Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cwobeel (talk | contribs) at 00:55, 16 August 2015 (→Be careful when using sources). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Biography B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

California B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Carly Fiorina, her tenure at Hewlett-Packard, her political positions, nor her campaign for the junior United States Senate seat for California. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Carly Fiorina, her tenure at Hewlett-Packard, her political positions, nor her campaign for the junior United States Senate seat for California at the Reference desk.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Carly Fiorina during her run for the Senate be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

dispute

this article is in dispute because it reads like a one sided hit piece to make Fiorina look like a terrible person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

In wikipedia we follow the sources. if there are specific concerns, please present them here so that they can be discussed and addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no neutrality here. You dominate editing. Then dominate the discussion. You even edit other people's comments. And you gang up on other editors and take ownership of the article, while quoting ENDLESSLY the wikipedia rules and manuals, while NEVER practicing them yourself. To which, you then blame others of making personal attacks, as if that's not what you're doing! 76.102.18.252 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to offer some information about what can be improved in the article, please do so. Ranting about me or other editors, does not help and does not improve the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Those are suggestions. It has to do with your politics and parading around like you're not biased, creating the illusion of objectivity. And until that's resolved, everything else is a waste of time. And I think you know that in no uncertain terms. Your game is to keep everyone else off the article that doesn't agree with you and your gang. It's an inherent problem with you and your clique of editors, as well as with the culture of Misplaced Pages, not being able to weed it out. It's like editing by gang rule. At that, it's very childish and unbecoming. So, don't talk to me about "ranting," as if I'm the first to make this kind of statement, to which you continue to ignore. 2601:9:7E80:1AE7:1572:EDCC:33BB:FBF7 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Ca.papavero (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, all these rants, personal attacks, nonsensical accusations, and lack of WP:AGF will take you nowhere. If you have specific concerns, raise them here. Otherwise they will not be resolved. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Precious. Like an invitation to walk through a haunted house and into back alleys. As if everything noted above in this talk page isn't "specific." As if it's not spelled out for you. As if you have no idea. As if (laugh out loud), it will be resolved. Like I said, it means nothing. Keep quoting rules pretentiously, as you always do, like Orwellian doublespeak, etc. You make it all meaningless Ca.papavero (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the article is pretty good according to wiki standards. I just made an edit, it was reverted. I made a mistake. The item in question was in the article but not in the order presented. You don't see me throwing a fit. If you have something you want to discuss post it here and we can reach a consensus. Jadeslair (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Pollyannaish nonsense, probably because you don't realize that most of the stuff you are reading is my own work, but since altered. Many people here haven't done real work. In a reactionary stance, they just edit other people's. And then they think of it as their own. Or they toss lots of redundant citations without expanding on them, creating lots of clutter and bias. At one time I defended the article, but that was when the politics between editors was still manageable. I guess you haven't read all those comments above. Ca.papavero (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to the nuances of collaborative editing in a wiki. It is messy, but it works at the end given enough eyeballs. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am here to help keep it neutral. Good job on the edits. Hitting ctrl f I can see that you have been on the talk page a while. I am not taking over the page or anything. I just want it to be Neutral. , so I am using the talk page. Jadeslair (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am no longer on this page editing and writing, because I'm tired of the backstabbing and the the Orwellian babble from Cwobeel. Take note how every problem is replied with some Misplaced Pages rule or some other organizational maxim, never with direct, personal responsibility and sensitivity. It's like there's no human element, just systematic talking points and empty rhetorric. Got an issue? It may not be your own, but that of someone's else, making an issue with you, personally and politically (i.e., absence of good faith). Cowbeel automatically reads off some Misplaced Pages policy or maxim, as if it's always the logical solution. It's become like referencing "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung" (also known as the The Little Red Book"). Although you're suppose to firstly solve your problems here at the article's page, the talk from Cwobeel automatically refers to all these rhetorical Misplaced Pages constructs and policies, posing itself in a constant passive aggressive stance. It's not only managerially oppressive and indoctrinating, but sickening and cyborg like. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

ok, well then I may have to be WP:BOLD Jadeslair (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero: The fact that you don't seem to like my style of commenting, is unfortunate. Just note that in Misplaced Pages we ask editors to assume good faith. A modicum of that is required. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

That's not how I remember it. You edit first, ignoring the comments and dialog at the Talk Page, not even asking questions or reading notes before you make the edits. Then you edit again and again. I've actually talked to you on this, time and again. That's what I call good faith, not your seeming definition of it. It having an actual discussion, before you edit, that's what I call good faith. It's also about letting the fellow writers' work stand and rewrite itself, before another editor makes the adjustments. Not jumping on it automatically and making edits. Cwobeel, you don't even comment on the page about things, other than to patronize people or to counter their criticism. You look at your "dialog" as being only that in the "edit summary" describing your changes as you edit. And at that, its always in cryptic shorthand, as well as as that you making sweeping changes, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph and section after section, ALL in ONE edit, with a brief shorthand summary. Then, when someone looks for an explanation, you simply give them your Orwellian Misplaced Pages talk, as if that's explanation. You hide yourself behind all these so-called rules, deflecting any personal responsibility for your actions. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Go make some edits instead wasting time passing judgements on me. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Go do some actual work, instead of editing that of others and making your "judgements" that way. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me, this article is not neutral. From the beginning paragraph it highlights how she has failed as a CEO and had many people laid off as a result. Although the facts may not be disputed, the presentation of those facts as the highlight of her career, at the very beginning of the article make it clear the authors of this Misplaced Pages page do NOT have neutrality in mind, but rather have an agenda. 192.35.35.36 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Anonymous

I'm not even conservative or Republican and it's shocking how one-sided this page is. Sad thing is it appears to really be the result of one editor taking control of the page and refusing to allow any neutrality into the picture. Even the introduction is jaw-dropping. Is the introduction really the right place for all of this slanted information? 2601:144:C003:97D:3597:117:A575:9274 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Stock performance is not disputed

The stock performance is not disputed, so I see no reason to omit that graph. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It does not say stock performance , it says how the ceo's fared, as if that is the only metric for measuring performance. Jadeslair (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Stock performance was one of the reasons for her being fired, was it not? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe so.(firing) My opinion is that it is NPOV because of the way the text is presented. Jadeslair (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Cwobeel. The graph has to go. It is original research. The Misplaced Pages editor, just like you and me, took data and then draws a conclusion from it. That is original research, which is a no no AND it draws a conclusion that other people could find to be incorrect. You are making the false argument that the graph only provides facts. Horse hockey. It provides facts and then draws a conclusion. I removed it from the article again. Please provide a reliable source to support the graph and its conclusions then it can be re-added. You have not provided a reliable source to support the conclusion that the graph present. It is original research AND it is POV laden document that MUST be supported by a reliable source. Just to remind you: you are not a reliable source. Also, you admit that the "facts" of the graph have already been presented in other places in the article, so it is redundant. So to sum up, graph is no go because: (1) original research, (2) redundant, and (3) has no reliable source to support it.--ML (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also, Cwobeel claims that the "stock performance is not disputed" which is a wild misrepresentation of the chart and the discussion. I dispute it. The chart does NOT indicate what the stock performance was with the CEO BEFORE Fiorina. And the stock chart is outdated. HPQ is trading today at about $32 a share, which means that the stock chart section which claims to provide the Misplaced Pages reader insight on the various HP CEO (including Meg Whitman) is flat out wrong. The chart flat out says that while Whitman was CEO the stock price has gone down 25.2%, which is lie. It is a baldfaced lie. The chart is a piece of crap. During Whiteman tenure the stock price is up 28%. It is NOT down 25.2%. Cwobeel just flat out stated, without any proof that the "stock performance is not disputed" which is wrong. And Cwobeel did not discuss his flat out incorrect conclusion before he reverted my edit. He just reverted me and stuck it back in with a his short little (incorrect) claim that the "stock performance is not disputed." Also, in July 1999 when Fiorina took office the stock price was NOT $52 as the lying, bogus chart that Cwobeel keeps putting back in the article states. On her first day of work as CEO (July 19, 1999) the stock price was about $36 a share, not the $52 a share as the BS chart states. That stock chart is piece of propaganda and and Cwobeel should not re-insert it until the lies in it are fixed and it is supported by a reliable source. Right now it is an original piece of work by an editor named Peter L. Salmon who has NO track record on Misplaced Pages at all. And has only provided this ONE item to WikiMedia. Cwobeel did not vet this POS at all. He just jammed it back in the article and falsely stated the "stock performance is not in dispute" or some such nonsense. The lying chart, which was made by a phantom editor, states that HP's stock price fell 60.4% during her time at HP. However, the San Jose Mercury News (A RELIABLE SOURCE AND NOT A PHANTOM EDITOR) states that the HP stock price fell 52%, not 60.4%. See: Zapler, Mike. Analysts: Carly Fiorina long on vision, fell short on execution at HP, San Jose Mercury News, April 20, 2010. Don't put the chart back in the article. It is biased, lying POS propaganda that should have never been in the article in the first place.--ML (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

"One of the worst tech CEOs of all time"

I came to this article having never heard of Fiorina, so obviously looking for information rather than seeking to change it. But, the description "one of the worst tech CEOs of all time", written in Misplaced Pages's voice, immediately threw up a red flag for me. Looking further into it, the sources provided all seem to be Buzzfeed-style countdowns – the two authors listed are Kevin Maney and Steve Tobak, who both seem to be self-employed "consultants". This concerns me, and I think we should employ higher quality sources before describing anyone on Misplaced Pages as "one of the worst" of anything. ¡Bozzio! 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's probably not going to be a "worst-of" list in a peer-reviewed journal, but such an evaluation in an industry publication or from a well-known columnist would be enough. ¡Bozzio! 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See previous lengthy discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I see lots of sources there describing her as a bad CEO, but none saying she's "one of the worst of all time"…would hedging the statement slightly be a good comprise? E.g., "Many sources regarded her term as CEO negatively" or "Her term as CEO has been rated poor by many sources"… ¡Bozzio! 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs - We can add many more sources, but three are sufficient for WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note the next sentence that has been placed for balance and NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nobody calls her the worst CEO of all time, but they certainly call her one of the worst tech CEOs. Important distinction. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I googled that Jeffrey Sonnenfeld quote, and his original quote doesn't have the word "CEO" in it. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale University told USA Today, at the time, said she earned a place among "the worst because… So, it seems you've deliberately misquoted him to paint her in a bad light. Looking at the rest of the talkpage, it's obvious that you've got severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues. That's unfortunate, but I guess to be expected on high-profile political articles. I'd quit with the condescension too if you don't want to piss off more editors. I'm done here. ¡Bozzio! 08:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bozzio, the "CEO" in the quote was provided by the context, and stated explicitly by the original source, which is Kevin Maney of the USA Today' Money column. Maney wrote in February 2005 an article with the title "Can Fiorina trump competition for 'worst tech CEO' title?" Within the article, Maney conducts a little contest that he calls American Ouster, in which "six tech CEOs" are evaluated to see who is the worst. That's why people have taken Sonnenfeld's quote to mean that Fiorina was considered the "worst tech CEO", or even the worst CEO, as quoted by Matt Krantz for USA Today's Money/America's Markets, who puts "CEO" in editorial parentheses, acknowledging that it was not in the original quote, but that it was the intended meaning. So it's not people here making shit up. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If the Sonnerfiled quote is modified in the future I think some information from should be used, it is one of the most neutral posts I have seen and it includes a response from Carly. I am not proposing any other statement but if there are. I think that is a pretty NPOV source.

