it for years. Santillan's attorney, Gloria Allred, said that Santillan was fired for political reasons and Whitman was aware her illegal status since 2002. Whitman's campaign maintains that this is a political attack, stating that Allred is a Jerry Brown supporter. Brown's campaign, Allred and Santillan all deny this.

Crystal Williams, Executive Director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association stated "Not only is accepting the documents all the law required her to do, but there's a counterbalancing anti-discrimination law that keeps her from probing further or demanding different documents." Other immigration lawyer's counter that the documents were never signed and it was unlikely that the status remained unknown for more than a few years.

The case highlights immigration workers' rights and sparked protests throughout the state. It is also seen as possibly tipping the Latino votes away from Whitman which is crucial to her winning the election.

I like the addition of "they all deny this". That is notable and important and unlikely to be disputed. Reference it if you can but seems appropriate now.

The last line cannot be use as it provides original research in what the situation "highlights" and is too political in nature for a biography of a living person. Could even be shorter actualy....--Amadscientist (talk) 06:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Also. the line about "Other immigration lawyer's" seems reasonable but needs an inline citation as it is likely to be disputed.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Repetition

I have been reading through the article and believe someone should go through it and break up the repetitive wording beginning many sentences. The use of "In 19....", "In 2000...". It's seen over and over and reads a little odd. I am sure a simple copy edit when someone has time would improve the article greatly.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ties to Goldman Sachs

While I do not dispute the information, references or prose...I think having it's own section is inappropriate. It seems limited to that small amount of information and while it is surely an issue for the individual...shouldn't it just go in the campaign section since it is more then relevant to that section per the way it is written. Could having it in bold type and separated from the rest of the text be considered an attempt to "Marquee" the information. As an encyclopedia, shouldn't the information be presented in a more neutral manner?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect your primary concern is NOT that the section acts to "marquee" Meg Whitman but rather that the info serves to "marquee" Goldman Sachs...and that investment company is doing all it can to expunge all memory of its key involvement in instigating the tech stock bubble of the late Nineties, particularly via spinning (IPO). However, Goldman Sachs has been knee-deep in the creation of every significant financial crisis this nation has experienced since former partner, Robert Rubin, controlled the US Treasury during the Clinton years, particularly with respect to Goldman Sach's primary role within the Federal Reserve, and any politician who has notable ties to Goldman Sachs, past or present, should not be able to hide that fact. Until this writer showed up on the scene, it might be worth nothing that there was NOTHING in the original bio connecting Whitman to Goldman Sachs, so I think it is fair to state that the creators of the original bio chose to eliminate any mention of the connection. Ergo, for those who claim the bio seems biased "against" Whitman, the incontrovertible fact is that the original bio was entirely biased in her favor, with NOT a mention of a single negative episode in her life. It has been a slow painful process to turn the Whitman bio into something representing reality, rather than merely an upbeat PR release of a "perfect" individual, which is what the original bio happened to be. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

One final point: just to prove I have NO bias aimed against Whitman on any personal level, insofar as creating the "Ties to Goldman Sachs" section, you should note that the sister (Kathleen Brown) of California governor candidate, Jerry Brown, has ties to Goldman Sachs, in her role as a Senior Advisor to that company. See: [[5]] However, since there are NO formal business ties between Kathleen Brown and her brother with respect to his political activities, then that fact can NOT be highlighted justifiably in Jerry Brown's bio, although ideally, maybe it should be. It only proves that, where Goldman Sachs is concerned, that investment bank typically ensures its tentacles reach BOTH parties and all major political candidates. People ought to understand this salient fact because it really does suggest America has transmogrified from a democracy into a government ruled by corporations, particularly those on Wall Street, guided by its chief architect, Goldman Sachs. BiographicalOmissionsCorrected2 (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are going on about. I have contributed to that section, and not flattering information either. Please assume good faith. There is no conspiracy on this page to make Whitman look good. It is a Wikipedia Biography of a Living Person and ther are still many problems that I see might be altered. The Goldman Sacs information does not apear to be enough expand past the information there. In fact I still dispute using the line about "If she were elected" because a campaign promise is not a real claim or note worthy in this case and does seem oddly pushing an angenda....but I have brought it up and consensus was to allow it. I think there are a lot of "dropped in" "controversies that don't define the subjects life. They are a small section within it. Attempting to make too much of single parts of their life should only be done where there is enough good information that can be properly cited.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Hewitt

