Talk:Carly Fiorina

Original research regarding jobs at HP

This is what the source says:

This statement is based on the fact that the number of employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger. [1]

... and this is what somebody added to the lede: "by 2004 the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total", as a counter argument to the layoff of 30,000 people post merger. That is exactly what WP:SYNTH tells us NOT to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, Binksternet, Anythingyouwant: please discuss here. (a) This is SYNTH and (b) if there is a need to mention this with the proper context, the place for it is the article's body, not the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands. It is blatantly political skewing, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments of Anythingyouwant. There is an attempt to leave out of the article important information and that is blatant political skewing. I completely agree.--ML (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am only objecting to the content being removed in total and the edit warring that is going on rather than actual discussion. I think the content could be condensed to provide verifiable statistics without the commentary and original research and give NPOV rather than POV. But the edit warring over it definitely has to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am objecting to synthesis rather than summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts are clear, after the merger she fired 30,000 employees. That during her tenure the company hire additional people (many of which were through acquisition) is a completely different matter. I don't oppose including something to that effect in the body of the article with the appropriate context. But we cannot and should not conflate the firing of 30,000 people in one stroke, with the normal course of hiring people over a period of several years and through acquisitions. Otherwsie what we are doing is violation not only NPOV (false balance) bit violating SYNTH as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think the content on the firings could be a little more summary-like and pared down a bit. As it is, it's (in my opinion) bordering on WP:UNDUE for the lede. But, I agree, we don't want to venture into synth and OR territory with the disputed content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is either removed from the lede, or context needs to be added. Given the multiple reverts, I have chosen the latter. More to come. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Context is a fine idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina has been observed by reporters to have reduced the number of American jobs while she was at HP. Mother Jones magazine said that she outsourced jobs from the US to other countries, and that she prominently advocated outsourcing American jobs, campaigning against legislation to keep jobs in the USA. She said "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs." The remark brought wide criticism.[2] Fiorina stated her pro-offshoring position in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.[3] In the UK, The Guardian said she "shipped jobs to China."[4] Business Insider quoted a CNET piece saying Fiorina sent jobs out of the USA to other countries.[5] TechCrunch cited an SF Weekly piece about Fiorina sending American jobs overseas.[6][7] The Huffington Post quoted the Democratic National Committee spokesperson saying that Fiorina has an "affinity for sending American jobs overseas."[8] Barbara Boxer beat Fiorina in the political arena partly by making an issue of offshoring jobs.[9] Fiorina admitted to laying off 30,000 people and she said that "some" of these jobs "may have been [sent] abroad."[10] The exact number of jobs moved by Fiorina out of the USA is difficult to determine, but the National Review says "thousands". In that piece, a sympathetic Victor Davis Hanson said that the jobs outsourcing issue was going to be very painful for Fiorina in her 2010 campaign for US Senator from California.[11] Fiorina even outsourced her US presidential campaign.[12] I'm all for discussing how Fiorina affected the distribution of jobs at HP (and the acquired Compaq), but let's not put that discussion in the lead section. Instead, let's develop it in the article body, and provide a summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a section on Fiorina's offshore and outsourcing hiring strategy deserves its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I still believe it is UNDUE in the lede. I'll move it to the layoffs subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still undue weight to put in the lead that she fired 30,000 people without mentioning the tens of thousands of later hires. I believe this is fairly obvious, and that there is no consensus to have the first in the lead without the second.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not make sense ... the fact is that after the merger she fired 30,000 employees, something that even Fiorina has herself acknowledged. That is not disputed and is widely covered in hundreds of sources due to its notability. That then HP went to add thousands of employees over the next few years, many of which through acquisitions is another matter altogether, and not that notable. Again, this is not a political pamphlet and it is not our place to create a false balance by NOR and SYTNH juxtaposition. I will post a request at WP:NOR/N to attract uninvolved editors' comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Request posted at WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• There seem to be plenty of sources to support the significance of laying off 30,000 employees [13][14][15][16], which probably makes this fact lead-worth. As others have correctly asserted, we cannot use juxtaposition to imply a (false) balance by suddenly discussing the cumulative number of jobs that there were at some arbitrary future point in time resulting from M&A activities. Certainly our sources don't do that.- MrX 03:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors would like the lead to announce that the BLP subject fired 30,000 people, without mentioning the very well-publicized (and juxtaposed) fact that she also hired tens of thousands of people. Here is the material at issue in the lead, which I think is perfectly appropriate:

“ Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees.[1][2] By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001.[3][4][5][6] ”

[1]Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.

[2]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010).

[3]Abcarian, Robin. "Profits may not equal success", The Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2010): "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000."

[4]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010): "According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad."

[5]Kessler, Glenn. "Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record", The Washington Post (May 8, 2015): "[T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this SYNTH? The sources provided make this statement repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Pre vs. Post Merger Employee Counts

The second phrase in the following statement is misleading when used in the context of pre vs. post merger employee counts. It's unclear when the 8,000 employees were acquired:

"By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP during her tenure."CFredkin (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The 8,000 employees may have been acquired prior to the merger, in which case they're completely irrelevant to the situation.CFredkin (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course it is not irrelevant. We are describing the notion of Fiorina firing 150,000 30,000 employees and then we are saying that in 2004 the number of employees was unchanged (meaning that they took in 150,000 30,000 employees), bit the fact is that there was a net loss of jobs as widely reported in articles that have challenged Fiorina's statements about her tenure at HP. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I've not seen it suggested anywhere that Fiorina fired 150,000 employees. What's your source for that? Regardless, your statement doesn't address my initial concern.CFredkin (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the article and the sources, the 150,000 30,000 number is not disputed. Even Fiorina said that she fired 150,000 30,000 people (Not to mention the incredible disruption to 150,000 30,000 families, which she does not mention.) - Cwobeel (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It says there were ~150,000 employees. It doesn't say she fired 150,000 employees. Regardless, and once again, you haven't addressed my original concern above.CFredkin (talk) 21:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my bad. I meant 30,000 employees. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

It's an interesting question how many net jobs were gained (or lost) in the world as a result of her tenure, following the Compaq merger. Do we know? It seems that at most 7,000 jobs were lost but the figure could also be a thousand gained. It's somewhere in there, and it's sufficiently important and controversial that we ought to try and pin it down and present the info in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• This Politifact story [17] makes clear that the 8000 jobs added through acquisitions figure relates to "the same time period" as the pre-and post- Compaq merger employee figures. It also notes in passing that the 8K count does not include employees from outside-the-US acquisitions, but the overall employment figures do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • • I think the problem here is inconsistency between WaPo and Politifact regarding the 8,000 jobs. WAPO says: “The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees" (amphasis added). POLITIFACT says: “In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'” So we need to find out what the "same period" referred to. Was it the period after the Compaq merger? Or Fiorina's entire tenure? Here's a link to the LA Times article. It says: "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000." So we're not talking about Fiorina's entire tenure, but rather 2001-2005.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I have put the "8,000" number back into the lead, and there are now three supporting footnotes at the end of that sentence in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks for clarifying the sources.CFredkin (talk) 04:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Incidentally, User:CFredkin, there is now a discussion about this at WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.CFredkin (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What material about Fiorina's tenure at Lucent should be included?

In the article we are describing information and figures related to Fironia's accomplishments at Lucent based on reliable sources. Should the material also include information and reports from the same reliable sources that challenge these accomplishments or that puts these figures in context?

Diff: [18]

Comments

• No, information about Lucent after Fiorina left should not be included. Unless it is directly attributed to her. Information about Lucent years after she left has nothing to do with her. Jadeslair (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes if the sources state that there were events that took place "soon after Fiorina left", and as a consequence of actions taken during her tenure. For example in this source:

References

• Yes, to a degree per Cwobeel's reasoning above. That which occurred right after her departure, if it is directly related to her tenure there and subsequent departure. Information that is not directly related, no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I find the structure of this RfC to be incredibly misleading. I agree with the text of the RfC, which is worded generically. However almost all the content removed in the diff is referenced to sources that do not actually even mention Fiorina. This is called WP:original research and is not acceptable, particularly in BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) This has already been pointed out in the discussion located in the "Cherry Picking" section above. The author of this RfC has declined to address this issue there, but instead initiated this misleading RfC.CFredkin (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The only content removed in the diff that is reasonably sourced is the following:

"According to Fortune magazine, 'In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset'."