Top pic

Generally speaking, a top pic should not show the subject looking directly away from the article text, and preferably will show the subject looking more forward than to the side. Also, the pic will preferably not be an (idolizing) shot from below, it should be of top quality, and should not be unflattering. So, here are some possibilities below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If people like Image #2 then I could try to get the microphone removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

At the recommendation of an editor who works at the Misplaced Pages Graphics Lab, I will install Image #3 for now. I agree that's it's just as good as, or better than, any of these four images.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, my opinion is that #2 is clearly the best choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant:, @Winkelvi: No consensus was formed to remove the below portrait, and none of the above pictures are in any way superior. I didn't take this picture, so don't think I have a personal attachment to it. All of the above pictures are not very flattering; #'s 1, 3, & 5 are simply not portrait quality, #4 is creepy, and #2 does nothing which the below (and previous infobox portrait) does not provide. #2, which is the current portrait, has a microphone in front of her face, it isn't in full focus, and she isn't looking at the camera, and the coloration isn't completely natural. The below could easily be a formal portrait if she was looking at the camera; it is in focus, well composed, well-lit, and illustrates a natural and flattering expression for Mrs. Fiorina. It is best for a portrait not to have a microphone or other distracting object in the way. I see no reason why the below was removed to begin with. Spartan7W § 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a consensus now. There is no place on Misplaced Pages where that cross-eyed photo would be appropriate. It may be well composed and well lit, but it would be a throw-away for 100% of all portrait photographers worldwide. The only reason to suggest using it is out of childish partisan spite. The microphone in the current photo is of zero import and does not harm the photo's usefulness in any way. Until a better license-free image can be located, that's the one we should be using. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

My view is that that image is very unflattering. I did not remove it, but I concur with the removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I wouldn't classify it as crosseyed, per-say, but I would say it is a tie with #2. I should have checked the talk page earlier, I just found the current picture of no superior quality. I will peruse the interwebs for a superior portrait. Spartan7W § 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the photo Spartan re-added makes her look cross-eyed. Photo #2 is bright, has an aesthetically pleasing background, and facially is much more flattering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Any photo with the American flag in the background is a misrepresentation of Fiorina who has never been elected to political office in the US. The black background shot by Gage Skidmore is perfectly good – I don't see the "cross-eyed" thing that some here are complaining about. She's looking at something in front of her and a little to right; nothing wrong with that. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

First, the notion that a flag in the background is a misrepresentation is just silly, and I've never heard of such a thing. She's an American citizen, running for an American political office. The idea that she's lying every time she stands near a flag to be photographed is just not reasonable. As for the pic that was inserted, I agree it makes her look cross eyed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet's argument is baffling. Every political candidate (successful or unsuccessful) since the earliest days of the republic has used American flag imagery in their campaigns. Seems to me like a flimsy pretext for the sophomoric re-insertion of an unflattering image. This is Misplaced Pages, folks; not middle school. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Mention

@Artaxerxes: It is simply without precedent or purpose that the inclusion of 'Republican Candidate for President' is included in her infobox as though it were an office. She is not, and has never been an officeholder. Wendell Willkie was the Republican Nominee in 1940; like Fiorina, Willkie was a businessman who never held public office, and his article doesn't have an officebox mentioning him as the Nominee in '40, although that is a far more prestigious position than a declared candidate (I like Fiorina, but she doesn't even qualify for debates as of now). This same isn't done for Ben Carson or Donald Trump, or for any other business executive who has run for office. An infobox, for a politician, lists one's offices held; being a nominee isn't an office, and certainly being a candidate with no formal national party endorsement certainly doesn't qualify. You can read in the lead that she is a candidate, but being a candidate is not an office nor an official function which is due for the infobox. Spartan7W § 17:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede says she "is" a politician

I don't think someone is a politician unless that person holds, previously held public office (elected or appointed), or is or was a member of a political party's power structure like Reince Preibus beinh held of the RNC. To my knowledge, Carly only hopes to become a politician. Therefore I believe the technically correct term is an aspirant for public office or wants to be a politician. She could be a hopeful politician or wants to become a politician but not yet one. Please have some editors discuss because the Lede is wrong 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.61.76 (talk)

For example see the lWede for Ben Carson who like Carly is also running for POTUS yet has no yet held public office. Yet his Lede is retire surgeon not a politician. Likewise carly is a retire bunisse excceotive NOT a polytician 74.67.61.76 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

She's announced she's running for president, therefore, she is a politician. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

So look at the line for Ben Carson. 72.45.133.92 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What other articles "say" is means little. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, she is a politician. The best example, Wendell Willkie, Republican nominee in 1940, was a businessman just like Carly Fiorina. He lost to FDR. In teh year 1940, he was a politician for all intents and purposes, but because he lost and never subsequently held office, he reverts to 'businessman'. If Carly loses the nomination, the election, doesn't get picked as VP, or never becomes a cabinet officer, she will revert to businesswoman only. Spartan7W § 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Same sex marriage stuff is an opinion not political position

Supreme court made a ruling on this. Its now no longer constitutional to deny gay marriage. This would make her position merely an opinion and have no weight in the rule of law. I think this section should somehow reflect this change. Not by omitting but a touch up by smarter minds than I. And such an edit should be reflected on the other candidates as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph

Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraphAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Lucent

There is nothing here about the outsourcing of Lucent IT in late 96/early 97. One of the earliest outsourcing projects on record and a fiasco. American workers were laid off and it was 1 of the causes of the Lucent bankrupcy. And why was it a fiasco? Because no performance clause was written into the contract. As for source/citation - I am 1, I was 1 of the workers laid off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's appreciated that you want to contribute to the article, Mycroft 514, but we can't accept you as a "source" - that would be what we consider "original research", and is not allowed. Based on what you've written here, it seems you have a personal ax to grind against Fiorina, and that could lead to personal point of view and conflict of interest content. Also not allowed. If you can bring something that is neither COI nor POV and attach a reliable source (see WP:REF for more on that), then you're welcome to add content on what happened at Lucent. As long as it focuses on Fiorina, of course, and not Lucent - the article is about Fiorina. Too much on other subjects can be classified as undue weight, leading to much of it being removed. Hope this doesn't dissuade you from wanting to contribute, but we do have pretty stringent policies and guidelines when it comes to biographies on living persons that have to be followed closely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of other data out there - if someone bothered to look. And just as there are hundreds (thousands?) of HP employees that don't like what she did, so too are there many ex-Lucent employees. The fact is that under her watch, Lucent went bankrupt, and that is an important fact that should be in her "biography". I bring up the issue, get someone to write it up, so that my "biased" opinion won't be in it. The fact of the matter is that without a section on her performance then, the article is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Performance at the undercard GOP debate

Fiorina was widely lauded for her performance at the undercard GOP debate, and I've updated the page on her campaign to reflect that fact, but should the presidential campaign section of her biography be updated as well? I didn't think that her performance (at the first of the many GOP debates which will come) was important enough to add to her biography, but now I think it might be, given that most of the information currently in that section is just criticism of her business past, it might help balance this article.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The accolades for her performance are fairly wide-spread and definitely notable per Misplaced Pages standards. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Heritage institute Comment

Ed Eduljee. "HP Hewlett Packard's Corporate Governance Woes Part 1". heritageinstitute.com. is listed as a source. The domain is privacy protected so we don't know who it is. The bottom of the webpages lists a non-notable person maybe he is the author it looks like a WP:QUESTIONABLE and self published source WP:USERGENERATED. No editorial policy listed among other concerns. Jadeslair (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke

The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke. To quote the woman from Bloomberg, this section of the Carly Fiorina article is a "trainwreck" and a "disaster". It could be eliminated entirely, but more reasonably it could be cut down to a couple of sentences. Their no reason to ever have a sentence that just says this, "Katie Benner of Bloomberg View described Fiorina's leadership at HP as a "train wreck" and a "disaster"." The number of problems with that one sentence are too numerous to mention, but it is typical of many of the sentence. This sentence is a hit and run. (1) Who is Katie Benner? Who cares? She is obviously a writer, but she doesn't even have an article about her in Misplaced Pages; therefore, at this point in time, Misplaced Pages does not even see her as notable. She has been cited in Misplaced Pages many times, with many different organizations, so she is a freelancer, which means she doesn't hold down a full-time stable gig. I don't see why her opinion is even relevant. Has she run a Fortune 20 company? No. (2) The sentence doesn't even provide the reader what her reasoning is. It just grabs the two insults and wraps them in scare quotes. It is just one of many BS sentences in the whole section. The whole section is a coatrack to list every conceivable complaint about Fiorina. It makes the whole article unfair and biased. It is a joke. I'm going to trim it down. Please feel free to work with me as I trim it down and end its existence as a place to dump on Fiorina, under the false claim that this is an encyclopedia article--especially since it has the name "praise" in the name but ZERO praise in the section.--ML (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The Criticism section should not exist, the fact that it is mixed with the word praise just stinks that a biased section is coming. There should not be a Criticism section, Those items should be incorporated into the article if appropriate. It should be written in an Impartial tone. Jadeslair (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The section should be removed entirely. Besides being an obvious COATRACK, it is also a thinly disguised WP:CSECTION. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK doesn't apply and the criticism and praise section does belong. Her firing and the criticism/praise that followed are very much a part of her resume and professional experience, especially now with her candidacy for POTUS. It's going to be discussed everywhere she goes (and already is if you watched the debate the other night). Her name and time at HP evokes both strong hatred and admiration from two totally different camps. And it's all notably and easily referenced through reliable sources. The only potential problem with the section is the tendency toward imbalance. I've started to remedy that. As a side note: the edit warring over the coatrack notice is very pointy and disruptive and it needs to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

In general a criticism page should not exist, items should be incorporated into the article. I know that I cited an essay but it coincides with the NPOV policy which is a core policy that is "This policy is non-negotiable". Jadeslair (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

We can easily rename that section. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

That is a good start Jadeslair (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's better. Fiorina is a person, not a book or a movie or TV show. "Reception" means, what, exactly, in relation to an individual person? How she's received at events? It makes no sense in relation to a BLP. Why not just leave it as "Criticism" since criticism can be both negative and positive? Or, it could be Assessment: public and professional; or Critique: public and professional. But "Reception" just isn't on the mark, sorry. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant renaming was a good start, I did not see that it was already renamed. The title certainly is not appropriate as it stands, it still does not fit in under the heading of the section either. I thought we were trying to write encyclopedic content. I may be wrong.