• http://www.hughhewitt.com/blog/g/47e304a6-47c5-446f-b636-adac7ea09730

The Hugh Hewitt site appears to be a self-published blog. If so, it should not be used as a source.   Will Beback  talk  02:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Campaign Web Site - a self-published source

Using the subject as a self-published source Further information: WP:SELFPUB Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if—

1.it is not unduly self-serving;

All Campaign web-sites are stricktly self serving. Their sole purpose is to elevate the subject.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

2.it does not involve claims about third parties;

Many, if not most campaign sites make claims against the opponent, all campaign rhetoric about policy, generaly includes the this.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

Since the subject here is only commenting on opinion of the subjects of policy that she is not directly part of unless the claim referenced is about the subject alone, how can it be used?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

There is much reasonable doubt by the "other" side of campaign, so again as long as its strictly about Meg Whitman, it shouldn't be used.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Can one out of five pass the use through consensus?--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think all use of the Meg Whitman Campaign Web site should be strictly for referenceing information about her alone. No policy references, no campaign promises etc. No theoritical ideals or explanations to political lanscape etc. If there is a secondary, reliable source use that source and the campaign site can be used as an illustrative source IN ADDITION TO THE SECONDARY SOURCE.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

If Meg Whitman's campaign site says, "Anthropogenic global warming is a myth," then, for the reasons you state, it can't be used as a source for the assertion that anthropogenic global warming is a myth. It is, however, an eminently good source for the statement, "Whitman alleged that anthropogenic global warming is a myth." If so limited, it passes all the tests that you recite.

Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions -- even opinions that are self-serving, refer to third parties, concern matters beyond the person voicing the opinion, and the soundness of which may reasonably be doubted. To say that Meg Whitman holds the views attributed to her on her own website is a fact about an opinion and is eligible for inclusion. Of course, we can't include everything that meets that test, because this is an encyclopedia article, not a book-length biography, but there's no problem with using her website provided that it's limited to reporting her opinions rather than adopting them. JamesMLane t c 05:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Not really no, per Verifiability Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer: see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

We as editors cannot write the prose to be an editorial. We cannot make a claim and use only her as primary source. You need a secondary source reference augmenting the first. Her personal website can be used for her claims about her life, her work experiance etc. But her claims about what she would do as governor, for example, are considered self published, and self serving. That is, both unencyclopedic and against Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. But you are correct here: Per WP:NPOV, we report facts about opinions -- even opinions that are self-serving, refer to third parties, concern matters beyond the person voicing the opinion, and the soundness of which may reasonably be doubted. but that is when you are presenting a claim that is being made by a reputible secondary source. NOT when one candidate wants to posts their position on a policy they have never written, or been a part of in any way. Meg Whitman may be considered an expert on her own experiances and some leeway may be there for some of here business claims, but not as they may pertain to theoretical economics not yet put into practice....for example.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So James, the example you gave above still can't be used in that manner. Whitman is the primary source who made the claim. We would not use her self published campaign website for that. We would use a secondary, reliable source along with the campaign site to illustrate the fact only. Not as the reference itself.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually James is correct, Whitman, and her campaign website, are considered experts about themselves so if she says global warming is a myth we simply state that as part of her stated opinions - according to her campaign website Whitman believes ... Munijym (talk) 02:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry, that was incorrect.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No, sorry, you're incorrect.

Or perhaps I've misunderstood you. You seem to be saying two things: (1) If Whitman's own website says "AGW is a myth" then that's not adequate sourcing for a statement in the Wikipedia article that "Whitman has stated that AGW is a myth"; but (2) If the South Succotash Gazette runs an article about the election, and in the article the reporter writes, "On Whitman's website she asserts that AGW is a myth," then that is adequate sourcing for a statement in the Wikipedia article that "Whitman has stated that AGW is a myth." Do I have that right? If that's the distinction you're drawing, then I completely disagree, but if I've misstated your view, I'd be glad to have my error pointed out to me. JamesMLane t c 10:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

NO, that's not what I am saying at all. It is a policy and guidline of the Biographies of Living Persons to allow the use of a main website for information that the person would have pertanent information on...about themselves. You would be stretching the use of her main website by including any cliams she makes that she is not an expert on. That claims must have a varifiable reference. Just because the Subject has a website and makes a claim we cannot use it alone. There must be a reference. We, as editors are not the narrators. We do not use our own spin on the use of information as that constitutes original reseach.

