Talk:Carly Fiorina

"Business leadership activities": verify and restore/delete and ignore?

Under the "Media" section of this article, it reads at the end:

"Fiorina has been, and continues to be….

...involved with many business leadership activities including:

• Leadership summits run by Bill Hybels[85]
• Business Executives for National Security[86]
• The Wall Street Journal's D Conference (All Things Digital) in Carlsbad, California[87]
• Cyberposium[88][89]
• Lead21[90]
• Texas Conference for Women[91]
• Texas Monthly Talks[92]
• The Women's Conference[93]
• Willow Creek Association[94]
• Willow Creek Community Church[95]"

I have a problem with this information in the above. Some of the links have since gone dead, broken… victims of link rot. I was able to re-validate one of the mentions for the "Cyberposium '99"; but, frankly, it almost seems silly. This now occurred many years ago, whereas it was simply a speaking engagement and an appearance. Public personalities do engagements like this quite frequently, but I'm not sure why we need a long list of them here. Is this rather trivial or is it really important? Is it worth re-looking up all these sources and trying to verify them, especially if they appear to be old and less relevant? For example, more than 15 years later, I'm not sure how many people really care about an academic conference at Harvard…. aside from any in the present, for that matter. They could be well outdated and of less significance. (By the way, also notice that I left the dead link #88, while adding the new live #89. I'm not sure what to do about that, either). Ca.papavero (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

REMOVED: The above said mentions were removed by User:Cwobeel as of 30 April 2015. Unless we can substantiate these references, or show that they're really significant, I'd suggest leaving them out of the article. Meanwhile, so noted in the above. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared…"

There as paragraph that needs better citations and relevance:

"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared at many public events. She rang the opening bell of the Wall Street stock market on the official day of the HP-Compaq merger and in 2000 she was the ceremonial host opening the largest EasyInternetcafé at Times Square and the opening of the Epcot ride Mission: SPACE.[74] In 2004, Fiorina was a member of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, which produced a report for George W. Bush. She has appeared many times on TV such as in 2007 on Real Time with Bill Maher." I could not find anything on her ringing the opening bell at Wall Street… but, there's probably questions. Can anyone verify this? Ca.papavero (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. Real Time w/ Bill Maher, per Wikipedia's own List of Real Time with Bill Maher episodes, Fiorina has so far appeared a total of three times only: first as of 17 February 2007; second as of 24 January 2014; third as of 9 January 2015. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am looking at the notes here, as I remember them from a while ago now. I noted the above, then some other editors decided to eliminate it. There seemed to be no objections to that. Now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large. That's since become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable. See this Talk Page, also on that topic. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Section continuity; flow of Fiorina's overall career

Looking back at the older talk pages about Fiorina, I realize that there's been lot's of debate about both her status and role at large; whereas, I believe that this may have had some impact on how the sections flow from one to another as it discusses how her career has changed. Currently, they go as follows:

1 Early life

2 Education and early career

2.1 AT&T and Lucent

2.2 Hewlett-Packard

2.3 After HP

3 Media career

4 Politics

4.1 Senate candidacy

4.2 Advocacy

4.3 Potential 2016 Presidential run

5 Personal life

I'm not really sure that her time at both ATT&T, HP and other major companies should be lumped together and considered together as "Education and early career." Perhaps her higher education could be considered one aspect of her life; but, those other jobs should be more appropriately and seriously considered as her "Career as a corporate executive" per se. At that, we're not yet sure she has rested this career path.

I don't think the next passage should be titled "After HP." That's rather like an understatement to what she's actually doing. Aside from her actual positions therein, we don't necessarily know how long she's had such relationships with these entities, as well as that she may well still maintain some of these positions and relationships, ongoing. Maybe this should say something like "(Other) organizational board and chair positions." It's not atypical for any high-level CEO, at one point later in their life, to turn away from direct, principle administrative roles; but, nevertheless continue advising and having other contributions on boards, committees and so on.

From there, her role from "Media career" to "Politics" to Senate Candidacy" to "Advocacy and even "Potential 2016 Presidential run" blurs. Improvements to the overall timeline of her works have been made within this article; but, it in some ways, her role in each of these passages is not altogether definable, discernible or even differentiating. Partly, this is Fiorina's own public relations creation; but, perhaps, this article needs to make better sense of these considerations and her work, regardless. Is she a media spokesperson, politician, politico, pundit, advocate, political advisor? We're not entirely sure, perhaps, but we should try to better convey her career and work evolution, instead of falling into what's a somewhat a choppy presentation. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. It is a bit messy and choppy. The tone of the article was more akin to a PR exercise than a WP bio, which was off putting when I read it first. I made a few changes, but it need a lot of work. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay… that's a good start. I took a glance at the "Contents" section and it looks like you comprehend what I was saying. I think you probably helped with the logic and progression. I'll have to read through again and see if it all jives per you own and and my analysis. Thanks.Ca.papavero (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

At least now we have a rational structure. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. User:Cwobeel: Okay, I read through the article and it does make lots more rational flow. I was impressed with your work… I realize you did a lot. Not easy. I still had a few questionable matters as I was reading between the lines; but, it's all much more workable now. Just as one of the things I noticed, is that you questioned when Up-Project began. It didn't occur to me to add the date at the lead of the paragraph (good idea), but I did include the state filing of the "incorporation date" with its citation (later in the paragraph). Would that suffice? Unless we can find evidence of the website being launched before becoming an LLC (such as from a news article or press release), then I would think this would be its official date. I guess you could do an internet domain registration search to find out when the domain name was created and purchased, if you want to go that far and think its pertinent? So far as I can tell, I'm not sure how much more this LLC does, other than own and manage the website. Doing an internet search for news about Up-Project, I actually only found two short pages of news that's mostly from 2014 to 2015. So, that provides a bit of a clue, although we should seek more insight about this and her other entities.Ca.papavero (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up re. UP-Project and its launch date(s): I did a Whois search and found that it clarified things, such as differences between the formation of the LLC and its website. This also provided insight to domain name registration, administration; plus, Fiorina's other associated persons and entities (e.g. Sadler, Koch Industries, etc.)

Further modifications to timeline and table of contents: After realizing how UP-Project was misplaced within the timeline, I then realized several other sections that were not logical. So, I not only moved sections around to better represent the course of history; but, I also separated her "business career" from those of her "transition" years and, then, those of her "political career." I think this will be much more clear and logical; but, even still, I am noticing some time gaps in the politics section. It's not all that terrible, from what I can so far tell, but it can be improved. Take, for example, that the section on politics reverts back to year 2006 to 2008, when Fiorina was working on Senator John McCain's presidential campaign. Then, it continues on again and catches up with events from 2009 and onward. That's while the previous section discusses her biographies, autobiographies and her persona within Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; plus its controversy. Fiorina's "transition" period isn't really dealing with her role in politics. At that time, it's really just discussing the change of her public persona, per se. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS modifications and timeline as of Friday 8 May 2015:

3 Business Career

3.1 AT&T and Lucent

3.2 Hewlett-Packard (HP)

3.2.1 Forced resignation from HP

4 Transition of career and public persona

4.1 Disputed claims as "most powerful woman" versus "worst CEO"

4.2 Biography and autobiography

4.3 Personal transition, via other organizational designations

4.4 Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; controversy

This change primarily moves disputed claims for "Most Powerful Woman" v. "Worst CEO" out from the section for Business Career and to that of Transition of career and public persona. This highlights the dispute in regards to her public persona within one section of the article, instead of having it scattered continuously throughout…. that's rather haphazardly, tirelessly going tit-for-tat. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: For comparison to the above, more changes have occurred as of Sunday 10 May 2015. The table of contents now appears as the following:

1 Early life

2 Education

3 Business Career

3.1 AT&T and Lucent

3.2 Hewlett-Packard (HP)

3.2.1 Forced resignation from HP

4 Transition of career and public persona

4.1 Fluctuating appraisals

4.2 Biography and autobiography

4.3 Other organizational involvement

4.4 Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation

5 Political career

5.1 Senate candidacy

5.2 Unlocking Potential Project

5.3 Advocate at large

5.4 2016 presidential campaign

6 Personal life

7 References

8 Further reading

9 External links

The changes are also being made in the lead section, not a part of this above Table of Contents. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

:I've vetted many of Fiorina's "other organizational designations," now re-titled under the sub-header "Other organizational involvement." It appears that she had received many of these designations just after her exit from HP and sometime before her run for U.S. Senator, whereas she may have only served for a year or so. That's either before resigning or if that organization merged, went out business and so on. I think the additional notations therein this paragraph that lists all these designations, also now shows her role and participation therein. I believe it should remain as such, because this was really the transitional point of her career and shows her involvement at those organizations. At one point, just after leaving HP, this became part of her remaining credentials, per se. So, what's been added into that paragraph is a further examination thereof. And I'm not quite done yet. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Due to heavy-handed re-editing, much of the notes on the Fiorina's "organizational involvement" have been misplaced and no longer show in the current article. Some editors may think this information is trivial or tangential, but it establishes the continuity and flow of her career. We cannot really understand how that changed and where she was involved and what she was doing at any given time and place, if we wipe that out. I have been working diligently at creating her timeline and vetting though her extensive resume, including start and end dates on her various jobs or designations. But, if we keep deleting them, we cannot establish that basis. So, I would appreciate if many of those references would be restored, because I think that some of you may not see the big picture of where its going, even though I make copious notes here. There's still lots of information missing in the article itself. And that information is relative to this bigger picture. Not having it readily available, sets us back again — not just in terms of Fiorina's timeline, but the editing timeline of this article. By the way, I would also appreciate it, if edits that remove information were better noted, such as on this Talk Page, with explanations, if not even questions or discussions. After all, I have continuously invited others to do the same. Also, it would help if they were done in part, not in heavy-handed actions that crosses over into many types of actions throughout the article; that is, including everything from wording, punctuation, to citations, to sentence structure, paragraphing, shifting of sections, etc… all done in ONE edit transaction. Sorting through that kind of editing is traumatic and very confusing. It's also not very transparent to other editors, who are trying to review the changes. Sorting through all that, as just one edit transaction, is like looking through the eye of a tornado. It would better help to separate out these different editing areas from one another, one transaction at a time. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Fiorina's overall career and her crossing over into many areas, such as business, academia, non-profits and politics; it may be helpful to separate these "Other involvements" out accordingly, such as by paragraph. Right now, it reads sort of by timeline; and its jumping in and out along these types of organizations. I think it might be more sensible to have them sectioned out; especially as readers consider her various transitions, as well as her areas of expertise and involvement. It would highlight this better, as well as be consistent with the overall theme of the article that mimics her life. Its also like comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges and so on. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No list of her positions on Issues