Balance regarding Fiorina's business career

A coatrack tag was placed recently at the criticism and praise section. Coatrack really didn't apply, however, I did remove some of the excess "criticism" which decidedly outweighed the "praise" and caused the section to be unbalanced. Some rewording was also applied in line with WP:POV and to keep a more neutral tone to the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to put the coatrack tag back on the section and you need to leave it there until all of the problems with the section are fixed.--ML (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Continuing to try and get your way with this article (and other articles) through edit warring is disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point, and needs to stop. Please discuss why you think coatrack applies rather than edit war to demonstrate your dispute. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The tag also states Misplaced Pages:POVFORK, the section certainly is that.

You did some well thought out edits but there are still some pov issues. This is the first time I have see coatrack so I am not in a position to say but I would leave it up till ML's concerns are resolved. Jadeslair (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that there are concerns from more than just one editor. Everyone's concerns need to be addressed as this is a community effort and no one person owns any article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand, I would not disregard anyones concerns unless they were a rogue editor. Jadeslair (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have looked at the coatrack section, it certainly is a coatrack and although they use an extreme example, it is covered here:1Here are some major issues withing the section, which by the way is under "Transition of career and public persona":

• "According to an opinion piece" ..."upended HP’s famously collegial culture, killed off its beloved profit-sharing program and hung her own portrait between those of the company’s two sainted founders". Did the editors fact check that statement?

*"Among other criticisms," is meant to highlight an item which is WP:EDITORIALIZING

• " despite a 70% gain in net income " more WP:EDITORIALIZING meant to highlight "the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD"

• "Following her resignation from HP, CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." That is the third time this is mentioned "She has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time" is the first, "worst tech CEO of all time" as the second. "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer" is similar and could be counted as the fourth and many WP:WEASEL words, opinions and Propaganda.

I think we can remove these from the criticism section and incorporate them into sections such as Carly_Fiorina#Hewlett-Packard_.28HP.29. Some of them should be removed because they are already included in that section. To be clear, I am not suggesting to remove any factual statements from the article. Jadeslair (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Jadeslair, your dislike of the "worse, non-imprisoned CEO" quote does not render it unimportant to Fiorina's career. It's not just opinion, it's the very considered opinion of a Yale business management scholar, the respected Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. Sonnenfeld is not alone; his opinion is shared by others, and he is cited in the New York Times and also in The Week. Paul Begala also quoted Sonnenfeld in his book about John McCain. Others who used the quote include SiliconValley.com, Michael Winship of Journal (hosted by Bill Moyers), and the Los Angeles Daily News. So I wouldn't set my sights on that quote if I were you; it's pretty well nailed down. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

They said it, it is a fact that they said it, no problem but it is not appropriate to have a laundry list of items to prove a point. In that case it is biased so a restructuring would be appropriate. Jadeslair (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We really should set our sights on it, though, if our goal is truly to present a biographical encyclopedia article. It's one person's (or five, or ten people's) opinion, whether he graduated from Yale or not. It's not a biographical fact. The article is woefully out of balance, and was able to stay that way due to low editor traffic and the perseverance of a few remarkably dedicated editors who couldn't edit objectively outside their own personal points of view, sadly. Here's hoping more eyes here finally changes the disappointing reality that less-frequented articles within the project are especially susceptible to this sort of biased editing. Justen (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing biased about reporting significant viewpoints. In fact, it is the opposite. And your lack of WP:AGF does not help either. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

There's absolutely no policy against pointing out the negative impact of non-neutral editing, especially over the long-term. You fundamentally misunderstand wp:agf if you think there's some shelter in there for for blatantly biased editing. (It's important to note I've not singled out any individual editor. There's been a long-term pack, however, that has tag-team editwarred to prohibit most attempts to restore a neutral point of view to the article. I don't share many of the position Carly Fiorina has outlined, but the phenomenon here is one I've seen at other articles covering people across the political spectrum. It's unfortunate and it's a major deterrent to folks staying with or joining the project, sadly.) Justen (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This appears on the surface to be a good solution and compromise. I'd like to hear from other editors to get their opinions, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

False balance is not balance. This is long standing material that is suddenly not acceptable? The fact that Fiorina is running does not mean that well sourced criticism and praise can be now deleted. Reverted per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel:You cite BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss. The section is still NPOV, before and after your revert. Longstanding is not a policy of wikipedia as far as I know. We are allowed to edit the page and are trying to discuss it here. I have stated some items I believe are important, what do you think of those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

Her business career and in particular her tenure at HP, is the single most notable aspect of this person (according to many observers and according to Fiorina herself), and as such, omitting the substantial criticism she received is contrary to our policy of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

To move ahead on this, consensus needs to be reached. As a BLP, this is a serious issue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• Pare down the negative and balance it with equal amounts of positive; keep all the references so readers can look into it further. She's not more vilified than praised, but you wouldn't know it by looking at this article. Words like "controversial" have to be placed correctly. Further, even though it's referenced in her own book, Fiorina's resignation continually being changed to "forced" (in the way it has been worded) reads POV. The bottom line is she resigned - her opponents say she was fired, she says she was forced to resign. "Resigned" alone takes the POV out. Side note: I believe her side of the story, but we still have to remain neutral in our content and writing that content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You proposing "equal amounts of positive" is a proposal to violate NPOV, to violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. The proper weight is achieved when the article correctly reflects the literature on Fiorina, and the literature is largely negative. So having strongly negative assessments here is the right thing to do. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I note from the personal bio at your user space that you have an employment history with AT&T. Lucent and AT&T are connected, are they not? Fiorina is connected with Lucent. I don't suppose you are editing based on any bad taste in your mouth regarding those connections, are you? And yes, I realize this would seem non-AGF on the surface, however, I think it's worth bringing up - since your edits seem to be anti-Fiorina in nature and pushing a negative POV. You're edit warring over it, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, I was never aware of Fiorina back in the 1980s when I was a telephone technician. From the 1990s I have been a live sound engineer, working primarily in corporate events. As such, several times I have amplified Fiorina's voice for large audiences, and my assessment of her speaking skill is high. She is smart and she can put forward her ideas with strength. Professionally I have nothing but respect for her. None of my very indirect and neutrally colored professional contact with Fiorina prepared me for the very negative words I have found in the tech industry literature when I started reading about her in regard to her California Senate run in 2010. That's the point when I found out how reviled she was by HP stalwarts, and that she was considered a failure by business experts. So don't try to make me out as having a personal vendetta; my evaluation comes from reading the reliable sources, as should yours. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet, I sincerely thank you for clearing that up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It would appear, Binksternet, that you are unable to be neutral on this topic, given that you have already concluded the coverage off-Misplaced Pages is negative and that our article must reflect that in order to be neutral. A reasonable person might conclude that you will not be satisfied with the article unless it contains a negative tone. On what planet would that be considered NPOV? Sounds like flagrant bias to me. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What is flagrant is your lack of understanding of WP:NOPV. I suggest you read it again to refresh your understanding of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

On what basis has this been deleted?

relatives of HP founder David Packard have spoken out against Fiorina's political aspirations for what they perceive as her having almost destroyed the company.

References

1. Packard: Fiorina almost destroyed HP, Politico (March 8, 2010).
2. Carly Fiorina will run for president as a successful tech CEO. Silicon Valley says that's a fantasy, The Guardian (May 3, 2015).

BLP or not, well sourced material should not be deleted without a specific rationale. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pare down the negative and balance it with equal amounts of positive. That is not what NPOV is all about, false balance is no balance. Please re-read WP:NPOV: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. But it wouldn't be the first time you and I disagree, would it? :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not disagreeing with my interpretation. You are disagreeing with NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Reign of terror at HP

Sonnenfeld said of Fiorina's time as CEO of HP that she was:"

...the worst because of her ruthless attack on the essence of this great company... She destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost $100 million in total payments for this destructive reign of terror.

This was first reported by Kevin Maney in a USA Today: Money piece, February 15, 2005.

Plenty of people have quoted Sonnenfeld from Maney's Money article, making the quote important as a prominent and very negative analysis of Fiorina's career.

• Business Insider used the whole quote. Julie Bort (March 30, 2015). "Ex-HP CEO Carly Fiorina is planning to run for president based on her business experience. Here's why that's a terrible idea."
• USA Today used the whole quote. Dan Farber (May 4, 2015). "Carly Fiorina's Tough Choices".
• Brian Bergstein of Associated Press quoted Sonnenfeld as saying Fiorina had never "been outside of backslapping in industrial sales", that she was "thrown in over her head" as CEO, and that her time at HP was "a reign of terror and poor performance." Brian Bergstein (October 9, 2006). "Former HP chief Fiorina sets stage for comeback". Washington Post.
• The Seattle Times also carried the Bergstein piece.
• The famous Barbara Boxer political advertisement against Fiorina used Sonnenfeld's words "reign of terror". Cases in Congressional Campaigns: Riding the Wave. Casey B. K. Dominguez (2013). "Boxer vs Fiorina in California's Senate Race".

People who are new to this page ought to pore through the archives to see what has been discussed, for instance Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs. This will help newcomers understand why the article holds a strongly negative view of Fiorina's business career. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And I maintain that it needs to be balanced, just as we try to balance articles about movies, music albums, and the like when it comes to how we present critical opinion. Even your header in this section gives an impression that her time at HP was, indeed, a "reign of terror". That's hardly neutral. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

An opinion needs not to be neutral. I find this attempt to attenuate the substantial criticism of Fiorina to be unacceptable. Her tenure at HP is the one aspect of her career that is notable, and viewpoints about her tenure are fair game. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to attenuate anything. If the better alternative is to add more positive criticism, then that would be fine, too. I'm merely trying to get some balance in a section that is top-heavy with negative criticism. See both WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to read False balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina's tenure at HP was a disaster according to a preponderance of sources. Presenting positive criticism of her tenure, would violate NPOV which calls for a proportional presentation of viewpoints, with minority viewpoints clearly indicated or omitted altogether . If you want to change policy discuss at WP:NPOV talk page. - Cwobeel (talk)

@Winkelvi: Per WP:BALANCE (my highlight): Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. Do you find positive commentary about Fiorina's tenure at HP that are relatively equal in prominence? If so, show us the sources, otherwise drop the stick. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't issue aggressive ultimatums in what should be civil discussions working toward consensus. I hope you're not working toward another one of these type of incidences that ends badly. That would be disastrous for obvious reasons; no one wins, least of all Misplaced Pages, when such incidences occur. Can't we just discuss this in an agreeable and collegial manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