It was removed as WP:undue as almost all the content in the existing paragraph (shown below) is from the same source (and 7 sentences from the same source is enough already), the paragraph adequately represents the substance of the article, and the quote above adds nothing beyond being needlessly inflammatory.

During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit and the company's market share increased in every region for every product. During that period, Lucent and its major competitors started spurring sales by lending money to their own customers. Leaving Lucent in 1999 to join HP as CEO, Fiorina took with her US$65 million in performance-linked pay. Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments to customers to finance equipment purchases (of which $1.6 billion had been dispensed), many of which were unstable startups. The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure and eventually dropped to less than $1 per share, as part of an overall decline in the fortunes of telecom equipment companies. According to Fortune magazine, "the company’s wild pursuit of growth gave it much further to fall." The company later merged with Alcatel.CFredkin (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Why is this misleading? I am arguing for the inclusion of material from sources that refer directly to Fiorina. There are hundreds of such sources, and currently there are editors like you doing everything possible to suppress that information, in violation of NPOV. Let the RFC run its course, please.- Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct. The sources for all the statements removed in the diff, with the exception of the one I mention above, do not mention Fiorina at all.CFredkin (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This has already been broken apart, "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments" that has nothing to do with her. "The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure" has nothing to do with her. "The company later merged with Alcatel" years later so why should this be included? "The company's shares also began to collapse" wasn't that years later also and it started dropping because of what people did after she left and after the sec investigation which had nothing to do with her. I would love for you to try to address each item. This is not science but it is a fringe theory that even the author of the article fails to tie to her. Jadeslair (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

One option would be to reduce that section to the bare minimum, and expand in the respective articles about Lucent and PCC. This is is how it would look like, if we do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=677476509#AT.26T_and_Lucent - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with that.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Actually, I believe I was mistaken about this. I agree with User:Jadeslair that the impact of Fiorina on Lucent's performance after her departure is merely speculation.CFredkin (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. The answer is yes, of course. Wikipedia is not censored, and all facts related to her career deserve to be in this article in proper proportion. I see no BLP or UNDUE issue related to this material. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He is trying to include information that is a year or years after she left the company. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. The investigation is what caused the stock price to fall and the loan commitments were from the people that operated the company the following year after she left. The merger happened about 5-6 years later. Jadeslair (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We follow sources, and the sources clearly states that the decline happened soon after her departure, and that the risky vendor financing programs that Fiorina was said to have supported as CEO at Lucent were made during her tenure. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Then we call it "opinion" and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. Right, User:Cwobeel? Ah the hypocrisy.CFredkin (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care much about that article, I just commented on an RFC. Democrat politician bios bore me to death; Republican politician bios are way more fun to edit - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. If the sources make the connection, and they are reliable and independent of the subject, then we do include the material. If it is one guy writing for The Daily Mail or New York Post it's a different matter entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• It does indeed look like there's a significant amount of wp:synthesis and wp:or going on in at least part of this proposal. So, no to a fatally flawed "RfC." Justen (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, the article is about Fiorina so the information should be relevant to Fiorina. If the information relates back to when Fiorina worked there then it should be included. Information about Lucent after Fiorina left is not notable because it is about Lucent, not Fiorina, it is undue because the fact that Lucent merged into Alcatel years later after she left Lucent is NOT relevant to her biography, and the attempt to wp:synthesis all of Lucent's fortunes into the Fiorina article is a clear violation of BLP--as I stated a long time ago: it is a Wikipedia:Coatrack. The article is about Fiorina, not the long-term history of Lucent. I also agree with CFredkin (talk) about this RFC. These issues have been raised in other places on the talk page; however, they are being re-hashed by Cwobeel in a failed attempt to bring some legitimacy to the argument that information about Lucent (that is not relevant to Fiorina's life) be jammed into the article about Fiorina--information that would never be allowed in other politician's biographies. ONLY Information about Lucent when Fiorina was at Lucent should be included. The article is about Fiorina, not Lucent.--ML (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• If that is your position, why do we have in the article this text? During her time at Lucent, the company added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[44] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product.[37][44] (corrected because you or somebody else erroneously quoted the source as Fiorina being the one that added 22,000 jobs and grew revenues). - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my position. It is quite clear why that information is in the article because it clearly states that those were the numbers when she was with the company. It says "During her time at Lucent". It can't be more clear. Those numbers are tied to her service at the company and are clearly notable to this article about her. Also, I noticed that you edited the sentence before you made this comment to say that "the company" did these things, not Fiorina. But of course you have been a loud advocate for saying in the HP Layoffs section that Fiorina is to blame for the layoffs. It is very clear that you want Fiorina to take the blame for layoffs but when jobs are created she doesn't get any credit. It does not seem to be a NPOV presentation of the track record.--ML (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

At Lucent, she ran Operations, at HP she was CEO. Big difference. If you don't understand the difference between a CEO and a someone running corporate operations, then you should not be commenting on these matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, even Fiorina herself admits firing 30,000 employees. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE quote?

Why was a quote by the former chairman of Compaq undue?[19] NPOV tells us to describe significant viewpoints, and I would argue that former chairman of Compaq's viewpoint is significant. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop with the POV pushing by adding inflammatory quotes to this BLP. WP is not a good venue for advancing your political agenda.CFredkin (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC) The edits you've made which are currently in dispute are all either original research and attributed to sources that don't even mention Fiorina or inflammatory, opinion-based quotes from bystanders. Enough is enough.CFredkin (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than attack me, I would appreciate if you address my question above. Is the chairman of Compaq a "passerby" and not a significant opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who initiated the personal attacks here with claims of NPOV editing and whitewashing. It's not clear to me why I should answer further questions from you at this point until you address the issue of original research in your disputed edits above.CFredkin (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) It seems frankly as though we're reaching somewhat desperately to include quotes in the article that paint her in one light or another. As has been advised repeatedly here by neutral observers, we should stick with facts — with perhaps an occasional quote that provides indispensable context to those facts. Involved parties, Wall Street analysts, and those with axes to grind or favour to curry really aren't appropriate for a wp:blp. Justen (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Justen that there is way, way, way, way too many quotes in the article. What is seems to me is that Cwobeel wants to focus on making all aspects of her business career to look like a total failure. He is putting in every single quote from anyone that ever said anything negative about her time at HP. Also, he has one source (just one source!) that attempts to be negative about her time as a leader at Lucent and wants that one source to be the sole focus of what the article says about Fiorina's time at Lucent. It is not a fair representation. There is absolutely no need to have 5, 6, or 7 different quotes from various sources talking about how horrible they believe Fiorina was as a CEO at HP. Also, he wants the article to only quote the one negative source he can find about her time as a leader at Lucent. That one source that he wants to quote over and over again (essentially wanting to quote the whole article) admits that when she left Lucent her numbers were outstanding (that's a fact they were outstanding). Her numbers when she left Lucent were so outstanding that they supplied the reasoning for: (1) her being named by Fortune "The Most Powerful Women in American Business" and (2) why she was offered the CEO position of HP. The fact that she had those unbelievable numbers led to Fortune honor and the HP CEO position. There is reliable source after reliable source that talks about her time at Lucent in laudatory terms. But Cwobeel will not allow those reliable sources in the section. Why? I don't know but I only think that he wants the ATT/Lucent section to be one long list of negative comments about her business career--just like the HP CEO section, which is one long list of 5, 6, 7, or 8 quotes saying the same negative thing in just different ways. I'm not arguing that the HP CEO section should ignore the negativity but the redundancy is wrong. For example:

(1) In contrast, Arianna Packard, granddaughter of HP cofounder David Packard, wrote in 2010 that "I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded."

Do we really need to quote Arianna Packard? The Packard's clearly have a bone to pick so you really can't call her a unbiased source.

(2) The New York Times described the ousting as an "ignominious end to a six-year run", and noted that her personality and management style ultimately led to her demise.

Is this comment really different than Number 3 below? I don't think so. They say the same thing.

(3) According to The Fiscal Times, Fiorina's tenure at HP "failed to reinvigorate the iconic Silicon Valley company, and it tarnished her credentials as an executive".

(4) Following her resignation from HP, Fiorina was ranked as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time.

