Jump to content

Talk:Hewlett-Packard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 64.81.61.130 (talk) at 22:01, 7 December 2006 (→Mergers in general). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

HP also has added two new portals that aren't listed in the external links section. A Graphic Arts section and a DesignJet section. These are pretty big, especially the designjet one. These should probably be on here Casieg 14:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HP Compaq merger

I think there needs to be a LOT more information on the HP-Compaq merger since it was such a big deal. Infact, i feel that an entire article should be dedicated to that.

The HP Way

The "add more on hp way" can be removed because the 2nd external link provided - "Bill Hewlett Remembered" has enough info on the HP way of management and working (if thats what HP way means) --Jay 01:03 6 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Printers

It seems that at least some mention should be made of HP printers, since many people (or at least I) associate HP almost exclusively with printers.
--Splashkid2 19:42, Jul 29, 2003 (UTC)

I've added information about HP's Imaging and Printing division which houses its printer group along with associated informationJvandyke 05:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calculators

In March 2002, Hewlett Packard announced that the company would no longer produce calculators, disappointing many long-time fans of such a famous product line.

As of 2003 Fred A. Valdez, General Manager of HP's Calculator Division says, "HP calculators are here to stay and they are going to be better than ever, giving our customers more than ever."

I've incorporated above quote into the article.Jvandyke 06:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess/hope displaying the HP logo in this article is "fair use", copyright-wise? --Wernher 21:26, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't see how HP just deal in Computer Peripherals. Perhaps a change to this is needed. Perhaps computer systems and peripherals???

Parody of HP campaign

File:HP logo fun.jpg

How come 'HP' directs here, where as 'hp' goes to a disambiguation page? I understand the disambig page, but I can't find any instance of hp using capital letters in their logos anywhere. It's not that I really care, but I though that I would mention it. --T-rex 21:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that happens because WP always assumes an initial cap thus "hp" is read as "Hp". This tends to screw things up, see iPod for example. I'm sure that some clever person could fix "Hp" (entered as "hp") to redirect to HP. However I'm not that clever person. Help, someone... --hydnjo talk 23:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Criticism

A criticism section should be added for this company in order to better balance it out with other companies (Microsoft, Apple, Dell, ect...) simply for the sake of objectivity. One must look at the whole picture of a company afterall, not just the positive if they wish to have a truly informed opinion... hence why I think the Microsoft, Apple Computer and Dell, Inc. pages are soo good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.58.43.69 (talk • contribs) .

Until someone adds some decent Criticism, I have removed this section... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.233.128 (talk • contribs) .
In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have added it, but I know personally that they are difficult to take apart, and are marketed as easy to upgrade when, in fact, they have warranty stickers eveywhere. Unfortunately, this is my personal experience, so if someone could find a source, maybe it should be put back in. Quantum 05:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the Criticism section and moved information there including criticisms including the providing technology used in Iran/Iraq war, outsourcing, restructuring, etc.Jvandyke 05:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of AppIQ with Hewlett-Packard

I've merged AppIQ with Hewlett-Packard. If there are any quarrals, don't hesitate to hit me on my talk page. Kareeser|Talk! 01:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--> This very minor transaction is given way too much discussion. AppIQ was a tiny company and this is hardly that strategic of a merge. You are giving AppIQ more space than the merger with Compaq!

At best, should get a one line "in 2005, HP aquired AppIQ." HP also announced plans to acquire the larger Peregrine in 2005. -- HP employee, 18:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I've split Compaq and AppIQ into a new section called Acquisitions. I think the Compaq section is too short and the AppIQ too long. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the afd merger tag to clean the category out. Kevin_b_er 04:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mergers in general

Here are all the companies that HP has aquired, with dates. I fail to see why AppIQ is given such prominent coverage given that many other acquisitions (Convex, Dazel, Indigo, Storage Apps to name just a few) were so much more strategic. AppIQ is a pimple on the butt of HP, quite frankly, compared to most of the other acquisitions. No doubt someone that used to work at AppIQ inserted it.

  • Apollo 4/89
  • AppIQ 10/05
  • Avantek 1991
  • Bluestone 1/01
  • Boonton Radio 1959
  • CEC Europe 5/04
  • Compaq 5/02
  • Consera 2/04
  • Convex 9/95
  • Data Systems 1966
  • Dazel 6/99
  • DEC (with Compaq) 5/02
  • EEsof 1993
  • Dymec 1959
  • Extreme Logic 6/05
  • F&M Scientific 1965
  • Harrison Labs 1960's
  • Indigo 3/02
  • ManageOne 5/04
  • Mercury Interactive 11/06
  • Moseley 1958
  • Novadigm 2/04
  • Persist 11/03
  • Sanborn 1961
  • Snapfish 4/05
  • StorageApps 9/01
  • Symantec Networking 4/97
  • Synstar 10/04
  • Talking Blocks 9/03
  • Tandem (with Compaq) 5/02
  • TI Data Systems Group 10/92
  • Triaton 2/04
  • Trinagy 8/01
  • TruLogica 4/05
  • Varian Quantum Electronics 1966

If there's going to be a "mergers" section, it needs to be seriously overhauled.