By "drop the stick" I'm certain Cwobeel was saying that you should stop asking for equal representation of positive and negative aspects of Fiorina's business career, which has been your stated stance here. You have yet to acknowledge how such a stance is a violation of NPOV, that a false balance is what you want. Instead, you should try to show that the literature gives equal time to Fiorina's business successes as it does her business failures. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts here are very simple: Fiorina's notability emanates almost exclusively from her tenure in HP, and the preponderance of sources report that it was a total disaster, not only in the loss of shareholder value, but also the loss on an entire culture of innovation and flat management. The fact that Fiorina is now a Presidential nominee means not that we should whitewash her past. Material that was 100% OK for years and stable in the article does not suddenly becomes "biased". I am trying to assume good faith here, but the WP:ADVOCACY can be smelled from miles. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"the preponderance of sources report that it was a total disaster". Untrue. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to find anything to the contrary. And that's simply not the case. " we should whitewash her past" - where is your evidence that is what's going on? I haven't seen anything that equates whitewashing. "Material that was 100% OK for years and stable in the article does not suddenly becomes "biased". Not the point. The point is that the article has an unbalanced preponderance of negative criticism in contrast to positive criticism. I'd say that no matter who the article subject was. I'm venturing a guess that anyone who understands WP:IMPARTIAL would agree. After all, "inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a ... proportionate representation of all positions". I'm not saying we need to make it completely equal (5 negative comments and 5 positive comments), but it needs to be closer to equal and the tone, most definitely, needs to be improved. "the WP:ADVOCACY can be smelled from miles." Another baseless accusation. Totally incorrect, and unhelpful, to boot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The sources have a strong tone of disapproval, for instance Fiorina made the cover of Fortune magazine on February 7, 2005, with the bold headline saying "Why Carly's Big Bet Is Failing." So even when she's on the cover the article is negative. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What I saw was an aggressiveness in tone that's been part of CWO's repertoire previously between he and I and with others. I'm hoping I'm wrong. Whatever the case, I stand by policy in regard to both WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: You may need to re-read WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL or at least explain how these apply here. Because there is zero contradiction between my arguments and the policy you are quoting. Please explain what you mean. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I understand there is a lot of emotion involved with those editing this article. Though, as this is a BLP, I recommend that before editing the article, the above editors work towards consensus here on the talk page first. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Forced to resign – consensus from 2009

The wording "forced to resign" has long represented consensus here. Other wording used by our reliable sources is "fired" and "resigned". Fiorina acknowledges that she was forced out, that she did not choose to resign.

Our colleague Justen was chided by Blaxthos six years ago for trying to erase the "forced to resign" wording. Justen put together a Request for Comment at that point, but it went against his wishes, settling on a consensus for "forced to resign". See Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_3#RfC:_Consensus_on_resignation_context.3F, closed on October 1, 2009.

The biography even had a section with the heading "Forced resignation from HP" from April 30, 2015, until June 16 when it was changed by Artaxerxes as "less prejudicial; clearer", which I think was a misleading edit summary. Fiorina was clearly forced out of HP. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have misread the discussion (perhaps to try to prove some sort of a point here?). I proposed "forced to resign" as a balance between "fired," "asked to resign," and "resigned." I'm always happy to be chided for trying to find neutral wording that is consensus supported.  :) Justen (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Forced to resign" on its own reads POV to me. If there's something preceding it, maybe something that briefly but clearly describes how they (HP and Fiorina) got to that point. I heard her today, during an interview, describe the scene just before her forced resignation as "a boardroom brawl". Something that at least gives more context rather than the impression that she was a tacit recipient of their decision would be good. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina's assessment is not defining, per WP:SECONDARY. We give much more importance to secondary sources, which say that there was a running dispute about Fiorina within the board, and she was successful in turning the majority of them against her. She was voted out by the board and informed of the decision after the fact, without directly participating herself. "Brawl" says there was a fight, but the vote says there was a majority against her. Sure, she had a supporter or two, but they did not save her. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Earlier, you cited Fiorina's book in supporting the use of the word "forced" in her book. Now you are claiming we can't go on that per WP:PRIMARY. Please make up your mind. Both my spouse and I have worked in corporate business with Fortune 500 companies at management level for decades. CEO's most certainly can and do get fired with no resignation occurring. Fiorina said "boardroom brawl" followed by an explanation that she fought the resignation. She did not say nor did she imply that there was anyone in that fight but her. If there were those on her side - and I'm sure there were more than a supporter or two, they probably didn't want to risk their own careers by speaking up, that's how the politics of corporate business works. But, I digress. Regardless, the characterization of Fiorina's resignation by only saying "forced resignation" creates an incomplete picture. Surely with all the articles you've edited over the years, along with your obvious ability for creativity, you can see that there's more that could be said than just "forced resignation" and that without more context, that phrase is as dry and unpalatable as cold, burned toast, leaving a bad taste in your mouth. I see no reason why giving more context would - or should - be a problem for anyone with an NPOV approach to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but I did not cite Fiorina's book. I'm a pretty big fan of WP:SECONDARY sources. They typically say she was fired or forced to resign; a minority simply say "resigned" but never as if it were her own idea. A contemporary source called it an "ouster", the board ridding itself of Fiorina. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Total nonsense, I am afraid. We follow the sources, not our own ideas of what was the context of Fiorina's termination. if the preponderance of sources use "forced resignation" that is what we use here. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. I never said nor implied that we shouldn't go with the sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This article from the day: Hewlett-Packard Co. Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina, one of the most powerful women in corporate America, is leaving the troubled computer maker after being forced out by the company's board. (highlight is mine) - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Forced to resign is fine with me as the first mention of her leaving HP, after that it is just trying to push a position. Which is not part of Misplaced Pages Manual of Style. Jadeslair (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

POV issues remain unresolved

Per the numerous unresolved issues above, it is clear that this page has many unresolved POV issues. These issues need to be addressed and resolved here on the talk page. I will tag this article until these issues have been resolved. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. What has happened here is that Fiorina's entry to the presidential race has brought a bunch of new editors to this article, ones who have no previous experience with the literature about Fiorina. I acknowledge that it's exciting to see a smart new candidate who is a woman, but the hopefulness for a candidacy cannot replace the existing literature on a candidate. The existing literature on Fiorina is largely negative with regard to her career at HP. So a largely negative analysis of her HP career would be appropriate. On the other hand, people who want to see Fiorina succeed in politics are super unhappy about that analysis. The POV problem would be solved if the editors here would read thirty or more randomly selected articles about Fiorina, published in reliable sources, and then draw from those sources in a balanced fashion. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This comment: "On the other hand, people who want to see Fiorina succeed in politics are super unhappy about that analysis" is extremely unfair, non-AGF, and quite presumptuous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the statement is unfair. I also don't think I've presumed too much (presumptuous); rather, I've assessed the situation myself and given my interpretation of what I see. Regarding AGF, "good faith" is what I give people who have yet to contribute. Once they have contributed my faith in them changes to my experience of them. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Then, obviously, you weren't including me in that grouping. Still, one need not "contribute" in a manner that meets your personal approval to be afforded good faith. At least I've never seen that as a caveat in the AGF policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You are the only person who knows whether you "want to see Fiorina succeed in politics" and whether you are "super unhappy" about negative analysis of her time at HP. Again about good faith: "faith" is a belief or confidence that is not based on evidence. Once a person has evidence, they can modify their previous faith by factoring in this new evidence. The WP:AGF guideline is mainly about maintaining civil behavior on Misplaced Pages, which I agree is important. But it does not say to turn a blind eye on those who push a political aim. Instead, it says to deal civilly with those who you have identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We're going woefully off-topic here. But I will say in closing (in reference to AGF): AGF means assume good faith on the part of other editors in relation to their reasons for editing and their edits. The opposite would be what you've not only demonstrated in your words above, but also in what you are suggesting: anyone who opposes your viewpoint on the way the article should be comprised (or hasn't read as much as you have on Fiorina - another bad faith assumption, by the way) should be seen as pushing a biased POV in favor of Fiorina's campaign. Now, if that isn't what you meant, and I misread it, I apologize. But, if it is, I really can't see why you would think having a "assume the worst first" approach is productive or even close to what AGF really is about. In order to deviate from AGF one need have evidence to assume bad faith. There's been no evidence provided here to support the scenario(s) you are suggesting exist among editors who are discussing the opposite side of the coin from whence you are coming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no "unresolved POV" issues here whatsoever. I find that determination to be pulled from thin air. The facts are that Fiorina has attracted considerable criticism from the business world about her tenure at HP, and not describing teh preception of the business community in the lede is contrary to NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are unresolved issues on this page, they are unresolved because editors, including myself have concerns. That is the only requirement to be unresolved. Jadeslair (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Ism schism, and the other editors who see that the article has many unresolved POV issues. Cwobeel, your comment is incorrect and you need to work with the editors to trim down the POV bashing of Fiorina in the article.--ML (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism, since you put the tag at the top of the article, would you mind putting a concise list of the items that you think need attention, maybe using bullet points. Just referring to the years of previous commentary at this page does not give enough guidance. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are at least three ongoing discussions in subsections above about issues with the lack of neutrality in the article, to start. Justen (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Would it be too much too ask you to identify those sections?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It's not a court case, there's no need to number the evidence. Justen (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

No one is asking you to number them. I just want to know which sections you're talking about. It's kind of hard to discuss objections to the article if people won't say what the objections are. I will remove the POV tag if no one will say why it's there. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Don't remove the POV tag. The article is still seriously flawed. I have outlined some of the POV issues in the next section below.--ML (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede does not summarize the most notable aspects

Here is another one: Read Carly_Fiorina#Hewlett-Packard (HP) and tell me if the lede reflects and summarizes that section. Folks: Fiorina's notability emanates almost exclusively from her role as CEO of HP, the rest is peanuts in comparison. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel: The above comment was probably spot on about five months ago. However, more people have probably heard of her in the last five months than her whole time at HP. And as long as her poll numbers continue to increase in the current campaign (which is not a given) then her notability as a politician will also increase. I think your comment was once correct, but the situation has changed dramatically in the last five months, especially in the last two weeks.--ML (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

And we should also update the article with new commentary that has the benefit of hindsight, such as this one - Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There's not a lot that can be said about her career at HP that wasn't already said, unless the goal is to go full-on wp:coatrack. Relatively few Americans knew her name when she was CEO at HP. Her notability now increasingly emanates from her role as a political candidate, and that will certainly further increase the longer she stays in the race. Justen (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL. This is a biography, not a political pamphlet for a campaign. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

To summarize the content of the article properly, and remove the tag, this is my proposal: Adding a single sentence to the lede as follows:

Fiorina has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time, though others have defended her leadership while at the helm of HP.