In an article about someone who is expected to announce candidacy for the presidency on Monday, there is no list whatsoever of her position on issues. Where does she stand on gay marriage, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, immigration, the tax code, the race riots in Ferguson and Baltimore? We don't know a thing about her stand on any of those important issues of the day from this article. Somebody needs to get to work.68.206.142.96 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

68.206.142.96 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably because she has not made any such statements yet. But if you find any, please post here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some here [5]] but we will need to find the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are not worth chasing down, because they are outdated, from 2010 and earlier. Fiorina may well change her mind about certain issues, simply because its 2015, and because the office she's seeking is different than before. Let's wait until WP:SECONDARY sources describe her current positions. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree: I made many of these points already in the above section Election Year 2016 Campaign, talking points & role. Now that she's been added into the page United States presidential election, 2016 with its link appearing here, I think it's time to move forward. Also notice that this other page has her named as a potential candidate with "Announcements impending." So, indeed, this article needs to catch up. She may well make that announcement in days (or not), otherwise she could be an advisor or politico for the party at large (again, like she was for McCain in a last Presidential campaign). (citation carried from other page). But, hey… we've made excellent progress! Good job everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

EXPANDING: I've added a few of her "viewpoints" to this section, although it could be further developed. The citations that I provided (namely two of them), actually include many of her positions. So, it can be further elucidated from those citations. PBS NewsHour and NY Times have covered it well; but, there's further insight to be appreciated by other publications. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

HP Timeline Incorrect?

In the section on Fiorina's tenure at HP, the third paragraph states that her announcement of the merger with Compaq occurred in September 2001. Reading the subsection below that ("Forced resignation"), I get the impression that she was forced out as CEO no later than about March 2001. If I'm reading those two bits incorrectly, I think they need to be clarified. If I'm not, a correction is in order.

Smontanaro (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, something like this occurred to me, in the back of my mind, as I was adding in a citation that made timeline references that maybe didn't jive with the others. I added in the citation "Preston, Holly Hubbard (17 May 2003). 'Book Report : Perfect Enough'. The New York Times."; whereas, it mentioned the one year anniversary of the acquisition of Compaq. That implied year 2002 from 2003 at the review of a book. But, when I made that insight, I thought about everything else… subject to citation verification? It could be a number of factors. Maybe the citations themselves mis-referenced dates. Or Wikipedia editors jumbled things with piecemeal additions, etc. This will be a laborious endeavor to open each and every citation to see if it all jives…. but, at least we should start with the more glaring ones. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc.

There's a number of citations in this article that need to be verified, improved and so on. Please include and note them here, as they are found.

• In the section titled Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; controversy the first sentence makes non-verified claim: "Fiorina began describing herself as Chair and CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises where, according to her political campaign Facebook page, she is 'bringing her unique perspective and experience to bear on the challenging issues of our world, championing economic growth and empowerment for a more prosperous and secure world'.[81][verification needed]." Yet, nowhere at Fiorina's Facebook Page can this quotation be found, nor is it traceable. At that, I wouldn't exactly call a Facebook Page a stable or reliable source. If this cannot be verified, I would suggest removing it from the article. In fact, the paragraph could probably stand without such an introduction; if then to re-phrase it to reflect the rest of the contents. The content from the SF Chronicle was added later as a separate thought, independent from this Facebook claim. It's actually a stronger and more substantial reference to the claims. So, the Facebook mention may not be necessary. Otherwise, find another complimentary and similar reference with this same point made by the Chronicle. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This still needs to be resolved and it's a glaring problem, although not with an immediate solution. It may be assumed that she was making these talking points, but a better source need to be found to establish that, instead of leaving this broken Facebook reference. Any ideas? Even initial thoughts would help at this point. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: although the citation for Facebook has yet to be verified, nevertheless, I've found a reference wherein Fiorina OFFICIALLY names herself as "CEO Carly Fiorina Enterprises." It's stated on an official document (press release) from One Woman Initiative, witch is published by the U.S. State Department's press office. Therefore, I changed the first sentence leading into the this section, so as to read as follows: "In her time as Chair of One Woman Initiative, Fiorina also began describing herself as Chair and CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises[97]; whereas, according to her political campaign Facebook page…" By the way, there may well be a way to find deep-rooted (old) Facebook posts, but it could be a difficult and technological search… not sure if its worth the time and energy. All the same, at least it's established how this claim came about and it's verified that she did indeed promote herself as CEO, as early as 2008, before The SF Chronicle released their investigative news story. Ca.papavero (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the lead section, mentioning "worst CEO" claim: The Guardian and Observer were removed, because of overkill. The Guardian citation redundantly refers to the other sources already cited; i.e., CBS, USA Today, Portfolio; whereas, its not an original source for this claim. Remove Observer citation, also because of overkill; plus, that it redundantly quotes the other sources already cited (CBS, USA Today, Portfolio). Ca.papavero (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Also remove ref name CNBC; no citation found. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the section AT&T and Lucent, Remove link rot, no proper citation available, not verifiable; s/b from allbusiness.com, re. key words "human resources", "employee development", "leadership"; noted dead link as of date April 2015

• Avoid duplication! Sellers & Daniels (Fortune, October 1998) was added twice! Please be sure to see if the reference is already appearing in the article... especially when its appears in string of citations, i.e., appearing again right next to the same. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

•The section of the article under AT&T and Lucent makes a claim with many superfluous citations (overkill): "In 1998, Fortune magazine named Fiorina the 'most powerful woman in business' in its inaugural listing, and she was included in the Time 100 in 2004 and remained in the Fortune listing throughout her tenure at HP. She was #10 on the Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women for 2004.[25][26][27][28][29][30]" Those six citations are copied here:

Fortune Magazine is referenced twice for the feature "Ranking The 50 Most Powerful Women…", October 1998; that is, briefed either from an article written by Julie Creswell, or by collaboration of Patricia Sellers with Cora Daniels. Only one of these references is necessary, since they're referring to the same ranking by Fortune Magazines, year 1998. The article by Julie Creswell mentions Fiorina's name four times, comparatively to that of 23 times by Sellers and Daniels. Obviously, this later citation would be more significant to include.

Forbes Magazine is referenced three times, unnecessarily. The article by David Einstein is not actually that of a "ranking," therefore not relating to claims of "Most Powerful Women" and so on. Instead, Einstein announces her appointment as CEO of HP, as of year 1999. If she's just entering the position at HP, this hardly supports said claim. This may be a significant article, but it's not supporting the claim made in the sentence, where its used as a citation. Conversely, another Forbes Magazine reference appropriately cites Forbe's year 2004 "Most Powerful Women" with Fiorina ranked at 10; but, that's just one page (duplicating a reference), as per the citation from Elizabeth MacDonald and Chana R. Schoenberger. Only one of these references is necessary, not several pages from the same article. Obviously, I'd suggest the one that openly names MacDonald and Schoenberger, omitting the others.

MIT News is not the primary source of The 2004 Time 100. (i.e., supposedly ranking the "most influential people in the world today"). It would be more appropriate to cite Time itself, rather than MIT News.

IN SHORT… this entire sentence is jumbled and overstated conjecture, colluding different claims that are not the same; i.e., they don't have the same methodology, as well as they'e not conforming with categories such as business, politics, entertainment, etc. Fiorina is compared to everyone from Oprah Winfrey, to Condelezza Rice, Osama Bin Laden, Norah Jones, etc. This is grossly generalized and misleading. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the lead paragraphs of the article, a sentence states "Since then, she has been described by some publications (and business scholar Jeffrey Sonnenfeld) as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time…" There's two citation from CBS for this claim; whereas, only one is necessary coming from this same source. This second, titled "Five things to know about Carly Fiorina" is merely a re-hash of things past, a retrospective from a year 2015 perspective, as she plans to run for President. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•Broken citation and unverified claim in section Hewlett-Packard (HP): "In 2001, Fiorina was named one of the thirty most powerful women in America by Forbes magazine." Removed, because this was not properly cited (link rot) and its not recoverable. This is now an unknown source. Already said elsewhere…overkill. Ca.papavero (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• An infographic added as of 8 May 2015‎ by Bueller 007

HP stock price since 2000.

is not verifiable and does not appear to be a reliable source either. Clicking the link, it claims to be from Peter L Salmon - Own work Previously published: http://hpstockprice.com. Does Bueller have permission for this infographic? Clicking the link, it cannot be found on the internet. There's no transparent methodology to this presentation, nor proof that permission was give by HP to use their logos, etc. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bueller 007 re-placed the infographic after being removed, saying "easily verifiable information taken from the wikipedia page for HP)" But, simply copying an infographic from another Wikipedia article does not provide it verification or make it any more reliable. The infographic is attributed to "Peter L Salmon - Own work Previously published: http://hpstockprice.com" but that link has since become inactive, suggesting link rot. Unless, this source can be re-substantiated, it remains questionable. Furthermore, Peter L Salmon does not appear to have a wikipedia User page, or discussion page; instead, directing to User talk:Peter L Salmon with nothing there. So, that being the case, use of this infographic could also be questioned at the Hewlett-Packard article. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. I just verified it for you. Whew. That was tough. It's almost like it's readily accessible information that it's in the public domain because it's a publicly traded company. [6] Bueller 007 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That is hardly a complete verification. The infographic that you have shared to this article is an embellishment of the "public domain" information that your are now providing. At that, you have not acknowledged the other problems that I have described. Furthermore, please don't use sarcastic and cutesy tone. It's unprofessional and unbecoming. It's also not my job to do this grunt work for you, since you posted it. Just like that bare URL mentioned below. I'm typically very proactive, sourcing and verifying broken and poorly cited links as best as I can. I've actually cleaned-up many of them, as you see noted here. I hope you can appreciate that. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

•Bare URL added as of 8 May 2015‎ by Bueller 007: Found under section titled Forced resignation from HP.