The subjects claims on subjects outside their expertise must have a citation to support their use in Wikipedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Goldman Sachs

I think several Goldman Sachs people are staffers on Meg's campaign, should that be included in that section? Munijym (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What information have reliable sources provided in this regard? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I had read that she had two or more Goldman Sacks folks on her campaign, if I see the article again I'll look into what it says. Munijym (talk) 13:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Political positions

Before her entry into running for Governor of California I would expect no more than a paragraph about her involvement in campaigns and donations made to political entities. I think all the rest of the "political positions" are only there because of her current campaigning and I wonder if they should remain under the campaign heading instead? Munijym (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what you alone percieve is not the issue. No offense but, Whitman's political positions are not campaign related. They are related to her overall political life, that even at this point counted another kinda notable election.--Amadscientist (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Housekeeper controversy

This section is taking over the entire article, violating WP:UNDUE. This was a relatively short-lived event in the campaign, displaced by the "whore" incident, which oddly isn't in the article. I propose trimming the section to:

• 1 sentence description of the incident
• 1 sentence for Meg's position
• 1 sentence for Gloria's rebuttal Lionel (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Since this was the event that derailed her campaign, you can't reduce it to three sentences. Naturally, a life-changing event of this magnitude must be included in a biography--unless the actual goal here is to suppress the details. The housekeeper matter was never "replaced" by anything, as the former housekeeper continues to exist, and the facts continue to exist, and the repercussions continue to exist, and no Republican will ever be able to go back in time and change any of it. Meanwhile, there's no reason to include the "whore" statement, since it is at best a BLP violation, and at worst wildly inaccurate, since Whitman was never technically a prostitute. In any case, it won't really matter in a few more hours, as every indication is that she's going to lose. This article will then go largely dormant and be of archival, historical interest only--unless she tries to spend her way into another high-profile political office in the future. Qworty (talk) 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for the claim that this was what derailed her campaign? If not please realise there are not absolutes in any situation like this and please remember this article is about Meg Whitman NOT the campaign. It may well be time to split the article so a more in depth treatment of the campaign itself can be done.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"although a billionaire,public office is generally not for sale.."?

The last part of the third paragraph says, "only to lose to Jerry Brown, and proving, although a billionaire,public office is generally not for sale..". Is this bit really necessary? It sounds immature/snide, like something that would be in a satirical article. 4.167.170.56 (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more on the line of the truth hurts. I can be caustic but generally rather amusing. As a grandmother, I passed immature a long time ago. Change it if you want, someone probably will, that is the way of wiki. If you want to be a real editor, get an account instead of making flyby insults. Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Expressing concern for the quality of an article isn't a "flyby insult". I thought the line sounded satirical and biased, which isn't what Wikipedia is for. I'm sorry if I came off as rude to you. 4.167.170.56 (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you did the right thing by reporting this vandalism, especially since you can't edit the article. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:40, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

We edit the article...we dont add editorials. Also....IP editors ARE real editors. I urge everyone to register and contribute in good faith along with others, but not being registered doesn't define them as not being "Real". =)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

I didn't delete the category yet because you could argue a case for keeping it, but I don't think she really ran as the Tea Party candidate, right? If we keep it here, we should definitely add the category to the Carly Fiorina article. J390 (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Women running for Governor

While the phraseology of this edit looks psychotic, the essence of the remark is true. The California gubernatorial recall election, 2003 alone had 135 candidates on the ballot. thumb|100px|Sample Ballot The sample ballot documents the variety of choices. I suggest this be changed to include "major party" nominees or something to distinguish from the electoral chaos of 2003. Trackinfo (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Studied Physics and Mathematics?

I'd like to remove the part in "Early Life and Education" about Meg Whitman studying physics and mathematics. Having looked at the reference for that statement, I conclude that she only took a couple of intro physics and math classes at Princeton as part of her pre-med requirement. That does not qualify as actually studying the fields rigorously, as "studying" a subject often implies. If that were the case, then I can say that I studied economics, Asian history, religion, and art history just because I took a college class or two in each subject as a GE requirement.

I'm going to remove the words "physics and mathematics" from that sentence about Meg Whitman studying at Princeton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHaus (talk • contribs) 21:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

"Third woman in a twenty year period to run for the office" ??

The 2003 recall election alone had more than three women running for this office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.168.208 (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)