Sources are all provided in the article's body. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Your "summary" is your editorial opinion and synthesis. So, no, it doesn't solve any problems. Justen (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

How is that synthesis? It is a summary of what we have in the article, per WP:LEDE. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(bump) - Bumping this discussion. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't like the passive voice ("has been described") which is basically the same as "some people say" which is disfavored per WP:Weasel. Moreover, it's already obvious from the lead that her tenure at HP was controversial or she wouldn't have been fired. Given that many commentators and analysts differ with the "worst CEO ever" meme, I really don't see a need to put it into the lead, which already indicates her tenure was controversial.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to go the direction Anythingyouwant is suggesting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal is unencyclopedic in tone and violates BLP standards. YoPienso (talk) 04:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it is appropriate or important enough for the lede although I think the lede does need some more information from the article.Jadeslair (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The lede should be a high-level overview of the facts surrounding someone's life (particularly given that this is a wp:blp). We shouldn't be moving editorial opinions, like this proposal seeks to do, back into the lede (and this is actually an issue User:Ism schism identified over a week ago and corrected). We talk about some of the key facts of her career in the lede (although I do think we should add back that the merger was widely recognized as "controversial," even by its proponents, which disappeared in recent editing). But it would be wp:undue of us to go out of our way to single out for the lede the editorial opinion that some reliable or unreliable sources have determined her to be the "worst CEO ever." It's wp:cherrypicking sensationalist headline language, which are poor quality sources for a wp:blp. Justen (talk) 04:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding POV and "Carly-bashing"

One premise of the editors who refuse to clean up the article (and by "clean up" I mean tone down the redundant and one-sided bashing of her record as CEO of HP) is that if you review the articles then you will see that her tenure has been declared, without question, a failure. That premise is false and that is why the article is written like a bash Carly essay, instead of an encyclopedia entry. Ten years have gone by and HP is still at the top of IT world and there are many people that looking back on her time and changing their point of view that they had at the time. And just like all historical figures as time goes forward people change their minds about their success or failure and their influence or lack of influence--it does not matter if it Obama, Bush, Lincoln, the Wright Brothers, Edison, and Fiorina. Opinions change. The article is chucked full of articles written in the heat of battle in 2005. This article is full of articles written in 2005 by people that had a clear biased toward Fiorina and some of whom were actually part of the action at HP, at the time. There is reference after reference to the comments of family members of the Hewlett Family and the Packard Family. Why the repetition of their opinions of these particular people? They are inherently biased. They are NOT objective. They did not want change at the company that their grandfather's started. I'm not saying their opinions are worthless, but come on they are were part of the fight at the time. They were not and are not now objective. This article is like if we were to edit the Hillary Clinton article with only comments from Ken Starr or Newt Gingrich. It is ludicrous proposition to edit the Hillary article using only the comments of Starr and Gingrich and it is just as ludicrous to argue that we should quote the comments from Great-grandkids of David Packard like they are unbiased, objective observers and that we should treat them like they are experts on HP or the IT industry. They are major shareholders of that company they have vested interests in bashing Fiorina and because she advocated making bold changes to the company that created their trust funds. I'm not saying the article should be all sunshine and happiness toward Fiorina, but it should not be all POV bashing all the time. The literature does NOT support that premise. For example, one of the articles cited but NOT quoted is: The HP-Compaq Merger: Partners Reflect 10 Years Later. In that article the author, Rob Wright, talks about how he was firmly against the merger in 2001, but in 2011 he has decided that the merger was a success:

But fast-forward a decade, and solution providers say the historic merger was a surprising success and ultimately helped their businesses. And the bold move ultimately produced what the two companies promised – a worldwide technology powerhouse with top revenue positions in servers, PC and printers (go here for the official HP-Compaq merger press release).

"You look back now, and Carly was right – there was a lot of synergy between the two companies," Tommy Wald, CEO of White Glove Technologies in Austin, Texas, said. "The merger worked out well in retrospect. I think they turned the combined company into a strong channel company, which is what we were all concerned about as partners."

Wald was one of many HP/Compaq partners who, at the time, were skeptical of the move. Wald's company Riata Technologies (which merged with White Glove Technologies in 2010) was a loyal Compaq partner, and Wald didn't want to see his top vendor become part of HP. He was greatly concerned about the potential disruption in the channel, too.

--ML (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Compaq and HP: Ultimately, the Urge to Merge Was Right, Alice LaPlante, Stanford Graduate School of Business.--ML (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
• The Merger That Worked: Compaq and Hewlett-Packard, The Huffington Post.--ML (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard about the subject of Historical revisionism? This is a biography, and as such her tenure at HP, is fair game. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have no problems in presenting alternative views of her tenure, such as the one from Rob Wright, but proportionality has to be maintained as the prevalent viewpoint is that her tenure was disastrous in a number of fronts. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't fair game. Your comment is completely off the topic. If you actually read what I wrote then you will see that I don't think the whole article should be sweetness and light for Fiorina. What I stated is that the way the article is written now about her HP record is biased and one-sided and it should be balanced with the facts that HP still exists, HP still is one of the leading IT companies in the world, HP did not fall apart as many of Fiorina's original (2001/2002/2003) detractors said it would and that many of her critics have changed their minds. These are facts that the fact that the article does not present these facts make the article POV pushing. (Please, Anythingyouwant (talk), note what I just wrote.) The POV pushing needs to be calmed down. It is written and highly dramatic way, not encyclopedic. (Yes, some of the scare quotes have been removed.) It sometimes quotes bloggers like that lady from the LA Times, Robin Abcarian, who is non-notable and the article of hers we quote is a commentary! Misplaced Pages should not quote editorials to prove facts. I calmed down her rant, but her rant should have never been in the article. She is not professor of business, she is a blogger and political hack who was providing her opinion. It was clearly marked opinion and/or commentary. Her quote called the HP founder's saints!!! SAINTS! What hogwash. Why is an article about Fiorina calling the HP founders saints? Did H and P get sainthood from the pope recently and I just missed it. What a load of crap. The article needs the rest of the redundancy and hyperbole trimmed down. I did not say it should be removed entirely--so your point is irrelevant, but toned down and trimmed down. Yes, her tenure is fair game, but hyperbole ("sainted H & P" and "went down in flames") and the redundancy (Following her resignation from HP, CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com) has got to go.--ML (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you just admit above that you, and I quote you directly, "the prevalent viewpoint is that her tenure was disastrous in a number of fronts" what your point-of-view (POV) is that you are pushing. It is not up to you to decide what the "prevalent" POV should be, by definition that is POV pushing. Thank you, though, for making it clear what your POV is AND that you are determined to keep pushing it.--ML (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The prevalent POV is the prevalent POV based on the overwhelming number of sources that describe her tenure as a total disaster. Do you want a list? I'll research it and post it here. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And yes, I am determined to make this article compliant with the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If your comment above is true then why are you flat out stating that you are going to push your point of view? Let's deal with specifics, instead of your broad hyperbole ("non-negotiable policy"). Quoting non-notable bloggers from LA who say that Fiorina "went down in flames" is NOT NPOV, you matter how adamant you are about it.--ML (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there is an overabundance of commentary on Fiorina regarding her time at, and departure from, HP. My viewpoint is not based on any personal or political agenda or from a personal point of view but from someone attempting to copy edit and improve on an encyclopedia article. It occurs to me that while there is a (as CWO Beel put it) preponderance of negative commentary on Fiorina that outweighs the positive commentary, that doesn't mean this article has to do the same. It needs to be balanced. Not exactly 50/50, but more balanced than it is now. Further, it is greatly over-laden with quotations on Fiorina's time at HP. See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE for more. I continue to stand by WP:IMPARTIAL as policy in regard to the article's current imbalance toward the negative. Just because it exists, that doesn't mean we are compelled to include it. How many times do you need to say essentially the same thing and how many different ways do you need to say it? She has her detractors regarding HP and she has her supporters regarding HP. We aren't here to make sure every negative viewpoint that says essentially the same thing as the next person giving a negative viewpoint is quoted. We can paraphrase (within guidelines) and get the same result (fairly represent the negative) while keeping every reference. What exists currently is a very bloated and unbalanced section.

The continued mention of "false balance" is not really appropriate, either. The manner in which the term is being thrown around again and again in this discussion, one would think policy on such supports the viewpoint of those using said terminology. The only policy regarding "false balance" in articles is found here. Indeed, it refers to giving equal time to fringe and minority theories, not what it is being portrayed to mean: {{tq|"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Misplaced Pages policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world." We edit according to policy and guidelines. As one can see, policy on false balance isn't what's being presented here, as if we are editing against policy and guidelines by wanting the balance being discussed.

One more thought: The finger pointing and accusations need to stop. Such behavior is doing nothing helpful or constructive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

My concern remains about presenting a false balance. I agree with you that there is no need to cite the same criticism again and again, but we have to find a way to respect NPOV and not try to equate negative comments with positive ones, giving a minority viewpoint the same weight as the majority viewpoint. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Winkelvi. To be clear, I never stated that the article should only state positive things about Fiorina because it should state the problems at HP that are well-documented. BUT, as you point out above, there is no need to make the article overly long by saying the same thing over and over again, from different people. Also, "controversy" or "criticism" sections are frowned upon in Misplaced Pages and that is a fact. No amount of pointing at NPOV policy is going to make that go away. The section can be trimmed down (eliminate redundancy) and calmed down (remove the over the top language) and the negative information (with the addition of positive information) should be worked into other sections where the information applies. That's all I am requesting. I also don't see the point in engaging in heated battles throwing around clichés when we should be discussing the specifics how to change the article for the better. For example, I have offered the following as an example of pointless, needless redundancy: (Following her resignation from HP, CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com). I advocated for eliminating the redundancy there and incorporating one version of that into a section that talks about that issue. Let's focus on these specifics, instead of advocating for a certain point of view.--ML (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article, especially that section, is a mess of redundant comments and over the top language and a refusal to insert positive comments about Fiorina.--ML (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

We are under no obligation to insert positive or negative comments. We are here to create NPOV articles that reflect significant viewpoints regardless if these are negative or positive, and we are obliged not to present a false balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