Ca.papavero (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In section Personal transition, via other organizational designations: A few questionable citations. It's said "She is an Honorary Fellow of the London Business School." A citation from HP's executive profiles webpage no longer includes Fiorina; so, the this is not verifiable, unless can be found elsewhere on the site. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine, 2002-12-01 (et seq.) 2600:1006:B154:7E0A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, a broken link from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TCSM). Placed to support same claim as above, but no longer includes Fiorina; so, the this is not verifiable. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed dead link from Revolution Health, since the company is no longer in business and probably not recoverable. The link now directs to another website, a sitemap for corporate.everydayhealth.com Ca.papavero (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the section about Criticism and Praise, advice is needed for how to treat a citation that mentions Portfolio.com"(then a division of Condé Nast) have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." This is published by CNBC, which is a division of NBC Universal, but its apparently compiled or originally from Portfolio.com, which was then a division of Conde Nast… which in turn has merged into another company since then. Do you think this is appropriately attributed and referenced, or do you have a better recommendation as how to treat it? This is probably one of the more complex one's I've seen. As the citation is now written, all parties are mentioned; but, I'm not sure exactly the right way. Maybe its okay, maybe it could be better. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the section about Advocate at large, there's a broken citation for the sentence that reads "On February 8, 2013, Fiorina gave a keynote address at the Ripon Society’s Legislative and Communications Directors Symposium on Leadership at Mount Vernon, advocating for several issues including simplifying and reforming the federal tax code, promoting the use of business technology in government, and helping small businesses." Doing a search on Ripon's own website does not find the article. Neither does a Google search… only three hits of which two are from Wikipedia itself, and that's from THIS article. The third is a mere interface to this article. If anyone out there knows how this was sourced, please help. But, otherwise, this entire paragraph and section is up for question. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine, 2013-04-30 (et seq.) 2600:1006:B154:7E0A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Notes to Article Lead (intro paragraphs), considerations; re. WP:LEAD

•In the very fist paragraph of the lead section, is it better to describe Fiorina thus: "Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent, before being chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005." Or is it better to state that she "was an executive" and achieved such status at AT&T/Lucent; i.e., before jumping to HP? It seems minor, but… one stresses her achievement and attained position, while the other emphasizes her significant climb and drive to prominence. Should it be stated that "...Fiorina rose through the ranks AND was an executive…"? This question posed to an edit made by Anythingyouwant. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

•In regards to Fiorina's "changing persona": User:Justen said above in One of the worst tech CEOs that "...the "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" assertion in the lede is pretty blatantly wp:or (presumably by way of wp:synthesis…" Ca.papavero acknowledged those points and made further suggestions. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

•The lead section has become crammed, not briefly summarized. Verbose, descriptive and over nuanced words and phrases have been added. Qualifiers and explanations are teased into sentences. Additional modifiers, like adverbs and adjectives are added when not necessary. Full-on quotations are highlighted in the lead, although it may not be necessary and it can make too much weight and impact (such as by reader's considerations thereof). The lead paragraphs even includes parenthetical remarks! It anecdotes the subjects life, when such nuance should be the job of the body of the article. This introduction names other persons, other than the subject, some of them esoteric, as well as those of who are merely critics of the article's subject. Even if these other persons are notable or scholarly themselves, they typically have no direct association to the person who is the primary concern. Links and allusions to other Wikipedia articles, such as by name of persons, events, organizations, etc., should not be cluttered through the lead, therein leading to tangents from the actual subject. This article includes several additional citations and points crammed into a lead sentence or its paragraphs, whereas they should instead be placed at their appropriate section in the below body. Some sentences have two to three citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. But, if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably doesn't belong in the lead section in the first place. In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. Finally, the ending sentence of a lead section should not repeat the point that's made by the first sentence. That also suggests the need to better condense. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

You said below, "I agree that there's WP:NPOV issues in this article; but, I'm also cautious of putting too much stigma on that." Well, the NPOV issues have now been fixed in the lead, and I hope we put a stigma on reintroducing POV into the lead. The lead is by no means crammed now. For crammed, see the lead of Hillary Rodham Clinton. The present lead is of typical length. Maybe if you would specify the single thing you dislike most about the lead we can focus on that. I do not want to quibble about whether two footnotes at the end of a sentence would be better than three, unless that is your main complaint.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for acknowledging my points and understanding. That's a start, but I'd like to go much, much further. I think editors have become way too carried away the idea that "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead," as said in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:LEAD. So, they are cramming it in. Indeed, the rest of that paragraph in the manual reads: "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." Just before that, it says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." So, I also think that the writing in the lead should be inspired by a slightly different style than the rest of the body of the article. All of the writing here should be encyclopedic in its voice, but the lead should be much less wordy, streamlined, make use of basic sentences and read something akin to a news or legal brief, if not business writing. See 3x3 in Business writing process prewriting for example; as I believe this is not literally how we need to tackle the project, but it gives you a hint. Also see Brief (law) and consider how things like ballots or legal summaries are written with bare facts. Don't get me wrong, as I'm not suggesting using those techniques wholesale; but, I'm trying to make examples of streamlined writing, without whitewashing or burying significant points. This must remain a hard lead and presentation of facts. Yet, if you've ever been in courtroom, business presentation, military debriefing or newsroom environments, then you know that interjections of anecdotal information and complicated language is not tolerated when trying to encapsulate a situation. The very definition of encapsulation: "express the essential features of (someone or something) succinctly." And by the way, I wouldn't worry about those other articles; because if we do this right, maybe they will follow our "lead" established at this article. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No longer any semblance of neutrality

We're citing critics, by name, in the lede here in an attempt to unduly "balance" her once being widely named the "most powerful woman in business." We've gone off the deep end of original research and synthesis by asserting that her "public persona has notably changed over the years" and that her "image still shadows her reputation," without an inkling of reliable sourcing to back up those editorial opinions drafted here on Wikipedia. And the wp:point "no need for Fiorina's words here" (at her biography) on arguably the most important event in her life says a lot about the hatred dripping from some editors for this lady.

She's led an interesting life. I believe we can try to document her life with facts from reliable sources, rather than making up facts or using sources like blogs that call her an "asshole." Unfortunately, the small number of editors who are willing to revert any changes they consider even remotely "favourable" towards Fiorina made removing such that source a multi-month affair.

I've tagged the article as non-neutral given its current state. The opinion recently stated by another editor at wp:blpn about a key part of the lede sums it up best: this article has gotten to a point where it is "contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy." Justen (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Justen on this matter and personally, I dislike Fiorina as a political figure. But I want a NPOV biography of her here on Wikipedia. The lead is now written in a decidedly non-neutral fashion. Let's use the highest quality reliable sources and not give undue weight to highly negative assessments, especially in the lead. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have elaborated on some specific NPOV issues below, in the next section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there's WP:NPOV issues in this article; but, I'm also cautious of putting too much stigma on that. The editors are recognizing the many problems and the article is actually improving. There is a balance to balance itself. If we go too far with a reactionary and counter-reactionary posture, it will result in a false balance and just compound the issue further. My suggestion to everyone here — quite sincerely — is to take a step back and take a breather now and then. Then come back. I'm the only one here that has publicly applauded ALL of us. Despite disputes, it's all working towards our advantage. The article has improved tremendously just over the last month, if not weeks. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm alarmed by your idea that there could be "too much stigma" associated with the fact that a wp:blp has been significantly slanted towards non-wp:npov. Let me quote that policy here for a refresher for everyone... "We must get the article right. [...] Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Within the very recent period of time, we've invented theories about her "public persona," asserted that a merger she pushed caused the company to lose half its value, and synthesized a theory that she laid people off despite the merger being a success. (Nevermind that those last two basically contradict each other. That's what happens when editors with a point-of-view to push go far off into wp:or land.) All of that without reliable sourcing, it's worth pointing out. I'm not "applaud[ing]" any of the editing that's gone on here. It's wildly below Wikipedia's standards. Justen (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am by no means applauding POV editing. Your misreading of what I'm saying is terrible. You are taking this word "stigmatized" that I use and giving it action to the wrong object. And this implies that you really don't seem to get my point about fine line between NPOV and False Balance. Do you not comprehend, not understand it, not agree, or have questions with that?T here is indeed a serious problem with POV. But to say that it's any one person's fault, or even a group of people, is also ridiculous. I have also pointed that out, saying that this article is on a slippery slope of reactionary and counter-reactionary editing, a kind of stilted practice of taking what's been accumulated over several edits and trying to balance it all out. This is now an inherited problem, rooted in the article. I've repeatedly acknowledged that. I've also acknowledge and supported most of your points. Including the idea of synthesized theory. But, such problems are not my own work, nor necessarily that of any one person or group. Its a successive and culminating result of sorts, from series of edits and restructuring. We're all working on that, but it takes time, as I've said, despite the need of urgency. If you are not careful, you can go in the other direction of stigmatizing the article itself, and the improvements that editors are tying to make. We all need to get beyond blame and have a shared ethic. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Specific NPOV issues