How is this generic comment any different than Number 5 below? They are redundant to each other.

(5) In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers.

(6) Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg pointed out Fiorina's downside, as a vice president running mate for McCain, "is rather easy to sketch out" because Fiorina would "become a talking point for Democrats" who would focus on Fiorina's severance package and her management style. Rothenberg concluded that Fiorina was "like a dream come true" for Democratic opposition researchers.

How is this quote any different than Number 7 below? They are different. They are redundant. Oh, and Sonnefeld is a consultant to the Packard family so he is inherently biased.

(7) Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated that McCain's pick of Fiorina to assist with the McCain presidential campaign showed "a blind spot in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality", giving her “street bully” leadership style a platform.--ML (talk) 00

43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV, which states unequivocally that it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - There are a preponderance of sources that put in question Fiorina's accomplishments, or that pass substantial criticism. That is a fact, and in Wikipedia we report these significant opinions and do not, I repeat, do not present a false balance. See also below for more of the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Business career

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

Some sources

"With hindsight, it's hard to see how Carly Fiorina, America's pre-eminent female executive, who was fired as CEO of Hewlett-Packard last week, could have survived. The centerpiece of her career - a $ 24 billion merger with Compaq - was a flop; HP's board was threatening to strip her of day-to-day responsibilities at the firm; As one of only eight women heading Fortune 500 companies, the HP/Compaq deal was Fiorina's fatal error: not just because the strategy was flawed - two years on it has not achieved its goal of improving cost efficiencies in HP's PC business - but also because she alienated too many people in the process of pursuing that goal." […] "Since the merger, HP has lost market share and failed to revive its profit margins. It lost the number one position in personal-computer market share last year to Dell. While the share price of Dell has soared over the past 18 months, HP's has floundered. Indeed, the merger was so disastrous that Fiorina fought off three attempts to spin off HP's highly profitable printer business and cut the PC business adrift. After her departure last week, shares in the company rose nearly 10 per cent on that prospect." [London Observer, 2/13/05][20] "Fiorina's personality and management style ultimately led to her demise. She used hardball tactics to suppress the opposition of Walter Hewlett, the company's largest shareholder and the son of its co-founder William Hewlett, to the 2002 Compaq merger...Last year, when the company's struggling corporate computer division failed to meet its sales growth targets, she abruptly fired three top executives in what many people, both inside and outside the company, saw as a public hanging." [New York Times, 2/10/05] [21] "Carly Fiorina's nearly six-year reign at Hewlett-Packard Co. ended abruptly Wednesday as board members forced her out, disappointed by her inability to transform a plodding technology giant dominated by printer sales into a more nimble innovator. H-P's stock, which has gone nowhere for two years and is down two-thirds from its peak in 2000, rose almost 7 percent after earlier soaring almost 11 percent on the news of her ouster." [Associated Press, 2/9/05] [22] But until recently, Fiorina's claim to fame was 5 1/2 rocky years at Hewlett-Packard, where she battled the company's founding families to push forward with a $19 billion purchase of Compaq Computer in 2002, then failed to create the profitable computer giant she had promised. In February 2005, she was publicly ousted by HP's board, but not before she ordered the first of a series of leak investigations that would spin into a highly publicized scandal." [Washington Post, 4/2/08] Asked to describe her relationship with her board of directors, the embattled Hewlett-Packard chief executive, Carly Fiorina, replied with a single word: "Excellent." Perhaps she was in denial, or just out of the loop, but Fiorina's confrontational tenure as chief executive of the world's second-largest computer company was unraveling." [New York Times, 2/10/05] [23] "Fiorina had a vision, and she did a phenomenal job acquiring Compaq and combining the assets. But we had to make the assets deliver. We had an execution problem. The stock took a big hit. She was a better saleswoman than a manager.'" [The New Yorker, 2/19/07] [24] "In the midst of all the competitive pressures bearing down on her, and in the struggle of managing the unwieldy company she created, Carly Fiorina sometimes talks as if she sees a vision all her own. She hauls it out in the opening lines of internal speeches, articulating her goal of making HP 'the world's leading technology company.' The ambition is a curiosity rouser because it implies that she has firmly in mind what company right now holds that title. But that turns out not to be true. ... But then, you wonder, if she doesn't know who the leader is now, how would she know whom HP has to pass and when to claim victory?" [Fortune, 2/7/05] [25] "Although the effort to acquire Compaq was successful, Fiorina subsequently struggled to manage the now sprawling enterprise. By August of 2004, Hewlett-Packard’s stock had dropped below seventeen dollars, from a high of more than sixty dollars, in 2000. The price was so low that some directors felt that Hewlett-Packard itself had become vulnerable to a takeover, and blamed Fiorina." [The New Yorker, 2/19/07] [26] "The problem with all these structural virtues {of the merger], good as they may look on a sales call, is that they cost HP shareholders $24 billion to get, resulted in the bargain sale of 37% of the printer business, and aren't producing decent profits. In other words, the merger may have improved HP's status, but it did so only at an indefensible cost and without producing a company of merit. Stay with us as we de-layer just how much HP makes. Bottom line, according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), 2004 profits were $3.5 billion. That's a dull 4.4% of $80 billion in revenues. Nor does it stack up well against assets of $76 billion (the ratio is 4.6%) or stockholders' equity of $37.6 billion (9.3%). When the next FORTUNE 500 comes out with its performance rankings for such key measures as return on equity (in which the 500 median is likely to run about 14%), this huge company will place way down the list." [Fortune, 2/7/05] [27] "That's what she herself has claimed to believe again and again. Her pride, which she is not short of, is bound up with somehow making this company work, even if not by the definition detailed in the merger proxy. Some people fault Fiorina for having rapidly moved out of jobs at two previous employers, AT&T and Lucent, without having really "finished" her work. Those critics think she might speed from HP also, perhaps by riding the rumors into some kind of Republican post. But her HP job seems unlike the others in that her managerial reputation is thoroughly and publicly on the line--in a company that hasn't succeeded--and would be badly tarred if she walked out." [Fortune, 2/7/05] [28]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Resignation

The resignation section is incomplete in its current state. This was the most dramatic aspect of her entire career, and as such it deserves expansion, with not only details on the resignation itself, but also the considerable coverage it received, and the viewpoints of the financial press both in the US and abroad. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I will provide a list of such sources here, for editors to draw from as we expand that section. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few. Note that at that time, Fiorina was not a politician running for President, and thus the analysis of her performance at HP was untainted by partisanship.

• Fiorina out, HP stock soars, CNN Money [29]
• Fiorina resigns as chief of HP, BBC [30]
• H-P's Board Ousts Fiorina as CEO, Wall Street Journal [31]
• The Inside Story Of Carly's Ouster, Bloomberg Business [32]
• Fiorina Exiting Hewlett-Packard With More Than $42 Million [33]
• Hewlett-Packard Forces Celebrity CEO to Quit, WaPo [34]

We should use these sources to describe how her dismissal from HP was received at the time, and follow that up with recent commentary that have the benefit of hindsight. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the those sources apply to her time a Lucent. You want to make the ATT/Lucent section as negative and quote-heavy as the HP section. You have not made your point.--ML (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you read? I am not talking about the Lucent section, I am talking about the "Resignation" sub section under the HP section. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel removal AT&T and Lucent content

CwobeelThe newsource says " For example, when Hewlett-Packard granted new CEO Carly Fiorina restricted stock worth about $65 million and 600,000 stock options, the company specified that the awards compensated her for stock and options she forfeited when she left Lucent Technologies." which confirms what the other source says, you have removed content without context, contrary to your statements on the talk page. "The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared" It later says: "Fiorina’s stock and options were still worth a mint. (A total of $85 million, she says.) HP gave her $65 million worth of restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she was leaving behind."Jadeslair (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The two are separate issues. Fiorina collected $65 MM from Lucent during her tenure there. Then, when she left to join HP, the board compensated her with stock options to cover her loss of options she had at Lucent. Read the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal. [35]

. The stock options offered at HP is a total different thing, and is already covered in the Hiring section, which reads: "Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she left behind,[44]." so you have confused two things and now we have a mess. Please undo your edit.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: Please see above, I think you are mistaking two different things. Fiorina got $65MM at Lucent, and she left on the table Lucent stock options. That is the reason HP gave her a massive signin bonus to compensate her for that loss. What the article says now is incorrect. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, I will look at everything closely. So, you believe that I am confusing two different things that are both 65 million? Jadeslair (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. She received total compensation at Lucent of $65M according to that source. The HP hiring bonus to compensate for what she forfeited in options by leaving Lucent, is already covered in the HP hiring subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From HP she received that for having unexercisable stock options at Lucent at the time she left, it is the same thing you called performance pay. Which may be included later but you inserted her pay, I just corrected it. Jadeslair (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Convoluted text

I appreciate the effort in improving the material, but this is gobbledygook and unreadeable (in particular the highlighted):

"Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wants a good deal then they must walk away sometimes and during this negotiation the U.S. never did. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal because Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf so that Russia and China can get access to Iran's economy and because the European Union negotiates weak deals."