And this comment above is an example of talking in generalities. It does not assist in the making the article better and it does not in any way dismiss or negate anything that I stated above. Everything you stated above is true, of course. But that misses the point. It is a generalized statement that really can't be argued against, but it does not make the article any less biased and repetitive, and has a whole section that is basically a frowned upon controversy section that could be trimmed and calmed down and incorporated into other sections.--ML (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we are under no obligation to present positive things. This is true, but it misses the point. If the article is written in such a way to refuse to present positive things that DO exist then we are pushing a POV. It is as simple that. Also, when we repeat the same negative material over and over again then we are pushing a POV. It is as simple as that. For example, the opening sentence says, "CBS News, USA Today and Portfolio.com ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." Why the need to list all three companies? Also, who made CBS News an expert in who is great CEO or USA Today? Wouldn't a more NEUTRAL presentation of that information merely state: "Fiorina has been named one of the worst CEOs, for her tenure at HP." (or something similar to this)??? Also, your concern is presenting the material in a NEUTRAL manner and I agree with your concern. You are not the only one that has that concern. I find the first sentence of the third paragraph to be NOT neutral and a sentence that needs to be calmed down: "Among other criticisms, Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated in regard to Fiorina being chosen to assist with the McCain presidential campaign: "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer."" First of all that sentence belongs not in a "Controversy" section but should be worked into the section about her work on the John McCain for President campaign. But it also basically quotes an adviser to Obama--McCain's foe--intimating that Fiorina should be in prison for her work as CEO of HP. That sentence is NOT neutral and it is needs to edited in three ways: (1) trimmed down, (2) moved to the McCain section, and (3) remove the references to prison. It is hyperbolic BS from a McCain opponents adviser. It is like quoting James Carville to get a sense of George H. W. Bush's economic policy.--ML (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE for more. Let me elaborate on one of Winkelvi's previous comments. He is absolutely right that the article has turned into a Quote Farm. I noticed that you, today, edited several of direct quotes of Carly. See here and here. And those edits seem to make sense. And in the edit summary you specifically referred to Quote Farm. I agree with you the article should not be a Quote Farm. But if you look at the Misplaced Pages policy violating section "Controversy" section (Criticism and praise) (it should be called Lots of Criticism and very little praise), you will also see a Quote Farm. (1) Info World: the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers, (2) In first sentence "worst CEO of all time" and then repeated again in the second sentence of the second paragraph, "worst CEO of all time", (3) Fortune Magazine: "most powerful woman in business", (4) Time: "most influential people in the world today", (5) Forbes: "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women", (6) Jeffrey Sonnenfeld: "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer", (7) Michael Useem: "Fiorina scored high on leadership style, but she failed to execute strategy", (8) Loren Steffy: "her failed plan to acquire part of Pricewaterhouse Coopers was justified", (9) Craig Barrett: "Carly Fiorina positioned HP for success ... Today, HP is a stronger company because of Carly Fiorina's bold action." The whole section is series of cherry-picked quotes. It is an essay. It is not encyclopedia entry. Some of these quotes need to be eliminated entirely. Some of them need to be paraphrased. All of the quotes need to be moved to the appropriate section, assuming they deserve to be retained at all. They ALL need to be trimmed down, calmed down, and moved to other sections (where they are appropriate to the topic of that section). And some of them need to be eliminated.--ML (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:UNDUE.. Now when you review the section you see that the section allow calls Fiorina "worst CEO of all time" in the first section of the section and then repeats the phrase in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the section. Also, when you review the "Resignation from Hewlett-Packard" section, which is right before the "Controversy" section you will see that it states: "She has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time The article repeats the same information, three different times in three different places. It is undue weight.--ML (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have merged the contents of the "criticism and praise" into the appropriate sections, and removed some redundant mentioning of the sources that ranked Florina as worst CEO. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also removed the duplicated entry about worst CEO. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What else? We need more useful suggestions. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Just added more on the positive criticism side. If anyone disagrees with its inclusion, please discuss it here first rather than just deleting or reverting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE

The recent addition , is WP:UNDUE. Sure, there are a few commentators that say that the merger was a success, but these are the minority viewpoint. But now it covers 2/3 of the section. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that it's undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, comments from four individuals equate 100 of sources that describe Fiorina's tenure as a disaster? Is that your position? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This is bordering on the ridiculous:

A contrasting picture of the merger and its result was offered by Alice LaPlante a writer for Stanford Business School website in 2007. She stated, "the consensus is that the merger was indeed a good idea." Business professor Robert Burgelman and former HP executive vice president, Webb McKinney who led HP's post-merger integration team, analyzed the merger following Fiornia's resignation. Their conclusion was that the merger was ultimately successful. Burgelman further concluded, "...it turned out to be a good move. But although the logic of the merger was correct, executing it was difficult". Burgleman and McKinney's analysis discovered that because HP's managers and employees were not given enough information on the ultimate benefits of the merger in the way of operational efficiency and costs, the company's leaders weren't equipped to better take advantage of the merger's possibilities. The analysis further showed that Fiorina's replacement, Mark Hurd, was able to do what his predecessor hadn't, thus making the merger work in HPs advantage.

References

1. ^ Alice LaPlante (June 1, 2007). "Compaq and HP: Ultimately, the Urge to Merge Was Right". Stanford Business School - Insights by Stanford Business. Retrieved August 10, 2015.

The opinion of the VP responsible for the post merger, and a business professor given all this space in a short section? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved to the section in which the merger is described. It still needs paring down as it is too much text for two relatively unknown commentators. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Stanford report is discussed in a recent Politifact analysis, along with a bunch of other sources. So this Stanford source seems acceptable for this Misplaced Pages article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree that is acceptable, but it needs to be summarized as it exceeds other relevant commentary. Otherwise we are giving it too much weight. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I have summarized their views, giving it the necessary weight amongst other commentators. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The re-placement of the content looks like a better choice. Moving on, I would like to discuss this: "Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization" at the opening of the fourth paragraph, HP section. The way it reads seems less than neutral to me. As if it could lead a reader to believe we are saying she was posing as a globalization realist rather than that's what she was. Ideas on how we can reword for complete NPOV? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Better now? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for taking care of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Have removed more undue weight. This time, from the early life section: Fiorina's father's occupations and career path need not be gone into in this article. He has an article, it's linked, therefore anyone who wants to learn more about him may do so there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Political career

This material is begin described as not compliant with NPOV by MaverickLittle, straight after other comments from a similarly biased source (the VP in charge of the implementation of the merger), was argued for inclusion.

Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated in regard to Fiorina being chosen to assist with the McCain presidential campaign: "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer." In 2005, Wharton School of Business professor Michael Useem opined, "Fiorina scored high on leadership style, but she failed to execute strategy".

References

1. President Fiorina? How Carly did at HP, USA Today (May 4, 2015).
2. Bumiller, Elisabeth (June 6, 2008). "Ousted Executive Provides a Feminine Face to the McCain Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved May 9, 2015.
3. HP After Carly: What Went Wrong?, "Knowledge@Wharton", Wharton School (March 30, 2005).

We can't have it both ways. Material that is properly attributed and that are properly sourced, even if they are not "neutral" are useful material and don't violate policy. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Editing this document is not a zero sum game ("we can't have it both ways") as if we don't use this particular quote then the article is not neutral--that is a bald faced false choice. As a matter of fact, it is not a game at all. It is not the only problem left with the article. There are many, many more POV issues but I'm not going to go over them tonight. But as for this particular matter. Sonnenfeld has been quoted concerning Fiorina over and over again in multiple reliable sources over many, many years (10 years). We don't need to use the quote where he basically implies that Fiorina belongs in prison. There are other, less inflammatory, quotes where he comments on Fiorina. It is an over the top quote and it pushes the article outside of the goal, which is a NEUTRAL POV article. There is a quote where he gives Fiorina a C/C+ for her time as CEO for example. This type of quote (where he basically says that she should be happy she isn't in prison) would NEVER make into an article about Hillary Clinton, nor should it.--ML (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

What has this to do with Hilary Clinton? If you want to comment on that article, there is a talk page for that. I will paraphrase Sonnenfeld comment instead of quoting directtly if the metaphor he used bothers you. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note concerning Clinton: You are right this article is not about Clinton, but that misses the point. Neutral is neutral. Period. If don't allow flamethrowing comments in the article about Clinton (which is right way to keep the article neutral) then we should not have a policy that allows flamethrowing comments in the article about Fiorina. That's was my point and I will ask the question again, in the future, would we allow that type of comment in the Hillary article and if the answer, in the future, is no then it should not be used.--ML (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits.--ML (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

When there is a boatload of sources, then we should be deliberately choosing the highest quality references. Academic references from scholarly pieces when possible, or review pieces that attempt to describe her or her involvement in a situation in context. So, primary sources that are opinion pieces or written by people close to a situation should be depreciated in favor of higher quality references. When possible, I encourage everyone to replace direct quotes about her from political opponents with review articles that put the comments in context. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 15:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Sonnefeld was involved closely in the whole HP/Compaq merger debate, on the side of the H & P Families, in direct opposition to Fiorina. He was actively assisting those families in their proxy fight with Fiorina. He is still on the payroll of the H & P Families as a consultant. He is not a high quality source. There are better quality sources that can be quoted than Sonnefeld. One indicator of his lack of subjectivity is the fact that in the quote used in this article he basically states that she should be happy she is not in prison, or she is one step from prison, etc. It is a flamethrowing comment from a source that is directly, personally, financially involved in seeing Fiorina fail and/or damage her reputation or the damaging the reputation of the merger. He is a poor, poor quality source. Yes, we should be using higher quality sources from more objective sources. That is a fact with which I agree.--ML (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Example of a Very Poor Source. Sonnefeld is a poor source because he is directly involved seeing Fiorina's failure, but there are other poor sources in the article. Another example is this one from the third paragraph of the section entitled, "Republican National Committee fundraising chair and 2008 campaign": After media coverage of Fiorina's comments, CNN reported a top campaign advisor for McCain said, "Carly will now disappear...Senator McCain was furious." We don't even know who said this. It is a completely anonymous quote. The same information can be presented in the article from someone whose name we know. There is a "boatload of sources" to back up the exact same sentiment. We don't need to be quoting a anonymous source that may or may not exist. That needs to be substituted with a better source.--ML (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

So do it... You can research and find better sources, I can't do it all on my own - Cwobeel (talk) 17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Cwobeel: Don't assume that I told you to do it. I was just explaining what I am going to do. But I can't do it right now because I have a real job that pays me real money so I win get to it when I can. I probably won't get to it until this evening. Thank you for working with me on these issues.--ML (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried, but I can tell you that finding "Academic references from scholarly pieces" is not an easy task. I searched and there is not much. This means that we have to use what we have, as whitewashing is not an option as it will fail WP:NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I found a neutral reliable source to present exact same information in a unbiased way. I did notice that you made a reasonable edit to my edit, but you had to add in the edit summary the following backbite: "making sense of a sentence /c/e". Good job. Also, there was no "whitewash" of the previous information that was just more unnecessary melodrama.--ML (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey relax, that edit summary was not intended as a backbite. Lets not make this personal OK? We have been doing pretty good over past few days in responding to POV concerns and improving the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough.--ML (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle said that Sonnenfeld was not a reliable source, but the point is that Sonnenfeld was quoted by others, so Sonnenfeld is not actually our source. We're not looking, for instance, at an op-ed written by Sonnenfeld himself. His pronouncements about Fiorina have been quoted by reliable sources, making the quotes both reliable and significant to Fiorina. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't removed the Sonnefeld quote. I just made the point that he is person whose job is to attack Fiorina. He gets paid to attack Fiorina. He is paid by the members of the Packard and Hewlett families to attack Fiorina in as many newspaper articles as possible. This is a fact. There is no speculation over this. I realize that we are quoting reliable sources. But there are many, many attack quotes from him and we cherry-picked the one where he obliquely implies that she should be in prison. Prison was his word. He is a paid consultant to Walter and William Hewlett. Part of his consulting gig is to attack Fiorina relentlessly. We don't mention this fact in the article whatsoever. We quote him like he is an objective outside source, but he isn't. I have made the analogy that it is like quoting James Carville about what his take is on George H. W. Bush economic policy. Carville is biased source toward Bush, that's a fact and so is Sonnefeld.--ML (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

We quote him as reliable because his opinion is considered important by our reliable sources. It doesn't matter if he boils children and eats them. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And that comment is hogwash. We would not quote Charles Manson.--ML (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