Whether Compaq merger was good or bad

Here's a piece in the Huffington Post from 2011 that says: "Today, the merger is nearly six years old. And, surprise, surprise -- it's turned out to be a sensational combination, whether measured by market share, market leadership or increased shareholder value." I would imagine that other sources like this might be available too. Here's an interesting and well-balanced set of opinions from an article this month in Bloomberg. The Bloomberg piece includes the following opinions from 2011:

• "You look back now, and Carly was right—there was a lot of synergy between the two companies. The merger worked out well in retrospect." —Tommy Wald, CEO of White Glove Technologies

• "In retrospect, yes, it was a good move for HP and for the partner community. I was wrong, and I'm glad they proved me wrong." —Don Richie, CEO of Sequel Data Systems

• "I think it was a fantastic move. I thought it was a fantastic move at the time, too. HP would definitely not be where it is today without Compaq." —Geoffrey Lilien, president of Lilien Systems

• "The merger turned out to be a good thing ... There were some administrative headaches, of course, but overall they did a very good job with the integration." —Jane Cage, COO of Heartland Technology Solutions

I agree that this Wikipedia article seems to take a non-neutral negative view of the merger.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Her tenure at HP and the merger was a disaster according to a preponderance of sources, so we can't argue for a false balance. It was what it was and we report on the significant opinions about her performance as CEO. Before she was a candidate, no one complained about the lede.... What has changed? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What has changed, Cwobeel, which should be crystal clear to all editors, is that she has announced a presidential campaign. That raises the visibility of an article that I hadn't looked at since she got trounced by Barabara Boxer in the 2010 Senate race. More eyes on the article is what has changed. I want an NPOV biography of this woman, not an activist hit job. Personally, I oppose her in my private life off-Wipedia, and want to recommend that people read a good article instead of a cheap smear. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not asking for a smear, Cullen328. I am asking for an NPOV article same as you. But this is no time to whitewash her article either, jst because she is running for the Republican nomination. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article lead currently has more "smear" language than "whitewash" language, in my opinion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

We can indicate that some experts think it worked well. As Wikipedia articles get more attention, they often are brought into better conformity with policy. And sometimes not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

if you can find some expert opinions lauding Fiorina for her performance as a CEO at HP, by all means. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Didn't I do that above?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

What about the rest from that Bloomberg article? - Cwobeel (talk) 01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And BTW, what is mentioned there was not about her performance, but the performance of her successor that made the merger successful at the end:

"It took somebody with more operations experience to make the merger really work ... I think when (Compaq CEO Capellas) left, the operations stuff was handed to Carly, and she didn't have that strength. Obviously, Mark Hurd does." —Arch Currid, head of corporate public relations at Compaq at time of the merger.

- Cwobeel (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So, we should exclude every last word by every last expert who says the merger was a good decision?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The merger was not the downfall of Fiorina. It was her handling of it. The eventual success of the merger was only related to Fiorina by virtue of her not being CEO. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether 30,000 people were laid off

The lead says she laid off 30,000 workers at Hewlett Packard. Here is the cited source. And here is what the cited source says:

"In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people," she said. "That's why I understand where the anger came from."

But Fiorina has also been quick to point out, as she did in a 2010 interview with NPR, that, overall, jobs were created during her tenure as HP's CEO.

"Companies go through tough times ... but net-net we created jobs," she said.

Obviously, this item in the lead is very much non-neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This is a self-serving statement. Let's find some sources that attest to that supposed net gain in jobs at HP. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, and in the mean time how about removing this source, and the cherry-picked info from this source, out of the lead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source that sums it up quite well, published just after Fiorina was ousted by the HP board:

Still, there is plenty to criticize about Fiorina's tenure at HP. At this point, the changes that Fiorina made didn't turn out so well for the thousands of Hewlett Packard and Compaq employees that were laid off and the millions of HP stockholders who lost equity since she took over. HP stock is worth less today than it was in 1999. Dell and IBM stock has increased in value.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The "30,000" figure in the lead is unbalanced. It takes Fiorina's own words, and deletes the parts that make her look good. "By October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger."[7]Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The 30,000 layoffs can be attributed to other sources. In any case, I am not advocating to keep that figure, but there were thousands of layoffs as per the sources offered. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This entire subject, both in the lead and in the separate section of the article (with sub-header) needs to be cross-examined and fleshed out. We should do more research on it. This is indeed one of the hotter issues concerning her tenure. Both sides of the arguement needs to be included, as well as perhaps deeper relevance or significance to readers. She acknowledges lay-offs or termination, but then she talks about what resulted at the end with the merger… which is not necessarily one and the same for some people. This needs to go beyond the simple claim that 30,000 people were terminated (if true), but explain with the 5 Ws: who what, when, where, why… even how. And differentiate those 5Ws at HP from Compaq, if necessary. Merger and acquisitions are not all that clean-cut… they are a process, concerning time and stages, wherein that can be highlighted how she and the other CEO (at Compaq) negotiated the deal, and what employees had to say about it. I've already read some of this stuff, but haven't included it. It is interesting to note, how it all "came down" and "worked out." That hasn't been mentioned, even briefly, if we want to go there or touch on that. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Lead

I went ahead and made some edits to the lead, which seems compliant with WP:NPOV now. So, if someone would like to remove the tag at the top, or perhaps move it lower in the article, that would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Good effort, but the lead is still a mess, with a false balance slant. Leads, per WP:LEDE, should be a summary of the article's content, and currently it is not. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a change to the third paragraph - as described in the the edit summary, this paragraph is about other people's assessments of her, not her own "public persona". I've also taken out the names of specific critics/defenders as these are noted in the citations as well as later in the article. Melcous (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is going in the right direction, as it provides the necessary context without introducing a false balance. Great example of NPOV editing. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Cwobeel: It possibly helps to be an "outsider" to the US in this case - I have very little context for a POV here :) Melcous (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Aussies rock! thanks!! Can you please take a look at the Fluctuating appraisals section. That section has long quotes from some and paraphrases from others. It is also a mess and not balanced. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant During, after, and more recently is accurate and provides the necessary context. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's try to speak so that others can understand what we are talking about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead presently says (emphasis added, refs omitted):

“ After her resignation, she was described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time. More recently, others have defended her leadership decisions and business reputation. ”

I removed "more recently" and Cwobeel improperly reverted. The refs supporting the first sentence are CBS (April 27, 2012) and USA Today (February 16, 2005). The refs supporting the second sentence are Barrett (April 4, 2010), Loren (May 14, 2008), and Bloomberg (May 4, 2015 but including quotes from 2001 thru 2011). It's obvious from these dates that the "more recently" is wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Her forced resignation and criticism was in 2005, so the later are more recent comments, with the benefit of hindsight. Find me a source that was happy with her performance as a business woman at the time of her demise, and I will agree with you. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, the lead said after she resigned, not when she resigned, and we are still in the "after" period. Moreover, two sources are cited, one dated 2005 and the other 2012. Is 2012 when she resigned? No, it isn't. Even the 2005 source says this: "The profs are all over the map about Fiorina. Kothari praises her for conviction in pursuing her strategy." I also note this quote from 2004: "My sense is that they have been able to do a lot of [positive] things, post-merger, in terms of the operational side. It seems they have not had major battles after the merger, which is typically the case with many large transactions. —Harbir Singh of the Wharton School". And this one from 2007: "Public opinion about the merger has fluctuated over the years, but people don't talk about it anymore because its initial assumptions have been proven right ... Ultimately, it turned out to be a good move. —Robert Burgelman of Stanford's business school."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I think what we have now at [8] is quite OK, and I could live with it. Hope it is also OK with you and others involved. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It's mostly okay, but Fortune rated her the #1 most powerful, not "one of the most powerful". I'd fix, but 3RR and all. Maybe tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnote glitch

There are 164 footnotes, but the last twenty or so do not seem to show up in the footnote section. Anyone know why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The problem has been fixed by John of Reading, upon a request submitted to WP:Village pump (technical). Thanks again, John.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

LOL! I'm just going to laugh at this one. And be happy its fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

From "most powerful woman in American business" to "worst tech CEO of all time"

This header is in the article, and it's too long. It also does not reflect the substantial support since 2002 for her performance as a business person (see sources cited in the lead). So, I would recommend sonething like "Appraisals over the years" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

That's why I simply had it as "Most powerful woman" versus "worst CEO." Then it was suggested that the word versus should not be used, to which I agree. But, then it changed again with these other modifiers and wordiness. That's not necessary. And its interpreting, because the rankings were primarily done by sources like Forbes, Fortune, Time, USA Today and CBS (not sure if I'm forgetting any sources). At that, I've already vetted many of these and noted their seeming methodology and so on (if you see my other notes and citation verifications.) So, there's no one particular way to phrase it, especially as it gets carried through the media. I would simply call it Most Powerful Woman and Worst CEO or something simple like that. We don't even want to say From Most powerful to Worst CEO" because it suggests a starting and ending point, or development. It also suggests a continuum; as if its a finished debate, when its not. It's a suggestion… don't overthink it.Ca.papavero (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree that we are over-thinking it. What we have now is quite OK. Let's move on. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