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Then fix it. There is no need to drag grammar issues out to the talk page, unless that is what you want to do going forward. Is that what you want to do, Cwobeel? Huh?--ML (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am just making the point that we should do better than that with a little bit of effort, so that we write good prose. This, after all, is an encyclopedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Edited version looks like the following:

Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wanted to achieve a good deal then the negotiators on the U.S.'s behalf should have to walked away from the bargaining table and during this specific negotiation (the Iran deal) the U.S. never walked away and lost its bargaining power. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal. She stated the reason was that Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf and that Russia and China were looking out for their self-interest, specifically they were looking to get access to Iran's economy. She also stated that the deal could not be trusted because the European Union negotiates weak deals.

"She said", "she has said", "she also said", "she stated, "she has stated". Can we use a better narrative instead of a staccato? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get more substantive information into the article instead of simply saying "Fiorina says she would walk away from the deal" because that was not all she said and it was not even an accurate representation of what she said about walking away. There was a real lack of substance and whatever attempt at substance that was there in the foreign policy section was not accurate.--ML (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is good work, ML. Just that it is better to use long prose than short sentences staring with a variation of "She stated" or "She also stated". - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 comments by Perkins

If we include comments made by Perkins 10 years after Fiorina's firing, we have to include other commentary as well from other board members and shareholders. Section tagged as POV until this is addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some material from these sources which improves the material there with some useful context, but it still needs additional comments from other board members for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And given that Perkins letter was in response to the scathing commentary by Andrew Sorkin, [36] as described in the sources provided, we have to also include some of Sorkin's commentary. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A alternative of having additional comments from other board members, and given that Perkins' letter was paid by her super PAC, I believe that material needs to be moved to the presidential campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've got no objection to including commentary from other board members, as long as it's not excessive. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the spiral that has occurred here in the past, personally I'd prefer to have no opinion-based commentary.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. I will move that entire passage to the Campaign article. There is content there questioning Fiorina's business bonafides and Perkins comments would be useful for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting the content into the campaign article is a good move, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Moved to Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016#Controversy over tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard for a much better fit. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle I see you disagree. Can you explain why? The reasoning is very simple: this is related to the campaign as the letter was paid by Fiorina's SuperPAC as a way to deflect criticism of her business career. Much better would be to keep the content at the campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at all with simply naming the board members who have had positive things to say about her, and naming the ones who have had negative things to say about her, with a footnote for each so interested readers can find out more (the footnotes can include not just links but perhaps also quotes for the convenience of readers). This would take probably no more than a single sentence in the main text of this Wikipedia article. If a board member has said both positive and negative things, then it's important for us to not include only one or the other, and important for us to say which came first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And how do we do that? Perkins was one of the board members that voted to fire her, and now he is saying something else, aided by her Super pac. So, how do we do this? Do we quote what they said then? what they say now she is running for the nomination? It is a massive can of worms if we open that. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows, even more so when the relationship is strange to begin with. The observation is prompted by a full-page advertisement placed in Thursday's New York Times by Carly for America, the super PAC backing former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Carly Fiorina's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The ad, headlined "The Truth About Carly," features a letter signed by multimillionaire venture capital investor Thomas Perkins defending her management at HP and expressing his support for her candidacy. [ sidebar: "I was...appalled by the reemergence of Tom Perkins and the very active role he was now playing. - Carly Fiorina, in 2006, on her newest, bestest campaign supporter, Tom Perkins" ] It's a curious document. Perkins was a board member of HP during much of Fiorina's tenure as its chairwoman and chief executive (1999-2005). In her 2006 memoir, "Tough Choices," she depicts him as a member of the cabal that forced her out and a close ally of George Keyworth, the director who was her leading adversary. [37]

That's what I mean... if we add Perkins comments, we need to add the context, for what is obviously a political issue, and not much to do with her bonafides as an executive, according to many sources commenting on his letter. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is no can of worms at all. We say something like "Both before and in the time since her resignation, people who were HP board members at that time have made a variety of remarks about her, and about the board's decision. Focussing on the most recent remarks, board members who view her tenure mostly unfavorably (i.e. who support the board's decision) include X, Y, Z while those who view it mostly favorably include A, B, C; of these board members, the views of P, D, and Q have changed substantially over time." Plus footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel No. That's not what your job is Cwobeel. You don't get to decide if Perkins means what he says. He said what he said. You don't get to do your own original research and decide that, well, I read so and so AND so and so said that Perkins is not telling the truth and that Perkins is just saying what he is saying now for political reasons. That's not your job. So you personally agree with a some liberal commentator at the LA Times. He has expressed his opinion that Perkins does not mean what he says today. It's fine to have your own personal opinion on whether Perkins is telling the truth or not and it is great that you have a liberal commentator at a reliable source to be saying exactly what you agree with, but it doesn't matter. Why? You have put in the article at least six (6) long-winded quotes from various people to comment on Fiorina's business experience--people that Perkins points out in his letter that were not at HP at the time, did not know the internal discussions of HP's board, and some of them have no business experience at all, and some of them are paid consultants to the HP Family members. But now that one of the most central figures from that time period, the man that was on the Board of HP, left the Board and then returned the HP Board and was instrumental in firing Fiorina comes out and says that he was wrong, the Board was wrong and that Fiorina was a great CEO of HP, you suddenly don't want any long quotes (especially not from him) in the article. It is a joke. You haven't given one good reason to not have Perkins quoted in the article. Not one. The two reasons that you have given are: (1) too many quotes in the article, which of course all of the extremely long ones and most of them were put there by you and they, for the most part, bash Fiorina, and (2) there are articles that exist that basically say that Perkins is telling us what he believes now about Fiorina and he believes that she did a good job and was a great CEO of HP, but these article writers know what Perkins believes better than Perkins himself knows and since you believe the LA Times commentator then we need to leave out all of Perkins quotes because like the LA Times writer said Perkins doesn't know what he is saying or Perkins is lying or, at any rate, you and the LA Times writer know more about what Perkins thinks than Perkins does. You haven't given a good reason not to put in the Perkins quotes. If you want to start trimming the article of quotes then we need to start with your 6 or 7 or 8 long-winded negative quotes that you jammed into the article and dare anyone to remove. You want to trim the article of quotes then let start with those 8 negative ones, ok?--ML (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, what you are accusing Cwobeel of is WP:SYNTH, and frankly, I don't see that happening at all. Currently, consensus !vote-wise is for removal of the content to be replaced at the Fiorina campaign article. I think that is the best move, for removal of undue weight for one thing, but also for the reasons given by Cwobeel and SuperCarnivore591. Please take your rhetoric and accusatory tone down a notch or two, for the sake of collegial discussion and peaceful collaboration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. There is no consensus. That is not true. We just started this discussion. If Cwobeel or you want to trim the article of quotes then you need to start with all of the long-winded Fiorina bashing quotes. This quote is directly on point and neither you or Cwobeel have give one good reason for it to be whitewashed from the article. His comments are more important that all of the quotes in the article so far. Neither you or Cwobeel have provided any reasoning why the one person who had the biggest role in the time period needs to be whitewashed out of the article. Not one. I have explained why the quotes (and he comments on a broad range of issues that are brought up in this article) are directly on point and there is NOT one person quoted so far whose comments are as important or more important that his opinion. There was no closer to the situation and the fact that he has changed his mind is a whole new FACT that is notable for this article. You are leaving out an important notable FACT. Thank you for expressing your opinion but your opinion does not make consensus. I will not be hit over the head with that false "consensus" hooey. There is ZERO consensus does not mean: "I think so and so and therefore consensus is reached and now we will shut down debate." It doesn't work that way.--ML (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus. The discussion already occurred; you came to this discussion late, after consensus had already been reached. My opinion alone doesn't make for consensus, but the three of us in on the discussion at the time the content was being discussed does. Like I said, you came to this late. Can't help that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