That comment is horse hockey. We are editors. We decide what is undue weight and what isn't. Your comment is what outside the basics of three pillars of Wikipeida. It isn't even close to reality. We do not just take every single comment made in reliable sources and jam them into the articles. That is hogwash and horse hockey. I'm not saying we should not quote Sonnenfeld. I just think that, as editor FloNight, pointed out we should pick and choose our sources wisely--especially if we have boatloads of them, which we do in Sonnenfeld's situation, since he is paid hack for the Packard and Hewlett families. And yes it would be relevant if he "boils children and eats them". What hogwash! That's a nonsensical statement.--ML (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"He gets paid to attack Fiorina. He is paid by the members of the Packard and Hewlett families to attack Fiorina in as many newspaper articles as possible. This is a fact." According to whom/what in the way of a reliable source is this fact? Further, Carville is not biased toward, but biased against GW Bush. That's what you were trying to say, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"For instance, Sonnenfeld said he has been critical of Hewlett-Packard, giving Carly Fiorina low grades as a CEO and calling the pay package for her successor Mark Hurd “a ‘damning indictment’ of CEO hiring contracts,” in the Seattle Times in 2010. Hewlett-Packard has been a sponsor of Sonnenfeld’s non-profit in the past. Although Sonnenfeld did come to HP’s defense when its board suddenly decided to fire Hurd after allegations that he had had an inappropriate relationship with an “adult” actress HP had hired to act as a hostess at client events." #1 Example: DuPont activist battle spreads from Wall Street to academia.--ML (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Example #2: Being friends with Yale prof Sonnenfeld has its benefits--ML (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• Example #3: The Big Lie: Spying, Scandal, and Ethical Collapse at Hewlett Packard.--ML (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The first example you provided is from an unreliable source per Misplaced Pages standards. The second example you provided is from a book that doesn't - from what I can tell - give any hard evidence that Sonnenfeld is what you say he is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC).

More hogwash. What I gave you is all from reliable sources. I don't want to hear hogwash about how the NY Post is not reliable. It doesn't matter anyway because I'm not putting these particular quotes in the article. I provided proof that Sonnefeld has worked for the HP Board, during the Fiorina deal and he was part of the drama that unfolded at HP, an active participant. I'm going to edit the quote regardless of your comments above. There are better sources for the information and nothing you have said change that fact.--ML (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You may not want to hear it, but the NYP is not a reliable source. Especially for a BLP. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I notice I have to repeat things with you because you don't seem to either understand or don't read them the first time: It does not matter because I did not use the NY Post article for a quote. Also, it is not proper to use the NY Post Page 6 section, that is clearly gossip, but the other sections are fair game, as long as they provide new information that cannot be found in a better source. But once, again, I will repeat for you, it does not matter because I did not use that quote in the article just to make my point, which, of course, was correct.--ML (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Further, MaverickLittle, when you make comments (as above) that say you're going to do something whether other editors disagree with you or not, it's not a sign of good faith editing or wanting to collaborate. It's worrisome, frankly. Misplaced Pages is a community effort, not one where we work in individual vacuums. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I worry that you will not engage in constructive discussion. You editing and your comment is worrisome. So there, what good for the goose is good for the gander. Now, this conversation was a total waste of time because it did not make the article better in any way whatsoever, it only made you feel better because you got to give out a lecture. This page should be dedicated to a more constructive use about how to make the article better, not your pointless lectures. I don't have anything to apologize for or change.--ML (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, you keep deleting that content while there is emerging consensus for its inclusion. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I am going to be bold and make edits to make the article better. That is what I have been doing. The article was a total POV mess when I got here. I remember that the article at one point had a graph of HP stock chart that was home-made (not from a reliable source) that had false information in it and it present the false impression that the stock price drop much, much worst than it truly was. It just flat out made up numbers. I had to fight with you to get that removed. That is true. Now, what I did with the Sonnenfeld quote is that I improved it. I focused on the actual substance of what Sonnenfeld was being critical of (Fiorina's leadership style) instead of the way the quote was before I edited, which basically said that Sonnenfeld thinks McCain was stupid for picking a loser. There was no substance, just juvenile Fiorina bad and McCain is stupid, which is not encyclopedic and it does NOT follow the basic principal of neutrality. Sonnenfeld substance was added and the juvenile raspberry was removed.--ML (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Removed the juvenile raspberry again--not needed to express the main point.--ML (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Because you are relatively new here, I'm going to point some things out to you that you will want to consider, ML:

• A statement like "I don't know what you are talking about. I am going to be bold and make edits to make the article better.", in the midst of all the discussion here and by ignoring the discussion, your words pretty much read like "I didn't hear that!".

• A statement like "The article was a total POV mess when I got here." reads like "This article needs me to fix it". The truth is, Misplaced Pages doesn't need you or me or any of us. There are tens of thousands (or more, I think) Misplaced Pages editors out there in the world. Please read WP:WPDNNY for more.

• When you say "the article at one point had a graph of HP stock chart that was home-made (not from a reliable source) that had false information in it", please remember that Misplaced Pages is a work in progress and will never be "finished" nor will it be perfect.

• I see a lot of self-focus on what you are doing, what you want, what you think you are entitled to do, etc. For example, in just the paragraph above, you wrote: "I am going to...what I have been doing... when I got here...I remember...I had to fight...what I did...I improved it...I focused on...I edited". Please read WP:TEAMWORK, take it to heart, and remember that you aren't here all alone. There are others who would like to work on this article peacefully. And, while you're at it (because the preponderance of "I" comments from you above reminded me of this) see WP:OWN.

As Cwobeel has already pointed out a few posts above, you really don't need to be so defensive. We are all trying to improve the article. Working together is a much more pleasant experience, and achieves more toward the ultimate goal: improving the encyclopedia. Please take these comments as they are intended: friendly, good faith suggestions. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You can read into the comment whatever you want. But your comment does not change the fact that my edits are constructive, follow neutral POV, and are supported by reliable sources and you, personally, don't like my edits. But it is not all about you all the time.--ML (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a total mess when I got here and I am not going to apologize for the work I put into it. And I am not going to read some hogwash essay that you think I need to read because the truth is I don't want to and I don't have to. You should re-read and report back to all of us.--ML (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, duh, but that stock chart was a travesty of false information and never should have been in the article ever.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to apologize for. What a waste of time your comments are.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I have noted before, I have been following your talk page and the comments you have been leaving for me and I can only say that you need to follow your advice because you don't practice what you preach. It is as simple as that, otherwise you would not have all of the fights with the vast number of people that you are fighting with at any one time. If you were to follow your own advice and stop lecturing others and follow what you preach then you would not be in constant fights with other editors.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have moved your individual comments from where you placed them in between each of my own comments to you. In the future, MaverickLittle, don't respond as you did. If you want to make your own point-by-point comments, individually addressing what's been said to you, find another way to do it. What you ended up doing was essentially WP:REFACTORING what I wrote, and not in an acceptable manner. Respond to editors on talk pages after their signature, not in the middle of what they've written.

Addressing your response(s), I will just say this: if you continue with the attitude and aggressiveness you're still exhibiting, don't claim ignorance of policy and guidelines when you end up at a noticeboard. I've provided plenty of policy and guidelines here for you to look into, however, your response is "I don't need to read it". So be it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Stop with the lectures. You are flat out wrong. The essay that I did not read and will not read is NOT a policy and no matter of your hogwash will not make it a policy. You are only lecturing me because you think you can make me stop editing the article because none of my edits violate Misplaced Pages policy. If they did then you would be calling admins all day long, but instead you are just making random lectures about things you refuse to do yourself.--ML (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly source

In a post on one of the above sections, FloNight suggested we look for "academic references from scholarly pieces". I did some research and found this case study

References

1. David Beim; Ralph Biggadike; Franklin Edwards; Daniel Sorid. "Corporate Governance at Hewlett-Packard 1999-2005" (PDF). Columbia Business School. Retrieved 13 August 2015.

There is good material there that can be used to improve the article as it pertains to Fiorina's tenure at HP. I will slowly start adding from it, and I encourage others to do the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a good thing. Now, we can wean out the quotes from <violation of wp:blp removed> Jeff Sonnenfeld <violation of wp:blp removed>.--ML (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• NOTE: Per WP:TPO, I have removed two comments which were, in my estimation, violations of WP:BLP policy on possibly libelous commentary. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, you have to give real evidence that Sonnenfeld's commentary is what you say and is not acceptable per Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. I do not have to do that at all. All I have to do is find a quote that better, and there are many of them, and replace the poor source with a better source. So, once again, your comment is pointless and wrong.--ML (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is another one:

References

1. "LEADERSHIP CHALLENGES AT HEWLETT-PACKARD: THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS". Stanford Graduate School of Business. Retrieved 14 August 2015.

Fortune 20 company

I don't think there is such a denomination: - Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

These are the words taken directly from the reliable source.--ML (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

If Fortune itself doesn't list a "Fortune 20", then said reliable source is obviously not reliable enough on this point. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's rich. The reliable source that I am referring to is Fortune magazine. You didn't even look. You just wanted to disagree with anything that I say.--ML (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Doing a quick look on search term "Fortune 20", nothing comes up. From Fortune I see "Fortune Most Admired Companies: Top 20", but nothing on the nomenclature you are using. It needs to be removed as non-existant. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

OMG: Dude, really? The article currently quotes directly from two different issues of Fortune magazine. Look at the article first. Obviously, you didn't look before you disagreed with me. That's obvious. That's an example of how you don't follow your own advice. But you could have started with the article, at least. But of course you didn't check first because that would have meant following your own advice. Please see: Carly Fiorina talks tough In a Fortune interview, the former Hewlett-Packard chief talks about what she learned during her tumultuous tenure, FORTUNE Magazine, By Matthew Boyle, Fortune writer, October 24 2007: 9:12 AM EDT, "(Fortune Magazine) --Carly Fiorina didn't just break the glass ceiling, she obliterated it, as the first woman to lead a FORTUNE 20 company."--ML (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Because it's not supported with other sources and because it's included in brackets within the interview/article, I think at the very least, it's questionable. People misspeak in interviews all the time. Until we find something outside the one source, I don't think it should be included in the lede and needs to be reworded. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No. You are looking at the wrong Fortune magazine article you need to look at the one that I provided above. This is another example of how you don't follow your own advice. I gave you a link to the correct link and you did not review it. You need to look at the one written by this man: Bloomberg's Matthew Boyle, formerly of Fortune. You can find the correct link here: Here is the link to the correct article please read the comment of others".--ML (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the article/reference attached to the statement in the lede. Since it's being used as a reference, I don't see how it's the wrong one, it's just not the one you are referring to. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course, you read the wrong one because the article I referred to did not put anything in brackets. It is a Fortune magazine article that by a Fortune magazine writer who uses the phrase "Fortune 20" in the article. There is nothing clearer. So if you count the article that you are referring to, which is obviously different, then there are at least two articles from Fortune magazine with the same phrase. So to take this to its logical conclusion, when you said that there might be a situation where someone "misspoke" then your objection makes no sense.--ML (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Another reliable source: National Public Radio talking about Carly Fiorina.--ML (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• msnbc--ML (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Time--ML (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Politico--ML (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• 3rd Example of Fortune magazine, BOOM!--ML (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• USA Today--ML (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• US News & World Report--ML (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• National Journal--ML (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• New Republic--ML (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Wall Street Journal--ML (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Slate--ML (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Women's Health--ML (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• International Business Times--ML (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• InfoWorld--ML (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Associated Press as quoted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press--ML (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Washington Post--ML (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• The Hill--ML (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Bloomberg--ML (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Tough Choices: A Memoir, By Carly Fiorina--ML (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• The Nation--ML (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Palm Beach Post--ML (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• London Telegraph--ML (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Christian Science Monitor--ML (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• Power, Politics, and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game, By David Buchanan, Richard Badham--ML (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• The National Review--ML (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do when sources get it wrong. But indeed, Fortune does not have a "20" category. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The have Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000, and a bunch of others for specific industries. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably what these sources wanted to say was that HP in the top 20 on its Fortune 500 list. See:

• http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1999/
• http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/2005/

- Cwobeel (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Agree. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

With that evidence, I see no reason why not to use "as the first woman to lead a company in the top 20 as ranked by Fortune" - Cwobeel (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed in lede, left the other mention as it is an attributed quote. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The change is appropriate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

• Good. Let's move on. Fine bit of Googling, User:MaverickLittle. Cwobeel, Winkelvi, that's the most teethgnashing "yeah, you got a point" I ever heard. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I was quite relaxed, myself. Nary an instance of TMJ or the need for dentures. :-). Kinda felt like CWO and I just sat back, watched it all unfold, and when it was all over said (once again), "Here's a solution". The solution was implemented simply and without bloodletting. A win-win all around, I'd say! -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources call it fortune 20 then it is fortune 20, just because they don't have a standalone list for it does not mean anything. Fortune themselves call it that and other sources back it up. It is that simple. Jadeslair (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Not that simple at all. Fortune may refer to it, but they don't name it as an actual ranking list that means anything: see here. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Fortune 20 does not mean anything. It is just a term used. So we should probably only put the terms like list or ranking when used by the source when referring the the actual list. It does tell me that the company was in the top 20 at the time. Was it in the top 20? Jadeslair (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

yes it was. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs needed in lead

The lead presently says:

Molina, Brett (May 5, 2015). "3 numbers that define the Fiorina era at HP". USA Today. Retrieved 2015-05-10.

"Meet the Press Interview with Carly Fiorina". Retrieved 2015-05-11.

Reference doesn't say a word about the reasons for her resignation. And reference is a dead link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this material, since the footnotes do not support the text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Refs are in the article body:

In early January 2005, the Hewlett-Packard board of directors discussed with Fiorina a list of issues that the board had regarding the company's performance. The board proposed a plan to shift her authority to HP division heads, which Fiorina resisted.

References

1. Tam, Pui-Wing (10 February 2005). "H-P's Board Ousts Fiorina as CEO". The Wall Street Journal (www.wsj.com). Dow Jones & Company, Inc. Retrieved May 9, 2015. Ms. Fiorina's ouster reflects increasingly clear strategic problems at H-P. The company faces fierce competition from Dell Inc. in personal computers and International Business Machines Corp. in computer services and corporate computing.
2. Burrows, Peter; Elgin, Ben (March 14, 2005). "The Surprise Player Behind The Coup At HP". BusinessWeek. Retrieved May 9, 2015.

There is no need to have refs in the lede, providing we have them in the article's body text. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have refs in the lead, they should be good refs instead of lousy refs. I'll take a look at these further refs now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Redundant: The HP Way

One editor just added another statement that says that Fiorina ruined the HP Way, using a Stanford Biz school article--which was the third repetition of the idea in the same section of the article. It was added to the last sentence of the 3rd paragraph of the HP section of the article. It is the best citation for the idea. The problem is that the editor just added it without removing the two other references to the idea in the article. There is no need to have the same idea repeated over and over and over (3 times) again in the article. I just removed one that was tucked in the resignation section because that reference was based upon the editorial opinion of a writer in the LA Times. However, the same idea is repeated in a different manner in the seventh paragraph of the HP section of the article. There is no need to repeat the same negative information over and over again. The new addition has the best reliable source, a scholarly source, so I believe the other citation is not needed and should be removed. The idea is not to repeat the same information with better reliable sources but to find better reliable sources and remove the weak, poor sources and merely state the information one time in the article. The idea of using better, more scholarly sources was not to turn the article in a series of repetitive statements.--ML (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the HP Way topic is not the only topic that is repeated over and over again in the article. There are others and they will need to be fixed.--ML (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

YOur edit summary states you believe repetition of content proves POV editing. Just so you know, WP:AGF should be exercised to editors we know, we edit with, and even those whom we are unaware of. You should do the same at this article and not assume mal-intent. It's very possible that over time, various individual editors added the content now seen by you as redundant without realizing similar content was already present. Please give the benefit of the doubt. On talk pages as well as in edit summaries. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment above is filled with incorrect information. I did not say that there was any POV editing. That is not true. Please tell the truth. I did not mention the editor by name that put the 3rd reference in the article and I did not say it was "proof" of POV editing. That is pure extrapolation on your part. Do not read into the comments that are not there. That is you. Please stop. All I said was and it is true is that repeating the information makes the article lose its NPOV and there is absolutely nothing wrong with making that point. Please stop with the false and incorrect lectures and warnings. The article must not have the repetition and it must be removed. It is irrelevant how or who put it there but it must go and it will.--ML (talk) 01:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You said it in your edit summary when creating this discussion section: "The repetition of various topics makes the article POV". Such a statement is not helpful. If you are going to make such declarations, please also include some solutions. That would be helpful. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did say that in the edit summary because it is true. It does not attack anyone and it does not blame anyone. It merely states a fact and yes it is very, very helpful. Now, you might not like me pointing out how the article is seriously flawed but pointing out the problems with the article is how we get to fixing the article. I will not ever stop pointing out the flaws with the article as long as they are there--as long as they cause the article to be out of whack with NPOV. I'm sorry if you don't want to hear about it, but it has to be said if the problem is going to get fixed then we need to know what the problem is. It is very, very helpful. You saying that it is not helpful is simply not true. That is bogus. To fix a problem you have to know what that problem is. Also, below I have outlined how to fix the problem. The HP section of the article needs to broken down into smaller pieces and focus on various topics of the HP section that will allow us to find and fix the repetition and the rambling nature of the section. Yes, I pointed out the problems with the article and that was very, very helpful and I provided a solution to the problem so your comment that I am not providing solutions is just flat out not correct.--ML (talk) 02:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeating negative information in the article over and over again does affect the NPOV of the article and that is a fact. There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out this fact. We need to remove the overly long and repetitive nature of the HP section of the article. It is way, way too long. It repeats the same concepts over and over again. It still needs to be trimmed down. It probably should be divided into smaller pieces so the repetition can be tracked down and eliminated. It is poorly written, not only because it repeats the same concepts (some negative some positive), but it also rambles and circles around. If it is broken down into smaller topics of her HP work period then the repetition and the rambling can be eliminated. As it is now the article is not NPOV and that needs to be fixed.--ML (talk) 01:59, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason I believe that cutting the HP section into smaller pieces will work is that topic of the smaller sections will hold all the information for that topic instead of repeating it in other places. For example in the 2010 Senate section there is a great amount of verbiage on Fiorina's views on LBGT issues. But there is a fairly large section on LBGT issues, as a stand alone, in the political position section. The info in the 2010 election section and the info in the LBGT section need to be combined in the LBGT section and whatever is repetitive (and a lot of it is) should be eliminated to trim down the article. That was damn good suggestion and a damn good solution.--ML (talk) 02:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Good feedback, thanks. I have created subsections for the HP main section, and moved the accolades and criticisms of her business career into a separate section, for NPOV. Now that it is organized, we can expand some of these sections using best sources available. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

One thing is for certain, rather than reducing the material in the HP section, it needs to be expanded, given that this is the main accomplishment (so far) of the subject of this article. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, the point is trimming redundant material, not reducing material. The two are different.--ML (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's your point and focus, that's clear. It's not necessarily the point and focus of anyone else. The focus needs to be improving the article. If that means expanding, then, we change as needed. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 11:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comment once again misses the point. I never said to do anything that doesn't improve the article. So did your comment improve the article? No.--ML (talk) 16:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop the nonsense. Focus on the contributions, not the contributors. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. WV's comment was absolute nonsense. I agree.--ML (talk) 23:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Again? I was referring to your comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

And I was referring to his. Also, if you really don't want the conversation to keep going why are participating in it? You need to focus on constructive edits.--ML (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Nothing is changing, MaverickLittle -- you are just as rude as you were when you told Drmies you would stop and change your ways. Enough. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. You should not be rude such as when you told me that my comments "were not helpful" when they were completely helpful. Please stop being rude. Nothing in your behavior has changed.--ML (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Reception again?

"Reception" is not accurate and really means nothing in relation to the content in the section. It needs something the truly reflects what's there. Like I said a few days ago, Fiorina's not a movie or TV show. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:58, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

"Business Career > Reception" is a good name of a section that describes how Fiorina was received as it pertains to her business career. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I don't think it's good at all. If you look for synonyms for "Reception", they really don't follow what we're going for (or should be going for). Why not just "Criticism"? That, at least, makes sense and covers both negative and positive. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:05, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

If you have a better name for that section, go ahead. - Cwobeel (talk) 05:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

The fault lies in even having a "criticism" section. Compare the BLPs of other contemporary and controversial figures:

• Donald Trump - no separate section listing his faults and failings; they're just included in the appropriate sections.
• Hillary Clinton - instead of "reception"--which really doesn't apply to a person--there's a section called "Cultural and political image."
• Barack Obama - likewise has a section "Cultural and political image," with a link to an article, Public image of Barack Obama. YoPienso (talk) 07:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Gulfstream

From the Stamford paper

The Wall Street Journal described her as epitomizing “an alluring, controversial new breed of chief executive officers who combine grand visions with charismatic but self-centered and demanding styles.” (As a case in point, whereas Platt had travelled by coach, Fiorina asked HP to purchase a $30 million Gulfstream IV for her use. See George Anders, “H-P Board Ousts Fiorina as CEO,” The Wall Street Journal, Feb. 10, 2005.)

. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Added source and quote to buttress these claims. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Be careful when using sources

MaverickLittle please be careful when using sources. You can't take a comment by Fiorina made about the HP board in relation to her firing in 2005 , and present it as a criticism of the board behavior in 2001. Do I have to check all your edits, or will you pay more attention from now on? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, you are putting words in Fiorina's mouth that she did not utter. Please be careful as this is a BLP and under discretionary sanctions. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class California articles
• Mid-importance California articles
• WikiProject California articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Mid-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism articles
• Misplaced Pages requested images of business and economics people