No, the heading above is not okay. It's very unusual to have quotes within article headers, and this one implies that she started very powerful and ended up doing an incredibly lousy job. That may (or may not) be true, but we shouldn't be implying it in an article header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, the titles are quoted, because the claims "worst" and "best" are actually branded concepts that became accepted by the rest of the media, as well as the general public. So, to have them out of quotes would actually be less appropriate, in my view. Also, you can't really get around this, without watering it down. You have to acknowledge its impact, because it's colored everything in terms of discussion about Fiorina herself. See my notes elsewhere. Then, think about this more. This originates from a ranking system, similar to branded concepts that rank so-called best colleges, safest cities, top corporations, etc. Such rankings are controversial, but they've been around for years now. In this case, it seem as though the ranking has received much backing from rest of the press, as well as from the public itself. So, like I've said, it's not going away. Others here have realized its significant impact, whether or not they realize its seeming origination. At this point, it's not exclusive to those original brands, either. I can explain this further; or hopefully you can comprehend what I'm saying, if not look it up yourself. See my previous comments at One of the worst tech CEOs, as a response to User:Justen; as well as my notes at Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. with reference to "The section of the article under AT&T and Lucent." In any case, these concepts are indeed mainstream and hard to ignore, if if you recognize them as such. See my comments on the article for America's Safest and Most Dangerous Cities; but, then also read the article for College and university rankings to further see how I'm conceptualizing my points. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. Section: "Transition of career and public persona":

Re. Sub-section: "Criticism and Praise"

This section priorly titled "Response to media rankings and notable critiques" Ca.papavero (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes that I believe relate to some important editing matters:

• ¶1, The opening paragraph must establish the basis of the media rankings "Most powerful woman" and "Worst CEO" etc., where all this "controversy begins. And indeed, I believe it must be very clear that we're not just talking about "claims" or "critiques" from the the onset, but RANKINGS. Also known as LISTS or GROUPINGS. As some of you know, and i've repeatedly noted, these are actually controversial media and journalism devices, especially here in the U.S. That should be well noted here in the article, as well as differentiated from "straight news." I've been trying to get to that point for some time, so I hope that's clearer now. I also hope fellow editors agree, or at least consider that.

• ¶2 compares to the first. Its the proverbial apples to apples, not apples to oranges. In this paragraph, we're still talking about RANKINGS, but how those rankings changed when she exited HP, namely. That must be clear. And it must be counterpointed to the OTHER and ORIGINAL rankings that are priorly established. By the way, it is also important to NAME those sources that are doing this ranking, if not their methodology….which we haven't even included, but might be a consideration (if briefly, or bring it into question). More over, not each of these rankings and their methodology is the same, states the same, nor comes to the same conclusion, etc. Nor is their moniker branding exactly the same. So, please, make sure you actual deep read these sources. Otherwise, we're falling into the trap of gross generalizations and, as Justen brilliantly pointed out: a POV SYNTHESIS.

• ¶3 goes into notable persons and their critiques, which is not the same as a ranking. In sociological terms (perhaps), we might differentiate this as a qualitative versus quantitative analysis or critique. One is mostly based on personal opinion and so-called expertise; while the other is based on so-called scientific methodology and collaborative analysis. So, here, we're looking at an individual's comments, versus that of a comprised media organization. Which, by the way, also take note that CNBC is sourcing Portfolio.com's ranking (a company formerly of Conde Nast)… So this stuff gets really sticky and hard to verify. It should not be compared to an notable person's or scholars's work. None of these sources should be lumped, in fact.

• ¶4 bridges all of the above and brings it to more current relevance, since this entire ordeal began over… yes, 10 years ago! And it's still being debated, still being hashed back and forth, with relevance on either side. Even now with the upcoming 2016 elections. More than that, this paragraph shows that there is indeed a defense — as much as there's support and accolades — for Fiorina and her causes. That's whether you, personally, like her or not.

• ¶5 finally shows Fiorina's OWN response to the rankings and critiques, although from a political standpoint. This is indeed, how she's popularly opened-up to the criticism and started countering it. She may have made some earlier comments, but this is really the "beef" of her current stance. From there, we already see the political responses to that, and still mired in the stigma of ratings and critiques. Her own response was priorly included here, but someone wiped it out. That's not acceptable. These interviews with Couric and Van Susteren are indeed notable and copied in circulation. They represent some of her first significant interviews dealing with her persona, critiques of her tenure at HP and going forward as a Presidential candidate. It is formative and showing how she's moving on… transitioning as a candidate. Inclusion of citations and quotes from both The National Review and The Nation, show how all of this will continue to be subject for discussion, even during election debates and campaigning. Maybe that's as long as she stays in the race; but, maybe it will last beyond that, too.

• ¶6 is perhaps less significant, but it does show how the more general media critiques and debates still playing out, even now, years later. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding-in further name references for continuing quotations or claims, of which citation was already made. It's a lot of work and technicality. I appreciate the help cleaning it up. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the titles have changed and last paragraphs have been merged. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the content of the section is irrelevant. First, it falsely claims things to purportedly have been said in an interview with Greta, and the entire paragraph in which that false claim is found is completely irrelevant to the section in which it is found (i.e. "criticism and praise"). It is just a statement about Hillary Clinton and how, apparently, job titles mean nothing to Carly. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiped section (originally ¶5), including interview with Couric and Greta Van Susteren

Responding to criticisms in interviews with Katie Couric and Greta Van Susteren, Fiorina implied there has been a double standard when comparing herself to others including Hillary Clinton. She "dismissed the suggestion that [Clinton's] serving in such roles as U.S. senator and secretary of state are accomplishments...", saying “In the world that I come from, a title’s just a title…. Why are we so impressed with political titles? A senator is a title. Secretary of state is a title. What has anyone accomplished with their title?”

I have indeed addressed this already, as well as that when you watch the video with Couric, Fiorina is in fact asked "what's your reaction" about both the http://www.carlyfiorina.org website, in addition to the layoffs and her performance at HP. That occurs from minutes 3:25 and forward in the video (as its included with the Couric citation). She not only answers the question, but re-frames it… whether we like her re-framing or not. And that's the point being made in the article. This has been her reply: pointing out what Fiorina believes is a double standard, then not only disagreeing with the question, but reframing it and going on to what she feels are her accomplishments and so on. As I've said, it's one of her earliest examples, to which we point out later in the article, similar responses at CPAC, Good Morning America and in other articles and interviews. I think that's relevant to include, instead of constantly wiping Fiorina's own particular address on the topic. Just because someone doe not like how she's answered the question, doesn't discount her address. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This section was again wiped by Bueller 007. First time as mentioned in the above, 11 May 2015; second time 16 May 2016. Ca.papavero re-introduced the information, expanded upon it, as well as gave the explanations at this Talk Page, noted in the above. With regards to several edits made by Bueller 007 on 16 May 2015, most of them were not noted with explanation, nor did this editor make such points at the Talk Page. In one of the very few notes or explanations made by Bueller 007, it was again sarcastically stated, including a euphemism for profanity: 14:23, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,609 bytes) (-300)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: as i've said before, there is NOTHING about this topic in the interview with greta. watch the frigging thing and don't re-add this nonsense again.) This is not the first time that this editor has behaved in this manner, and its only become worse. I've opened discussions on the Talk Page, as well as that I've asked this other person to stop using sarcastic tone; plus, many of us have also had repeated differences with this editor on POV (to which he appears to be dogmatic); warring and even citation verifications (e.g., bare URLs, a questionable infographic, etc.). Indeed, in his second explanation, the editor says: "14:27, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,407 bytes) (-2,202)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: the interview with couric and the quote cited has ~nothing~ to do with this section. the quote used is about her political inexperience, not her performance as a CEO)." I have just replied to that above. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

TO SEE PAGE PRIOR TO EDITING by Bueller 007, go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=662416861#Criticism_and_Praise and see Ca.papavero's last version Ca.papavero (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. Section: "Political career:

Re. Sub-section: Advocate at large":

Is this a stray section? There's somewhat interesting information, but what exactly is this section's purpose… I've been wondering about this for a while now, indecisively. How does it differentiate from other sections, or how can it be developed? Ca.papavero (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, it does have some issues, so it seems. First, I moved out one of the sentences that mentioned her ranking by NewsMax as a GOP figure. I placed that to the other section about criticism and praise. But, now there's just these two other sentences. And they're really just dealing with her public appearances, which we've considered before… in fact, we eliminated them a while ago, if you see prior notes. See this Talk Page, where we mention that prior section once called "Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared…" Remember that? We questioned the paragraph(s) and their citations and relevance. Eventually it was eliminated. That's probably becasuse she's not unlike most public figures, that make many, many appearances through their lifetime. That section has been gone a while now, seemingly without objection. I'm guessing that's because most of us have agreed that we're not going to cite every appearance a public figure has made. If its significant or exceptional, surely we can mention it. But, now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large. That's since its become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable. I've actually found she may have appeared at Ripon several times. But, to play devil's advocate… So what? Republicans appear at crowds of conservative groups, Democrats before liberal groups, Greens before their own…. and so on. Therefore, I question how exceptional this should be regarded. By the way second sentence mentions "National Press Club" as mentioned in the article. But this Wikipedia article is attributing that to a Press club although it reads as "National Press Club." It's not particular to National Press Club (United States), which I'm not quick to assume, since the disambiguation the source (named in the citation) ambiguously calls it "the National Press Club." Again… appearing before THE National Press Club of the U.S. is not all that exceptional. They invite notable dignitaries all the time… whoever, whatever party… etc. Again, so what? I wouldn't be surprised if The Club has invited most of the presidential candidates, if not had some of them speak in prior events, before they became candidates. So, I'm almost at the point of wanting to eliminate this entire section. Any comments? Ca.papavero (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

A video of her address before the National Press Club (United States) (NPC) can be seen here, confirming the event. Finding this, doesn't change my observations above. As said, I see countless speakers at these luncheons at NPC. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

ELIMINATED and copied below

Copy & Remove "Advocate at large"

Remnants of copied, two line paragraph

On February 8, 2013, Fiorina gave a keynote address at the Ripon Society’s Legislative and Communications Directors Symposium on Leadership at Mount Vernon, advocating for several issues including simplifying and reforming the federal tax code, promoting the use of business technology in government, and helping small businesses. On July 1, 2013, Fiorina spoke at the National Press Club, calling for reforms to boost small business.