hey MaverickLittle, can you be a bit more concise, otherwise you run the rick of TL;DR. The commentary about Perkins is all over the news; it is not just a "liberal New York Times journalist's" opinion. And the context is needed if you want to keep that material here. Much better is to have it at the campaign article, otherwise you will have to accept adding commentary about Fiorina from other board members, including the sons of the HP founders who had very harsh words for Fiorina, as we can't just have one board member's comments. So, please state what you want to do. You have two options, (1) keep the material from Perkins + commentary here (including material from the original article that prompted this letter – after all the letter starts with a mention of that article The Truth About Carly" New York Times 8/27/15 By Tom Perkins. RESPONSE TO: Andrew Ross Sorkin, August 17, 2015 “Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling” – and adding comments from other board members, or (2) move the material to the campaign article. What say you? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) There's already significant "context" for the challenges HP was facing and how outside individuals speculated that played a role in her forced resignation. The comments by Tom Perkins certainly reflect a critical viewpoint of why he believed, as a leader on their board, they made the decisions they did. We should pare his thoughts down to what is essential and include those. Justen (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We can't just have Perkins' comments, as that would violate NPOV. If we add Perkins, we will also need to add other board members comments. That is the problem we are facing, Justen. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting aspect is that this "letter" was not "published in the New York Times". It was an ad. So, an ad is a primary source and not notable by definition, and the only way we can refer to an ad is by sourcing it to secondary sources. These sources provide the context, which can't be ignored. Case in point. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Primary sources are acceptable in certain circumstances. As a key director at the company, I don't think I would rush to call his position on Fiorina's tenure "not notable by definition." In addition to the Bloomberg article you've linked, reliable sources already exist covering the significance of Perkins' viewpoint, the relevance of the ad, and the "context" you were looking for...

• WSJ
• The Hill

Nonetheless, "context" isn't arguably disputable: he was a director of the company with a significant viewpoint that isn't otherwise covered in our article. Going out of our way to exclude it violates wp:npov, not the opposite. Justen (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that is we include a mention of Perkin's comments, we also have to include not only the context and the background in which these comments were made, but also include other board members comments, per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) It appears like this article now has numerous, at times very long, quotes of various peoples/orgazizations positive and negative points of view. While this might address "balance issues" in the article, it makes for a highly dramatized article. These create multiple POV issues and a poorly constructed article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that many quotes, but if there is such a perception, it should not not that difficult to paraphrase and summarize. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently. Justen believes there is consensus to include the content on Perkins. I don't see a clear consensus here -- did consensus occur somewhere else other than this talk page? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It occurred here, although I'll grant that you weren't in agreement with the consensus. A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included. I agree that there's not a clear consensus on brevity or the section it should live in, but outright removing reliably sourced content as opposed to finding a compromise for its placement is a mistake. Justen (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been part of this discussion yet. The Perkins bit should stay out. Perkins flip-flops his stance at a suspiciously opportune time, making it promotional, paid for, and political; as such, it should be kept in the Fiorina for Prez article where it can be accompanied by explanatory (and contradictory) text. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're valuing your opinion over coverage from reliable sources. It's clearly an issue of the campaign, and it's gotten enough coverage to make it notable solely in that regard. But the context it provides in course of her forced resignation is ridiculously undeniable. Justen (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included". Well, Justen, since you seem to see something I don't ("a significant majority"), perhaps you can point out who is in that majority. Then how about point out those not in that majority. Then we can see who is where on this and decide if we have consensus or not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Given the nature of that "letter", which is nothing more than an ad paid by Fiorina's PAC, this material does not belong in her bio. It has been moved to the political campaign article were it belongs alongside commentary from the sources that reported about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am also opposed to including this content in this bio as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO. I'm especially opposed to direct quotes, when really we should use third-party analysis to summarize the material. In this case though, Perkin's opinion doesn't represent a widespread view of the subject and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement. - MrX 13:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's correct. It doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in her campaign article, which is why it was moved. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the disputed material, as there is consensus for excluding it. See also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: don't you think that it is a little disingenuous to argue against edit warring when it is you doing the warring? Please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Horse Hockey. Don't edit war. It takes two to tango and you are an active participant. Don't edit war.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. You have used the revert button twice in succession today, another one two days ago, and added the content three days ago. You did not respect WP:BRD thus you are edit warring, not me. So stop with the nonsense and stop edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, focus on how to make the article better and stop whitewashing the article of information you don't particularly like. I believe you whitewash of notable, reliably sourced information that puts Fiorina's firing in a more positive light is clearly a violation of BLP. You need to stop your violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The discussion above explains the rationale. You can chose to put your head in the sand, but that is not helpful. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you have been hangin out with editors that constantly point to templates that are not relevant. You just gave me another template that is not relevant. I know you know better than that. Also, there are several editors that believe the information should be in the article. Also, removing information that is historic fact and it puts the subject in more positive light is a violation of BLP. There is no discussion above about that. And the 3RR area is not the proper place for that discussion.--ML (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had enough of this crap. He may not be at or beyond 3RR, but there is definitely disruptive edit warring behavior going on. If anyone's interested, see this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Once again this article has fell victim to pro and anti Fiorina POV's. These conflicts need to be worked out through talk page consensus instead of edit warring. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on your comments a few minutes ago at AN3, I assume you think I am in the "anti" camp. Because of that, I am going to challenge you to back up your claim(s) with something that would give indication as to where I fall in regard to Fiorina and how I've edited this article and commented at this talk page, Ism schism. As far as I recall, I've never given any indication about my personal POV re: Fiorina. If I have, it certainly hasn't been recently and it definitely hasn't been noted by how I edit the article. Diffs, perhaps? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My comments and diffs are at AN3. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them (and easily refuted your claims). Again, where is the POV you are claiming? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to create a new discussion to complain about perceived biases. I'm sure that many here are neither pro- nor anti- Fiorina. I recommend commenting in the thread above so that we can better determine consensus. - MrX 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a much more productive use of time and bytes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected for three days

As per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected for 3 days), I've protected m:The Wrong Version of the article for three days. Please take the time to develop consensus ab initio. The protection can be extended if necessary. Thank you and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked out this article in weeks. Sad to see it has turned into a virtual campaign pamphlet. Notable, relevant facts have been buffed away, minimized, and spun -- from the number of employees post-merger ("...worldwide"), to her HP years, now made to sound as if she were a lone champion railing against the board's foolhardy and short-sighted opposition... the raw fact she has never held office (a simple fact, right? Perhaps meriting a statement of six words: "Fiorina has never held public office"), it now includes a multiline "counterargument" from Fiorina including a Fox news quote including her claim the American people want people outside the "professional political class". What? Contemporaneous sentiment and commentary on her performance at HP-- important context-- has been excised. Cited facts are pulled from articles without their original context (which is sort of amusing when you go and read the source). The above-the-fold summary is atrocious and very POV. This article has no nuetrality indeed. It reads like there must have been a focused effort to shape this article for her political benefit.--Replysixty (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that both POV sides are upset that the article doesn't read more anti or pro Fiorina, and that in itself is the problem. Editors need to be working towards a quality article, and stop getting upset when it does no read to their POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape, in particular as it presents a false balance. NPOV is not achieved by adding pro and con viewpoints, but rather, it is achieved by presenting a subject in accordance and in proportion of viewpoints held by reliable sources. It is a fact that the main accomplishment of Florina is her tenure at HP and her business career as a whole, and the overwhelming majority of sources have a pretty critical viewpoint. The article needs to reflect that reality. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ism schism, please stop with the generalized finger pointing. It's not helpful. You are right that we need to be working toward a quality article, but the other comments are just going to inflame more of the same crap some of us (in the neutral camp) have already been fighting against. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Never held public office

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina has never held public office?

Fiorina is described in the opening sentence as an American Republican presidential candidate and former business executive who currently chairs the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360. Should the lead mention that Fiorina has never held public office?