Transferred by Ca.papavero (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Lumping Citations; Cramming. STOP! (WP:CITEOVERKILL)

WE MUST STOP LUMPING CITATIONS AT THE END OF SENTENCES & PARAGRAPHS. I've said it already, but I'm highlighting it again here: Some sentences have two, three or FOUR citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. And with all the citation verification I've completed here in this article…. I'm really questioning if that's true. See the entire section for Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. on this Talk Page. (I think I'm the only one that's noted therein, so far. And I created that section, so that everyone knows what's been verified and what needs follow-up. Plus, it keeps a track record, preventing total loss. Anyways... if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably needs to be fleshed out . In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. The few times I've added two sentences at the end of a statement, for example, is because one is a video and he other text. Otherwise, they probably have a different point of view and statement that should be clarified and differentiated… IF they're the SAME, why do we need the extra reference, after all? That should be common sense. But, if I must be frank, I'm really getting annoyed by these lump citations, placed by other editors (sometimes bare), that are left to readers to reason, if not other editors to verify and do the vetting. That's nonsense… and at this point, it's really become a tremendous burden. It must stop. This article is not a bulletin board in which to cram information. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•:Here's a whopper: "Subsequently, one of her scheduled appearances on behalf of the campaign was canceled, although she continued to chair the party's fundraising committee.[103][112][113][114][115]" That's FIVE citations behind what appears to be a very simple sentence. In fact… despite all these citations, I'm not exactly clear about the entire significance. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

One to three citations is rarely a serious problem, and rarely gives undue weight to anything. When there are more than that, please feel free to select the best three.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It's the writer and editor's job to expand on those citations, not the reader. And it is a burden, if there's not an explanation. A reader (or other editor) should not have to question why each and every citation is there. Otherwise, what's the purpose of your work in the first place… might as well go directly to the citation and bypass this article! And even worse, any citatation should not just be hanging there like a decoration, so as to impress, but have no real expected use, or namely to imply authority and legitimacy that has not really been proved. Further, It just creates a pile and cluster of citations and unnecessary considerations. If we collected EVERY article citation and just crammed and piled them on the back of an article; then, like I said, this might as well be a bulletin board. Go read from Reddit, Newsvine or some other source… not Wikipedia. The purpose of good writing — especially here — should be informative and to brief or summarize… not to say "here's a bunch of extra articles for reading." So, it not only defeats OUR purpose as writer and editors, but it also lowers the ARTICLE's credibility and purpose. While this is not a dissertation or research paper, academically, this would be considered the poorest of writing and research, resulting in a total failure as a grade. It would make the work meaningless and not even worth consideration. When you are researching sourcing, analyzing and interpreting citations, a writer and editor can indeed be objective; that is, such as in the practice of legal (case and ballot briefings), business writing and so on… as I've already said here. Citations are not just "cited" but elucidated. Ca.papavero (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Its stated "On the other hand, former Intel chairman Craig Barrett has spoken in Fiorina's defense.[16][17][18]" But, no explanation of what he actually said, although three citations behind a very simple sentence. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Current Job Positions

In all this time, I just realized that this article has somewhat neglected to clearly point out what are Fiorina's current job positions. That really must be stated at the lead, as well as —especially — in that side table with her picture and the "Personal Details." Then, it's very important that we stay on top of that, immediately noting changes. For example, I just clarified that although "In April 2012, Fiorina became chair of Good360, a nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Virginia, which helps companies donate excess merchandise to charities.[97]…." More over, "She maintains that position currently, as seen from the company website page, where it lists Board of Directors." Then, although, I wrote out the sections for Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation and Unlocking Potential Project, it must be stressed that these too are current positions. And there's probably more. This also has differentiate with her past positions, most of which I believe that I've vetted, as far as they're include in the article. But, there may be more there, too.

Fiorina's profile from Good360 states "She currently serves as the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, which annually hosts CPAC, and the Chairman of Opportunity International, the largest non-profit micro-finance lender in the world, giving out $6 billion at an average of $150 per loan lifting millions out of poverty around the world. In 2014, Carly launched the Unlocking Potential Project, a new PAC aimed at engaging women voters." Ca.papavero (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

•ACU ANNOUNCES CARLY FIORINA AS NEW CHAIRMAN OF FOUNDATION Ca.papavero (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

•OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL JOINS FORCES WITH CARLY FIORINA’S ONE WOMAN INITIATIVE

CARLY FIORINA STEPS DOWN AS GLOBAL BOARD CHAIR OF OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL

NEW SECTION: "4.4 The One Woman Initiative and Opportunity International" as of Thursday 14 May 2014. These are no longer considered "current" positions for Fiorina as of May 2015. In fact, this would be the the anniversary of OWI (just this last Mothers Day); but, she has just resigned from Opportunity International as of this last week. OWI was last known as being under the umbrella of Opportunity International. So, this appears to end her connections to both OWI and Opportunity International. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Update the Infobox

I'm not yet an expert on the area Wikipedia Infobox, but I do realize that Fiorina's should be updated. I also realize it's not as easy as it seems. What exactly should be included there? It has to be comparable, concise, materially relevant and already cited elsewhere in the article. Right now (although I'm busy), I'm thinking of things to prepare us to move in that direction. There' a few vital information bits that have to be added, such as her current (job) positions or titles (all on their way at being verified). And, then, there's that controversial paragraph about Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Foundation… how do treat and "title" that? So… please offer feedback and help on this. I'd like to move forward on it soon. She is a U.S. presidential candidate and this information should be to the standards that are comparable to others. It's a priority, I believe. Another item on the list. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Downsizing and golden parachutes; to pension perform and state furloughs; to conflict of interest and associations.

AGAIN: Details about corporate mergers and acquisitions is not simply tangential information or superfluous. And yet, overzealous editing has wiped this out, or understated this phenomenon. Such information shows how her tenure ended, as well as perhaps her role and extent in those companies or organizations. Fiorina was part of three organizations (of which I know) that were either merged, acquired, downsized or went out of business: Revolution Health Group, Cybertrust and even her own project with USAID, The One Woman Initiative. And then, there's the entire ordeal with HP's merger and acquisition of Compaq, to which she was not simply a board member, but CEO. So, indeed these are important details of her career, as they highlight a pattern and role. Then, too, it also should not be implied or allowed to assume that her role with these organizations is still open, since she has either resigned or the company is no longer in business. As it currently stands, that's not readily apparent. That's in addition to her questionable role as CEO of Fiorina and Enterprises and her Foundation. Originally, this article claimed that she was on several boards, leaving it open to assume that they were all active roles… which I've established that they are not. Readers should have an easy and discernible understanding of both her CURRENT and PAST associations. Further, Fiorina is not immune to the controversies with layoffs (downsizing), restructuring, severance package, etc. It is not a subjective conclusion to realize that Fiorina is within that greater debate, as can be evidenced from citations already inside this article, but not elucidated. Many more citations can be added to the point, including the entire Demon Sheep and Demon Sheep II response, during her 2010 senatorial campaign. From that time, "downsizing" had become a very hot buzzword in the American lexicon of politics, surpassing the understated "layoffs." And Fiorina was put at the center of that, along with other people. This entire debate is still going on today, especially in California, even with regards to government itself; i.e., including furloughs, understaffing, backfilling, pension reform and on and on. And that mostly came forth from the terms of Governors Davis, to Schwarzenegger to Brown. If you know anything about California's turmoil and politics over the last 15 plus years and forward, this discussion is not going away. In fact, it's even at the local level, in the state's biggest cities like San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. And finally, all of this is also subject to transparency, as Fiorina and other politicians make accusations about campaign contributions, Super PACs, conflicts of interest and the overall issue with corporate personhood and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; plus, Freedom of association. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Article Assessment, Status & Peer Review

This article has received considerable development over the last month, including much work of my own. At this point, there's still more that could be improved; but, I would like to see a assessment in terms of overall quality and importance ranking; which is aside from a peer review with more recommendations. I think this needs to be done in a number of areas, including projects for biography, conservatism, and namely, the 2016 Presidential election. Presently, I am looking at this article relative to others of similar kind. Ca.papavero (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

WHOIS

A Whois search for Up-Project.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 19, 2014; its registrant contact name is listed as Frank Sadler of Cove Strategies (an Alexandria, Virginia based entity).

References

WHOIS is a primary source, so if this material is notable for inclusion we need secondary sources to attest for that notability. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Please do not include trivial information unless it is notable and reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ca.papavero you may need to learn the basics of WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:WPNOTRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto about this one. Utterly useless trivia in a biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A Whois search for OneWomanInitiative.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 2008, its registrant contact name listed as "Registration Private", its administrating organization as "Domains By Proxy, LLC" (of Arizona), and its registry expiry date as June 2015.

References

Original research and synthesis. Needs a secondary source that grants some sort of weight and importance to that. Otherwise it should be kept off. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop condescending, this is not original research. The appropriate place to look is WP:RS where it says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." It does not say — absolutely — that primary sources cannot be used. It does not define a Whois as primary, either. These are indeed legal regards, just like a birth or death record, or business registrations. They are official documents, not subjective. The article is simply taking "specific facts" from the record, not interpreting it. There is no claim, synthetic claim or analysis being made. By the way, if you look at the section about Fiorina Foundation and Enterprises, it's mentioning an article that sources official business records, then interviews Fiorina's office for a comment. This Wikipedia article doesn't go there, but simply states the facts of the record. It establishes when the organization was formed and licensed. There's nothing subjective about that. There's nothing more accurate on that matter than the official government record itself. Why would you quote another source about when a person was born, or a business licensed, when you can quote the official record? That does not make sense. Take for example controversies about Obama's birth record. Do we quote a another source, or do we go with the official record from Hawaii? Ca.papavero (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Please stop commenting on editors, and keep your comments to the argument at hand. You have two editors, me and FreeRangeFrog telling you that you that this material needs to be covered by secondary sources, to attest for notability, otherwise is fails NOR. I have posted a request at WP:RS/N#WHOIS so that other editors can weigh in as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am trying to understand your point, but I fail to see how this material is even useful for a biography. Who really cares that a website is registered as private or the name of the registrant? It is useless trivia IMO. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you quote all these things without following them yourself, so I really don't know why you keep tossing them at me. Do you really adhere to WP:BRD yourself? I've noted these things laboriously over and over again, to which you have continually ignored. I even noted it on your own Talk Page, which you sarcastically replied that its long winded. And yet you come in and automatically remove and edit without discussion as if you OWN this article. That's not only rude, but arrogant. Why would you cite these things, and yet not even respect the discussion I've created in the above. I have even gone at length to copying things to this talk page, which I have removed from the article, so as to invite further discussion. But, yourself… its delete, delete, delete… No discussion. No record of changes. Just cryptic and brief notes… sometimes nothing whatsoever. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

If you actually read and comb though those paragraphs, then you will realize that the Whois is just factual, official records that SUPPORT and EVIDENCE the information and other citations in that paragraph. So, I really don't understand your questions about something that's official record, as if that's less reliable?! Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is irrelevant information sourced to a primary source. It is not notable, usable, or otherwise informative and should not be included unless you can produce secondary sources that attest to the significance of that material. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. I have asked other editors to weigh in, which is the correct way to resolve content disputed. Patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not irrelevant information. You keep deleting information, over and over again, acting as if you own this article, which is not fair. You give no good faith to other editors, namely myself, and just go ahead and wipe out their contributions, instead of giving them and others the opportunity to discuss or expand on their ideas, So, essentially, you have already set this peer review up for failure… because you are taking ownership and framing it. How can I possibly continue to show its relevance, when you keep wiping the information and burying it in cryptic notations. I've actually questioned you on that time and again, to which you also ignore. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Again, comment on the edits and not on the editor. I am not sure what is the rush for a peer review or GA. There is no deadline. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As if the edits are not being done by you, the editor. And I am talking about your edits. And you still are insensitive enough not to acknowledge what I'm saying. You are changing the subject. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop? We are having a discussion here about the appropriateness of including material sourced to WHOIS only, but you keep attacking me with accusations and other nonsense. Drop it already and be patient until others weigh in. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(←) Unless there is some reliable sourcing for the WHOIS "investigations," they should be removed without further discussion per wp:blp. Wikipedia isn't the place for editors to advance their original research and to synthesize political theories. Justen (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Just to concur with others here: Whois is not a reliable source for the identity of who registered a domain. When you register a domain, you can put it just about any name and address for the relevant contacts. "29 per cent of domains are registered with patently false or suspicious information". And whatever name is on there does not look to be significant information anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

This is all ridiculous. I also question how many of you have reviewed the matter. I'm not sure how you do that, when User:Cwobeel and others keeps wiping paragraph after paragraph, without fair and proper notation, making it an incredible burden, if not nearly impossible for anyone to trace. Then, to have the audacity to claim that I'm doing the attack to User:Cwobeel?! Please show how the source is unreliable. Show how its not "official." Show how this is "original research" when it's simply citing public record. How is citing a Whois for a website a "political theory?" Please show that. That seems a bit farfetched and far reaching. And please explain, if a Whois is not reliable, then why is it a law common of all nations around the world to register a domain and supply this basic information? Are you the question the government itself as a "reliable source?" How about corporate records.. are they not reliable, either? Birth and death records. I guess if someone changes their name… it makes it totally unreliable… This is absolutely laughable. What's even more ironic, is that I'm sitting here talking to a aback of anonymous editors about what's legitimate. Almost every editor here is warring and citing one wikipedia rule or guide after another (WP Synth, POV, OR, DEADLINE, etc.). Its become like a proverbial "read of the riot act." And most of you think that it gives you more credibility, authority and even righteousness over another editor… a sense of primacy. As if all you have to do is incite some rule or guideline and keep pounding on it again and again. Frankly I'm starting to laugh it all off. It's gotten to point that guidelines are cited so liberally that they've become meaningless and used as political devices… and its disgusting. Ca.papavero (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It may be ridiculous, laughable and the rest to you, but not to all others that have commented here, who had made it very clear that this material is not to be included. That is the way that Wikipedia works. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

As someone independent of this article, I concur - utterly trivial material and based on a primary (and known to be wildly inaccurate) source. It should not be in the article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

BTW… I've also notice how editors here have reversed the presentation dealing with Fiorina's "Praise and criticism." As the article now reads, collaborative RANKINGS that are not clear about their methodology, have the same weight and and comparison of yet another ranking by other sources, that could have a completely different methodology, and yet also still no transparency. At that, they're lumped together with the opinions of other news sources and writers, that are not necessarily basing their perspective on "straight news," aside from rankings. They're also lumped together with the opinions of various pundits, industry analysts and so on…. as if they're all the same thing. And this shows that either you don't really comprehend the nature of different sources, or you're being incredibly hypocritical and maybe even deceitful. Still, many of you have the audacity to question the quality and reliability of sources, while you overlook things like this. But, then, official records, they're considered "unreliable." What's more hypocritical than that? This is a total sham and masquerade. In fact, you have even wiped out Fiorina's own replies, subjecting the entire premise of that section, if not the entirety of this article, on your own personal POV. Time and again. When Fiorina and other news sources challenge the lead-in and biases of a question, a ranking or claim, you wipe that out, or don't acknowledge it. That's POV. Its become a very clever game of citing so-called WP guidelines, while framing the entire discussion, as well as the article itself. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to engage in a discussion, please tone down the rhetoric, otherwise it will be easy to ignore your comments. I for one, refuse to engage with a person that attacks others and that lacks the ability to WP:AGF - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Now you're editing my COMMENTS. And you keep reading the riot act. You ask me to "tone down the rhetoric" when you keep on with your passive aggressive techniques, destroying work of others, not only withholding good faith, but assassinating it and taking credit from others. You are (Personal attack removed), hiding your so-called integrity behind a series of very technological actions. You bury evidence, disrupt continuity and and cut threads. Then you cite the "guidelines" copiously and rally the crowd, so that you cannot be questioned. You've lost all credibility with me, User:Cwobeel. You're staging the article, as well as the discussion thereof. It's already been framed, and now you're trying to frame those that disagree with you… editors like myself. And its appalling. You're not an editor, you're (Personal attack removed). Ca.papavero (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see no personal attacks. Continuing with this attitude may not bode well for you, as it is a blockable offense. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Stock price in lead

The lead says that HP stock price fell 65% during her tenure. That seems to be out of context and imbalanced in terms of WP:NPOV. Here is what the Des Moines Register says:

“ H-P’s stock fell 52 percent from her first day on July 19, 1999, to her firing on Feb. 8, 2005, using prices adjusted for dividends. (It’s even worse — down 65 percent — if actual prices are used.)....The tech-heavy NASDAQ index fared much better than H-P stock, falling 26 percent over Fiorina’s six-year tenure. ”

So the actual facts in context are still bad for Fiorina, but not nearly as bad as we now indicate in the lead. Note that this info is from an editorial,[9] but there are lots of straight news stories that confirm this. Some sources peg the stock drop at less than 50%.[10]Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a good analysis here [11] that could be used. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

According to that source Under Carly Fiorina's watch, HP's stock price (adjusted for dividends, etc. to today's price) went from $39.75 in 1999 to $23.32 the day she was fired in 2005. Per WP:CALC that is a 58.66% drop. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting also is the market reaction, when the stock jumped almost 7% on the news of Fiorina's ousting. This from CNN Money on that day [12]. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

(39.75-23.32)/39.75=.41.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Oops... - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Corrected to 41.3%. I think that the confusion lies on how it is presented, as on the day she was fired the stock won back 7%: “The stock price dropped by 50% only to rally 10% on the announcement of her firing." [13] - Cwobeel (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This from CBS MarketWatch [14]: And H-P shares lost more than half their value during Fiorina's tenure, underperforming Dell's by a wide margin and also lagging IBM's stock performance. - I'd say we use "more than half of its value". What do you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 23:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

A lot depends on whether dividends are considered. I'd say to stick with the sources that offer the most detail to demonstrate that they're not just winging it or repeating what someone else said. As a baseline, can we mention the corresponding NASDAQ drop in the lead. It's kind of like criticizing the CEO of ITT Corporation whose share price went from $150 to $17.5 within a year. The year was 1929.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I used the CBS Marketwatch source, per WP:BOLD. Feel free to correct or add. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I combined your edit with mine, hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks good now. Thanks for collaboration on this. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okie doke, thanks Cwobeel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The 41% claim is a total fiction... HP's historical stock prices are verifiable facts. HP's closing price was $57.00 on the business day before Carly took the position of CEO (July 16, 1999) and it closed at $20.14 on February 8, 2005 (the day before she was fired). That is a reduction of 64.7%. You can verify for yourself here or anywhere else that lists stock prices: [15]

If you convert both to 2015 dollars (e.g., here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), that's a reduction from ~$80.31 to ~$24.21, or 69.9%. If you want to adjust for dividends, here you go: HP consistently offered $0.08 dividends per quarter over this period [16]. 23 dividends were issued by HP during Fiorina's tenure, so that's a value of $1.84 (= ~$2.61 in 2015 dollars). So, at best, if you bought stock the day before Fiorina took over (purchased at ~$80.31 2015 USD), you made ~$2.61 2015 USD in dividends while she was CEO, and when she was canned you had only ~$24.21 2015 USD worth of stock left over. That's a reduction from ~$80.31 to ~$26.82 or 66.6%.