Comments

• Yes. This is an article about a former business executive and a current politician, and mentioning this fact in the lead is necessary to provide a complete biographical picture. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. I can't imagine why anyone would think it shouldn't be in the lede. It's pertinent, relevant, and germane in an article about an individual running for public office. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nope, not everything that is well-sourced and true and notable belongs in the lead, as opposed to belonging later in the Wikipedia article. This particular factoid is an argument about her suitability for the U.S. presidency, and belongs later in the Wikipedia article with other context about that. It is also a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). Furthermore, this factoid is redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't occupied public office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - This is a important piece of information for a biography about someone running for the highest public office in the United States. - MrX 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No This is a bio, not a discussion of her fitness for public office. It could perhaps be mentioned in the body of her bio, but not in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No The reader can find out by reading her biography in detail that she has never held public office, and pointedly stating that she hasn't in the lead, I just don't see a purpose to it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. The fact is important to her political campaign, promoted by Fiorina as an advantage, critiqued by others as a disadvantage, and generally commented on by many sources. Even the friendly source the Politics and Governance Portal says that "One of Fiorina's major liabilities is a complete lack of a political resume, as she has never held any public office." She's running as a "political outsider" who is happy to report that her supporters say that they are "delighted" that she has not ever held elective office. The UK's Guardian says "Fiorina has never held political office and has fought one political campaign..." So the issue is significant inside and outside of the US. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No It is not a defining characteristic of the subject of this article that is essential for readers to understand. Moreover, it's inappropriate and unworkable to include in the lead of this or any article information about what this or any subject has not done. If significant sources have discussed this lack of experience in a specific context then it may be appropriate to include that in the appropriate section of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Politics is most CERTAINLY a driver of traffic and readers to this page (if not THE driver). Therefore commenting on her Political career thus far is important in the lead Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• No Besides the concerns laid out by others, this isn't notable enough for the lede, particularly if by "public office" we mean "elected office." It's not as if it's unheard-of for Presidential candidates to not have come from a political background. The top two republican polling candidates (as of now) don't. Eisenhower didn't. Reagan only head one public office before the presidency and had a background in entertainment. Further, do we think that Wikipedia is burying important information and potentially misleading people by putting it further down in the article? That seems like a stretch, especially since it can be so easily inferred by the current lead that she hasn't held office before, because all other candidates who have, it IS in the lede. Mreleganza (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, This is a biography, not a campaign nor an anti-campaign page. She has not done a lot of other items also should we list them all. Is the fact that she has not held office a significant event in her life? No. Jadeslair (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - agree with Binksternet's well-expressed view. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - certainly it should be mentioned in the article as the article is an encyclopaedic summary of her career. But the lead is a summary of that summary and stating things she hasn't done is frivolous in that location. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

*No, as one is not defined by negative-space attributes, i.e things they have notdone. I'm quite honestly surprised that this is even up for debate, it is so nakedly WP:NPOV-violating and partisan. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - as per Tarc and CFredkin. While it may be appropriate to mention, in a section about her candidacy for president, that she has not held public office and that she is apparently using that as a 'selling point' for her candidacy, it does not belong in the lede of her encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• No Erniecohen (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• No as per above (Mostly Tarc (Yes I know his comment's been struck but he still has a point!)) - We shouldn't list things they haven't done but should instead list and focus on what they have done. –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - summoned here by bot. Just because the fact in question is a notable aspect, does not mean it necessarily belongs in the lede. The lede does not need to summarize her suitability for office. It can be discussed later in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• No -- for many of the reasons stated above. I'd say it makes more sense to put what's notable about her career (that is, the thing for which she is most known) than to describe experiences she has not had. You could make an endless list of things she has not done. I do however think the widespread and numerous critiques of her performance as "worst CEO" and "worst tech CEO" are a quite notable dimension related to her career (again, the aspect of her life for which she is best known) and think that fact *should* be in the lede. But to get back to the issue at hand-- her lack of doing something, while perhaps persuasive one way or another re: her campaign, does not seem to belong in a general encyclopedic biography. --04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discusssion

Most sources that profile Fiorina, include this fact:

• "While she has never held public office -- and lost her only political race, a 2010 Senate bid in California -- Fiorina said her status as an outsider is an asset because professional politicians have failed everyday Americans." [38]

• "But Fiorina, 60, has considerable challenges, chiefly that she has sought but never held public office. Lingering disarray from her last campaign could also haunt her next one, undercutting her image as an effective manager. " [39]

• "Fiona has run for public office once before. She challenged California’s incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer back in 2010. Fiorina lost, and it wasn’t close." [40]

• "Despite never being elected to public office, Mrs. Fiorina has been a regular in Republican circles since her high-profile ouster from Hewlett-Packard in 2006." [41]

• "Fiorina, 60, has never held public office. A 2010 run for US senate collapsed amid images of private jets and million-dollar yachts. Now, she hopes the revived record of a dot-com businesswoman will vault her over the otherwise all-male Republican field of mostly professional politicians – or at least lead to a spot as one of their vice-presidential running mates to face Hillary Clinton head-on." [42]

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do any of them include it in the article title or the lead sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

These are all article profiling Fiorina, so yes. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Which one says in the article title or lead sentence anything about what she has not done?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very easy to find; this is phrased often in terms of "she's an outsider." E.g.: Before Trump or Fiorina, There Was Wendell Willkie: If either Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina receives the 2016 Republication presidential nomination, it will be a rare achievement. Only once in American history has a major political party granted its prize to someone whose principal qualification was to have served as a corporate chief executive. (NYT, first two sentences); U.S. Republican debate brings outsider Fiorina to the fore: Once among the most powerful women in American business, Carly Fiorina emerged as a leading contender in the 2016 Republican presidential campaign alongside Donald Trump, another outsider from the corporate world. (Reuters, first sentence); Can never-elected Carson or Fiorina win in Iowa? No candidate who has never held elected office has won the Iowa caucuses in modern times ... former tech-industry executive Carly Fiorina — officially joined the presidential race on Monday (Des Moines Register, first two sentences). Neutrality^talk 02:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

h one says in the article title or lead sentence anythi

This is what we have as the opening sentence of the lengthy Carly Fiorina#Political career section:

Fiorina has never held public office, but said that her status as an outsider is a positive, given that in her opinion, professional politicians have failed to deliver to the American people, stating in an interview with Fox News in 2015 that "82% of the American people now think we need people from outside the professional political class to serve in public office."

References

As such, we ought to include a mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, because the lead section is a summary of important article content. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Layoffs and severance package

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This bit is gratuitous and undue:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes

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

No

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

Threaded discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clearer citation needed

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

Campaign Debts

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

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

Top line vs bottom line

... explained [43]. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Goodthink vs wrongthink

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs without mentioning that she also created tens of thousands of jobs?

Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs following the 2002 merger between HP and Compaq, without the lead providing well-sourced context, such as that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined?05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