Those are the numbers. I'm not asking that these be included in the article because they are 'original research', but it certainly belies the nonsense "41%" claim in the lead. The "adjusted" numbers in the bizjournals.com reference (i.e., claiming a $39.75 stock price for HP when Fiorina took office) used to support this claim are WAY, WAY off the actual HP stock prices and since the adjustments are not explained, they are not reproducible. 41% is complete fiction, and that's a verifiable fact. Merely saying a reduction of "more than half" as opposed to "two thirds" is concession enough. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

As best I can tell, she was appointed CEO on 19 July 1999. On that date, the adjusted stock price was $36.54.[17]Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You should use the closing price for the day before she was appointed (Jul. 16th), not the day she was appointed (and doing so works in her favour in this case because the stock price increased the day she got the job). If you want to use adjusted stock prices from Yahoo, the Jul 16, 1999 price was $35.83. The adjusted Feb. 8, 2005 price was $17.48. That's a reduction of 52%, not accounting for inflation. If you do account for inflation, it goes from $50.48 to $21.01, or a reduction of 58%. Both are substantially higher than the claimed 41% and again "more than half" suits the bill better. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit war with you about it.[18]. I disagree with scrubbing reliable sources because you happen to think they're wrong. American City Business Journals is a reliable source, and this particular article has been relied upon by other reliable sources such as Politifact.[19] At the very least, your scrubbing of the lead ought to await conclusion of this talk page discussion. Anyway, I will dig into the numbers to see if your argument is plausible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The wish to follow reliable sources is a good motive. The 41.3% number was not in any of those sources. Here are what the sources say: USA Today Money – 65%, Yahoo Finance – "some 50%", Independent Journal Review – "57.32% drop", Wall Street Journal – "down around 50%", CBS San Francisco – "more than 50 percent", San Jose Mercury News – 52 percent, Market Watch – "more than half", Forbes – "During Fiorina’s tenure HP’s stock price collapsed from $36.58 to $18.68". So we can try and summarize these numbers with a vague approximation or we can tell the reader all the numbers that appear to be reliably published. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Why isn't this reliable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

"more than half of its value" is the correct presentation of the preponderant sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The August 2011 bizjournal article certainly says 41.3%, but a Google search which is limited to the time span 2005–11 finds nobody else saying 41.3% – not Reuters, not Associated Press, not anybody other than this op-ed. I don't like that number because the publication went off in its own unique direction, without showing in depth how they arrived at their figures. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to make a big stink about it, but the biz journals piece explicitly says it's an "article" as opposed to opinion, and Politifact explicitly relies upon and links to that article,[20] and moreover that article gives explicit starting and ending prices for the HPQ shares which is a lot more detail than most sources provide. I never suggested we should say 41.3% is the correct number, but at the same time I don't think we should rule it out. Additionally, we know for certain that there is no single correct figure, because it depends whether dividends are factored in, and how the bounce is treated on the day she resigned, etc, etc. I don't expect to have anything more to say about it for the time being. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead opening sentence

The fact that Fiorina is seeking the nomination is not a primary feature of her bio and should not be on the first sentence. All other nominees have a mention of their running in the lead, but not on the first sentence, and for good reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems apt for the first paragraph, per Hillary Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is hard to read since it is, in my opinion, carefully worded and choosey about how it portrays the subject in such a way as to bias the reader to think negatively about the subject. I am adding a tag for the neutrality to be checked. Please do not remove the tag until this matter is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific. I read the article and found it well sourced and neutral.- Cwobeel (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow you read the entire article in the whole 2 minutes between my edit and your revert? Fast reading skills. I am sure you found it to be very well structured but unfortunately I was looking for an unbias peer review not someone like you that has a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@24.21.118.199: Please assume good faith (I could say the same about you). If you can tell us what you see as wrong with the article, we can attempt to fix it. But a blanket condemnation of the article by means of a tag, will do nothing. If you don't engage in discussions, the tag will be gone. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The lede and significant portions of the article are, indeed, structured in a way that greatly strains any semblance of neutrality. Much of this talk page and its recent history raise unresolved instances of synthesis and weasel wording that have introduced a clear slant against the subject. A recent thread at BLPN also recognized some of these issues. I've changed the tag to reflect that there is a POV issue. Justen (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Justen you may be correct, but still Cwobeel does seem to perhaps have a not-completely-unreasonable point. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags like this NPOV tag, anyone who sees the tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, while this discussion is ongoing in good faith, "anyone" who sees the tag cannot simply remove it — that would be, in a word, disruptive. There are a number of unresolved concerns that a number of editors have raised over the past several weeks on this page. Just tackling the lede for the moment, a few places where we could (re)start the conversation would involve addressing the weasel wording saying that she "pushed through" the merger, the synthesis saying HP became the largest computer maker and then "subsequently" laid off tens of thousands of "American workers," and we could stop trying to turn the "worst ever" clickbait into a biographical fact by ramming it into the lede as though it was somehow just as important as her being named the most important woman in business. (I actually think "pushed through" might actually be weaselly both for or against her depending on the editor or reader, which is why we should really stick to the fact that she "advocated for and completed a contentious merger" or something along those lines.) Justen (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I just changed "pushed through" to "accomplished".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the current lead section of the article approximates the neutral point of view, although it is written in a choppy "tit for tat" style. A well written lead section should summarize the entire article in smoothly written prose, and should not need references, since all claims will be fully referenced within the body of the article. I am not recommending removing the references from the lead at this time, because the article is potentially controversial and in flux. I encourage editors of all political persuasions to edit the article, and especially the lead section, with neutrality, fairness and our policies regarding biographies of living people in mind. Do not edit as an advocate, but rather as an encyclopedist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the article deserves a POV tag because it does not give enough detail about Fiorina's biggest disaster: her decisive role at HP to rid the company of its innovative qualities. She wanted to make the company huge, but its products were to be uninspiring commodities, sold for the lowest price. Before Fiorina, HP was a little bit like Apple in that it performed a lot of R&D to come up with very interesting products. Fiorina cut that stuff out. She also forced a top-down management system, rewarding unquestioning adherence to assigned tasks. Before Fiorina, HP's management system, called the "HP Way", was much more democratic and free-form, allowing cooperation between distant departments, supporting decision-making at the ground level, and fostering inventive teamwork solutions. Fiorina purposely shut down the HP Way. See Business Insider "Everything At Hewlett-Packard Started To Go Wrong When Cost-Cutting Replaced Innovation", and the Chicago Tribune "Carly Fiorina's disastrous paper trail". There's also "Carly Fiorina wrong for HP, wrong for California", "Misleading Claims", "Fiorina, Hurd: no practitioners of 'The HP Way'?", "Losing the HP way", "Carly Fiorina's HP legacy looms over her 2016 ambitions", "The rise and fall of the HP Way", and "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". I'm not going to fight the POV tag because the article fails to give enough detailed description of Fiorina's disastrous leadership of HP. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Her tenure at HP was her single most notable aspect of this person. All other early and late endeavors pale in comparison. The HP sections should be the longest one, and more details about what happened at HP during her tenure. The lede should reflect that as well - Cwobeel (talk) 14:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with User:Cullen328. The lead is basically NPOV. Two of its four paragraphs are about HP, and they present all sides with due weight. I plan to remove the NPOV tag from the top, since the consensus seems to be that the lead is not slanted against the article subject. If people would like to put an NPOV tag in a particular section then we can address it at that time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The "tit-for-tat" that Cullen notices, I think diminishes the other argument that the lede "approximates" NPOV. That's the mistake that editors have made here: if I allow something "good" about Fiorina, I have to balance it with something bad — or vice versa. That formula is the epitome of a non-NPOV article, and it is quite apparent at this one. Justen (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

You've got four editors who have replied that it's not slanted against the subject, but even so your primary specific objection was addressed by changing to the word "accomplished". If you'd like to suggest a specific further change then maybe that would help. I don't mind keeping the tag up for awhile longer, but you might want to consider that the tag itself does not exactly improve the subject's image at Wikipedia. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The article is in no way biased against Fiorina; the facts are biased against her. If anything, too much effort has been put in to adding false balance from the handful of people who don't think she destroyed the company. (And even they can't deny that shareholders lost about half of their wealth under her.) If you want to start adding good Carly material that could potentially be seen as biasing the article, how about adding the fact that employees in Boise handed out Hostess Ding Dongs after she was fired. (Because "Ding, dong. The witch is dead.") Bueller 007 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

"Undertook" is fine. In any large organization, there's always going to be a number of people who cheer a change of leadership. We can honestly say in every BLP of a U.S. President that their exit from office was greeted by cheers in some quarters. We don't, because it would be undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

One of several issues with the lede has been addressed. It's, admittedly, a great start. But that certainly wasn't the only issue I raised, and it's not unreasonable to expect the editor who started this thread may have additional issues to raise. And, four editors out of six over a little more than a Friday night do not a consensus make. It would actually be very helpful for editors who have not recently been involved with this article — or who don't have as strong a set of feelings about the subject as do you, perhaps — to take a fresh look over the next several days. Justen (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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/wiki/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)

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)

Image 1

Image 2

Image 3

Image 4

Image 5

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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)