RfC Survey

• No. A prior stable version of the lead used to provide well-sourced context about the 30,000 figure, and it would not be neutral or fair to present the 30,000 figure in the lead without such context. Per WP:BLP, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". It would be much better to leave the 30,000 figure out of the lead if no context is provided. My preference would be to leave all of these statistics for the main body of the article, but if the 30,000 figure is in the lead then it must be accompanied by a minimal amount of context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear from reading the sources that the point is not the net change in the number of global jobs, but the number of jobs that left the USA and went elsewhere. The point is that Fiorina, who is running for office in the USA, sent tens of thousands of jobs to other countries. Such a move might be considered beneficial in the multi-national corporate world, but it does not sit well with political constituents. The sources are crystal clear that Fiorina in 2015 is being judged as a potential president of the USA rather than as a multi-national corporate CEO. The net jobs delta is negative for USA voters, and thus it is an important issue for her political aspirations. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - There are numerous available sources to support the significance of laying off 30,000 employees: Boston Globe, Washington Post, CNBC, New York Times, The Guardian, Politifact, International Business Times, San Jose Mercury News which I believe makes this fact lead-worthy, however the vast majority of sources do not juxtapose the layoffs with the net employee head count resulting from mergers and normal hiring, for good reason. We can't rightfully do that either without violating WP:SYNTH. Anythingyouwant's desire to balance the lead by adding false balance not found in the most of our sources is misguided and against policy. Our goal should be to represent sources faithfully, not to achieve a false balance that seems to emanate from Fiorina's self-serving comments regarding her record of RIFing and offshoring: "It is also true that, net-net, we created jobs,...". However, our sources are not buying it, nor should we.- MrX 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Of course. We should follow the sources, and avoid creating a false balance by the juxtaposition Fiorina's campaign talking points in defense of her business record. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• No Context is needed.CFredkin (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes We need to make sure we are properly reflecting the weight our sources have been giving this issue. They think it's important enough to warrant continued coverage, the article should give it that same continued weight. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 17:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• No - what the heck is that job figure doing in the lead in the first place? If it stays it needs the balance/context of other items lest it seem non-neutral. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Per MrX's reasoning.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - I do think it was a major event in her business career that had enduring salience on her political career. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• No - The entire paragraph in the lead about the firings and employee counts should be removed. Erniecohen (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• No per Anythingyouwant, CFredkin, and Fyunck. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. As I said at WP:NOR: Using a source to draw the conclusion that that source explicitly states is not WP:SYNTH; but pulling a fact out of a source and using it to imply a conclusion that isn't in the source is WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we can cite the Politifact and WaPo sources to conclude that Fiorina fudged the numbers to make misleading claims about her business record and that she fired large numbers of people during her tenure; we cannot cite them (as this RFC requests) to make a statement that seems to imply "it was fine, the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total." That technically repeats a fact from the sources, but alters its context in a way that changes the meaning. That would be WP:SYNTH. You say in the talk page that this "seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands." But what the sources say is that she actually merged companies (acquiring the people who already worked there) and then fired people as a result, not that she hired people; taking that out of context to say "look, she hired people!!" is clear WP:SYNTH. If you want a source extolling her virtue for hiring people, you need to find one that says it explicitly rather than trying to read it into sources that are unequivocally saying the opposite; but as it stands, with the sources we have, we absolutely cannot juxtapose the hired / fired numbers in the way Anythingyouwant is requesting. We have many sources explicitly stating that she fudged the numbers on hiring and highlighting the 30,000 people who were fired as a result of those mergers as a problem for her campaign, so we must cover it from that aspect; we cannot go with a version that reads as "she fired 30,000 people, but also hired a bunch of people." I also take heavy issue with the wording of this RFC, which is clearly not neutral as required by the RFC guidelines. The question of whether Anythingyouwant's preferred version provides "well-sourced context" or whether it is just a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is the entire question at issue here, so assuming it in the head of the RFC clearly invalidates the whole issue... especially when we have another (much more neutrally-worded) straw poll, just above this one, on whether the firing figures themselves should be included irrespective of other considerations (which means that the only question here ought to be whether we include the figures that Anythingyouwant asserts give it context.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• figure not in lead at all and in the body it should include the balancing info. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Here is an example of a neutral and fair presentation:

“ Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees. By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001.

On February 9, 2005, the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman over disagreements about the company's performance, disappointing earning reports, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads. At that time, HP had about 150,000 employees.

”

It's amazing to me that "yes" !voters in this RfC apparently don't even want to allow a statement about how many employees HP had.

References

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's amazing to me that the number of times that our WP:SYNTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE have been cited, that there is still insistence that we should bend the rules in the name of fairness. That's simply not how it works. As prominently explained in MOS:INTRO: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." - MrX 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Per WP:BLP, "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It seems egregiously unfair to say that a BLP subject got rid of tens of thousands of jobs, without mentioning that that same person also created tens of thousands of jobs. Per WP:NOR, "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." Thus, we should not blindly add up sources that mention the "30,000" layoffs without context, and compare that sum to the sources that provide context; best practice is instead to look at the most reliable sources that consider the employment data in depth, such as the ones cited above. Per WP:Lead, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis added). Leaving out the context in this instance would be a mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. The sources don't support the idea that she created tens of thousands of jobs; the sources say that there were mergers and layoffs and that as a result of these, she fired 30,000 people. Parsing the numbers to say "oh she actually created jobs" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it's distorting what the sources say, not providing context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• If we say "Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees", then we are implying to the reader that Fiorina laid off those people only because the merger was successful with regard to the metric of market share. The sources don't connect those two things, so we should not either. Instead, we should tell the reader that Fiorina laid off thousands of US workers in order to move those jobs to other countries, which was all part of the merger plan in the first place, with Fiorina intending in September 2001 to slash 15,000 additional jobs, more than were earlier announced, to make the merger work. Let's not gloss over this layoff issue with misdirection and prestidigitation. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • According to Politifact, "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq...."[44] I don't see any problem with providing this chronological information. However, this is mostly a side issue, not part of the RfC question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment accompanying Aquillion’s !vote above mentioned me, so I’ll respond briefly now. According to Aquillion, the sources do not say "that she hired people". But Aquillion is just flat wrong. We all know that soon after the Compaq merger in 2002 she fired 30,000 people. But then what happened? Here’s what: "it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger" (says Politifact). Other sources confirm that she hired loads of people subsequent to firing the 30,000. Maybe a lot of those hires were in other countries rather than the U.S., but the fact remains she very clearly hired tens of thousands of additional people after the initial firing of 30,000.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you quote the parts you feel indicate she hired people? "Ended up with more employees after a merge" is very different from "hired people", and the precise wording matters, especially if we're going to focus on exact numbers. You also need to provide a cite that those numbers matter -- eg. the sources you linked are very clear that the number of people she fired is a major issue ("She axed tens of thousands of jobs", "Her record of layoffs and aggressive outsourcing", etc. Even her own wording is extremely cautious (she uses the unusual phrasing of "grew jobs" rather than "hired people"), and even that vague statement is disputed by all the sources we have. I may have missed something, but I see no support for your assertion that she hired people. We can note her own statement that she "grew jobs", but only in the context of making it clear that it was widely disputed as false. Either way, the overarching coverage of her tenure clearly focuses on firing and outsourcing, and we need to cover that; your preferred wording, which downplays the issues raised by the sources you linked, simply does not work. (Even the LA Times coverage -- which talks about "both sides" of the issue -- does not present her supporters as saying that she created jobs or hired people; they say, in very vague terms, that her plans were to "breathe life into a stodgy, decentralized technology giant.") Basically, every source that discusses her jobs is clear that it is a negative for her, a political vulnerability due to firings and outsourcing; we need to accurately present that, we can't do our own WP:OR and say "well, if we look at the numbers like this, then it's fine, right?" That's part of why we rely on secondary sources like these instead of primary ones -- their interpretation and analysis is extremely important when dealing with raw figures like these, which are otherwise complicated and hard to interpret. The interpretation here is universally "she fired people and outsourced jobs and this is a problem." If you have sources that interpret things differently, cite them! But right now it feels like you're trying to make the argument yourself using the numbers, which doesn't work. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, I already inserted detailed and lengthy quotes in the footnotes above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those quotes say she hired people. In fact, most of them seem to specifically say she didn't and that those numbers have been deceptively used to imply that she had; all of the ones that do any sort of analysis are extremely negative, indicating that the total upshot of the numbers are that many people were fired and many jobs were outsourced as a result of the mergers. My point is, you're committing WP:OR by trying to use those numbers to imply that she hired people, and WP:SYNTH by trying to use this as a "rebuttal" to the number of people she fired. The whole point of most of those (the very thing they're saying) is that because of the mergers, it the company ended up with more total people working for it without significant hiring -- that's why I asked you for a quote on the term "hiring" specifically, because that characterization is part of what's at issue here. Now, I'll give you one piece of advice: What you could do is find the statements that those sources are rebutting (the places where she implies that she created jobs or hired people), and cite those, with in-text attributions. But our coverage, I think, would have to read something like "Fiorina claimed XYZ, but this has been disputed by numerous publications, such as XYZ, XYZ, and XYZ, who said..." What we can't do is just say or imply "oh yes she created jobs" or "oh yes she hired people" with those sources, because that's the exact opposite of what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion:The math in those footnotes makes clear that she must have hired tens of thousands more people after firing 30,000. In any event, see this: Goldman, David. "Behind Carly Fiorina's 30,000 HP layoffs", CNN Money (September 21, 2015): "She has also noted -- correctly -- that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you can't just "do the math" when those sources specifically state that the math is misleading. Even if it were uncontroversial, relying on your own math and deductions from the numbers would tread dangerously close to WP:SYNTH; when we have multiple sources straight-out saying that the conclusion you're trying to draw is wrong, you definitely can't do that. Now, the source you just linked to is a bit better, in that it does what I said you should do above and cites her directly (and even notes that she's technically correct, though it appends a "but...") But that source also says that her numbers don't change the fact that it's one of the biggest problems she faces or that her heavy downsizing caused a lot of pain while she was being highly compensated herself; if you look at the weight of its coverage, it devotes one sentence to her defense, and massive paragraphs to the number of layoffs, the suffering they caused, and so on, so it's clearly WP:UNDUE to pull her defense out and use it uncritically, weighted equally to absolutely every other aspect of the topic. Nor does it change the fact that many other sources specifically say that she's abusing the numbers to imply something that isn't true -- we can't uncritically repeat her claims about her history when so many reliable sources have called them into question, and we certainly can't uncritically state them as fact without even attributing them to her. The correct thing to do (if you want to go into more detail) is to describe how she's been criticized for heavy layoffs, describe her defense of hiring people (explicitly attributing it to her rather than just stating it as if it is an uncontroversial fact), then describe and cite the more significant bits of mainstream coverage that have questioned the way she presented the numbers in that defense. --Aquillion (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would be to move the layoff info out of the lead, and instead discuss it in detail in the corresponding section. But since people insist on having in the lead that she fired 30,000 it's impossible to maintain NPOV without also mentioning that she hired tens of thousands, per CNN Money, et cetera. Ultimately, we'll probably need an article like Business career of Mitt Romney, which was boring as hell for me to write, but probably necessary for Fiorina too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ancestry?

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

The last stable version of the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Present headcount

It appears that User:MrX and User:VictoriaGrayson would prefer not to await the results of the RfC to determine whether or not there is consensus to insert the 30,000 layoffs into the lead without context. They assert that such consensus exists already. This is refuted by the comment of MrX on 17 September: "Feel free to start a poll to see if there is support for including the additional content proposed by CFredkin."[45] Now MrX does not want to await the answer from the RfC on that exact point. Let’s consider opinions that have been expressed on this matter since August 21 (the date mentioned in the third sentence of this talk page section). As of now, in the RfC (which started on 18 Sep), there are four !votes against MrX’s position (me, CFredkin, Fyunck, ErnieCohen) and six !votes for MrX’s position (Binksternet, MrX, Cwobeel, IHES, VictoriaGrayson, Neutrality). In the slow-motion edit-war that I documented above in this talk page section, aside from the people who have !voted in the RfC, MrX’s position was supported by three other editors assuming that the IPs are not named editors editing while logged out (173.2.236.247, 209.2.223.3, Somedifferentstuff) and MrX’s position for immediate insertion of the 30,000 figure without context was not favored by one (SuperCarnivore591 as of latest edit). Additionally, in the previous straw poll above, Winkelvi !voted against including the 30,000 in the lead. Moreover, at WP:OR/N, Aquillion opposed the stable version that MrX also opposes, whereas Blueboar opposes including the 30,000 in the lead. So the total !vote as of now is 10 for MrX versus 7 against MrX’s desire for immediate inclusion of the 30,000 figure into the lead without context. Even if we disregard the strength of arguments, that !vote is rather close, especially considering that the RfC has been open for less than a day. I therefore view the continued reversion of the last stable version to be disruptive. If the RfC turns out to be inconclusive, then I will support restoration of the last stable version, and doubtless the opponents of the last stable version will support whatever they manage to force on everyone else. Such is the deliberate state of affairs at Wikipedia.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Let's not push so hard against NPOV that we delete every last positive thing about the BLP subject from the lead. The merger created redundancies, which led to layoffs. According to Politifact, "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq...."[46]Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

emphasis added

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

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

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

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

Obtuse statement about points needs revision

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

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

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

Iran

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

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

Criticism by Sonnenfeld

The reliability of the source for these claims (Sonnenfeld) has been publicly disputed. This is mentioned in the Business Insider article.CFredkin (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's absurd for Sonnenfeld to imply that he has knowledge of whether Fiorina has received offers of employment, and the fact that he would make that claim tarnishes his reliability in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that since HP, Fiorina has not been in business anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean she hasn't had offers of employment.CFredkin (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that but if she had she is not saying. IMO, she has not had the need given the millions she got in her golden parachute from HP. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, Bill Clinton has publicly disputed many things on his article. This is no reason to delete material. Also read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Sonnenfeld, I haven't commented (or edited the article) regarding him. But now I have taken a look at this material, and will offer a few thoughts about it. First of all, consider this quote from this Wikipedia article: "Others have defended her business leadership decisions and viewed the Compaq merger as successful over the long term." It is not NPOV to quote Sonnenfeld trashing Fiorina's business career at length, while only mentioning briefly that some people disagree. Moreover, editors of this article who tend to dislike Fiorina are not free to rely on other editors to counter the crud; WP:BLP forbids that.

Secondly, it's excessive to have Sonnenfeld in both the "Business Leadership image" section and the "Republican National Committee fundraising chair and 2008 campaign" section. If Sonnenfeld has any notable expertise here, it's as to the business leadership and not as to the 2008 campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you provide a source from Carly Fiorina's official political campaign as a source for people disagreeing with Sonnenfeld? That's not a neutral third-party source. You can expect that source to be politically loaded and maintain heavy POV and he has disputed some of Fiorina's claims as "absurd". [47]. Since it is only Fiorina's political campaign disputing Sonnenfeld, there are effectively no real reliability disputes. That's equivalent to using a source from Barack Obama's 2008 or 2012 campaigns in a John Mccain or Mitt Romney article. Alon12 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, the response on Fiorina's campaign site is referenced in Business Insider. Also, please see discussion below.CFredkin (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so it's referenced in the blog "Business Insider", and, how does that change the credibility of the source? It's still only one single source disputing Sonnenfeld, and that is a POV-laden unreliable source. Alon12 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

It's proper to include the quote. (1) Sonnenfeld is not some random person, but a prominent business prof and critic; (2) his views are reasonably representative of a good segment of opinion, and so are given due representative weight; (3) Sonnenfeld and Fiorina have had a very public back-and-forth on this and Sonnenfeld's comments were invoked by Fiorina's top campaign rival; (4) Sonnenfeld has appeared on (and had his comments discussed on, among others, CNN, CNBC, etc. So the content is short, it represents a significant strain of opinion, and the content relates to a theme of enduring significance throughout Fiorina's business and political career. All told, that's a clear keep. Neutrality^talk 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the quote, just because a non-third party objection to Sonnenfeld on the candidate's website disputes it, does not mean it doesn't belong as critical analysis, as that dispute is obviously not neutral. Sonnenfeld is also an expert at his field of business and business politics too, as was said above, etc. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sonnenfeld's reliability and the propriety of including his quotes is in dispute. My understanading of WP:BLP is that the burden of evidence relies on those restoring the content. So, until there is clear consensus that it should be included, it should not be restored to the article.Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is in the sources and the fact that there seems to be a consensus for including this material. I've been pretty neutral about the content myself, but I'm not fond of seeing the implementation of a consensus reverted multiple times like I've seen here.- MrX 03:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. A good majority of editors believe there's nothing wrong with its inclusion, and there's no consensus against adding it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

By my count, I see myself, Anythingyouwant, Eeyoresdream, Gaijin, and ProfessorJR against inclusion; and Cwobeel, Victoria, Alon, Neutrality, MrX, and SuperCarnivore for inclusion. I don't believe that's a clear consensus for either. The consensus may become clearer over time, but until then (as has been stated repeatedly) policy wrt BLP's dictates that the content should not be restored.CFredkin (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, the first occurrence of that comment from Sonnenfeld was to the New York Times back in 2008: [49] - Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no proof that Sonnenfeld is politically biased. He disputed Fiorina's claims of him being a "Clintonite" as she called him, as "absurd" [50], so again, no one is disputing Sonnefeld except for Fiorina. Furthermore, Sonnenfeld's opinions are held in high regard by major publications such as the New York Times, Fortune Magazine, etc. and are often referenced there. Alon12 (talk) 19:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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