You neglected Peregrine, purchased in 2005: HP completed the acquisition of Peregrine, Inc. in December 2005. ... All relevant Peregrine web content has been moved to the HP web site 68.94.236.168, 23:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I've tagged the article as it is currently a mixed bag. There is no real introduction to the article and the history is too far up the page. Should be restructured in line with other large IT company articles to expand on important topics and remove or reduce chaff. Garglebutt / (talk) 02:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken an inital crack at cleanup.Jvandyke 05:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

how is hewlett pronounced? IPA? Thanks, --Abdull 11:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"HYOO-let", with "HYOO" having the same sound as the word "hew", meaning to cut wood or the way a careful speaker would pronounce "hue", sounding the "H".
I don't speak IPA anymore but perhaps someone can add the IPA to the article.
Atlant 12:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The eighties and beyond

"However, Agilent Technologies, not HP, bears the legacy of the original company founded in 1939, as evidenced by Agilent's portfolio of electronic instruments descended from HP's earliest products. Agilent was spun off from HP in 1999."

This statement is a personal, subjective opinion phrased as fact. I think it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.244.40.224 (talk • contribs) .

This statement is the absolute truth, and you may ask just about anyone who has worked for the company or had contact with its employees. The "HP Way" was divested right along with Agilent, and the company bearing the HP name had very little to do with the founding principles of Bill Hewlett and David Packard.
Atlant 11:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I totally agree. The present company known as "Hewlett-Packard" has a significantly marked departure from the original constitutional values of the "HP-Way" set forth by the original founders, Bill Hewlett & Dave Packard. The "HP Way" was divested right along with Agilent when it was spun-off in 1999, the spin-off being completed in 2000. I know this from personal experience as an HP/Agilent Alumni after working for BOTH companies for a total of 11.5 years. Also from personal experience, the preceeding Main "Article" tab has additional misleading information regarding HP in the section under "4 Diversity". According to this entry ..... 

    "Hewlett-Packard received a 100% rating on the Corporate Equality Index released
     by the Human Rights Campaign starting in 2003, the second year of the report."

What they fail to mention is that this is based on input from HP in the SF Bay & San Diego areas. However, if you visit Hewlett-Packard's other facilities throughout the USA (particularly those in the Pacific NorthWest of Corvallis, OR; Vancouver, WA; McMinville, OR; Spokane, WA) you will readily find that there is a rampandt amount of Xenophobia, Bigotry, Sexism, Racism and Discrimination towards minority groups especially Blacks, Hispanics and Women. I too know this from personal experience where I have on-going documented historical evidence in a 'Log Book' which I kept (under the advice of my UnderGraduate and Graduate adviisors) ever since I was a University Intern through the HP SEED Program. After 6 years there I could not take it any more; the Log Book was over 100 pages and over 80 entries of instances of Xenophobia, Bigotry, Sexism, Racism and Discrimination towards minority groups at the Corvallis, Oregon HP site. If you read it, it will BLOW YOUR MIND of all the CRAP that the local Managers get away with - sending shivers up-and-down your spine, making your hair uncurl straight. Ironically, it did not end but in fact got worse and worse over time, the disproportionate concentration (~95%) of these dispariging Xenophobic, Bigoted, Sexist, Racist and Discriminatory attitudes, company decisions and comments coming from Employees whom would become Managers, or directly from Managers; all of which was thoroughly covered-up by the Anglo-Male management and by the Human Resources Department of Hewlett-Packard (right smack in the middle of having an HP business relationship with both HP-Puerto Rico and HP-Barcelona). In one extreme case, all of the Employees, Engineers and Managers of HP-Puerto Rico WOULD INTENTIONALLY NOT BE INVITED to InkJet Technology Conferences where employees from EVERY OTHER HP INKJET ENTITY WAS INVITED (Singapore, Corvallis, Vancouver, Barcelona, Ireland, San Diego). The entire HP-Puerto Rico facility would be kep in the dark and no HP Employee ever know about or were even invited to these InkJet Conferences. Upon finally bringing this to the attention of the Human Resources Deapartment, my complaints fell on deaf ears when they failed to acknowledge/correct the Xenophobic, Bigoted, Sexist, Racist and Discriminatory attitudes towards the entire HP-Puerto Rico site and its employees, and in-fact were nose-deep in the cover-up. This did some serious damage to my Mental well being unlike anything I had ever experienced ever before (or since then) since my own Managers, whom I though were close friends, betrayed that friendship and were interwoven in the cover-up as well. It was a direct result and a direct consequence of my going into a full-blown Mental Health Breakdown which took me the better part of 6 years to recover from.

User:ROP 16:54, 7 July 2006 (EST)

I moved the Agilent Technologies paragraph to a Criticism section.Jvandyke 05:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I resurrected it as Hewlett-Packard#Product Legacy. Disclaimer: I am a former Agilent employee. I am presently an HP employee. The comments made and content created by me at Wikipedia are my own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of my employer. <>< tbc 04:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See HP Corporate Objectives and HP Services features for examples of official HP statements on this topic. <>< tbc 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed HPShopping.com and CompaqAtHome paragraph

I removed the following paragraph as it seemed unimportant:

  • HPshopping.com was launched in 1998 as HP's direct-to-consumer e-commerce store, and in 1999 became incorporated as a wholly owned subsidiary. In 2002, Compaq's direct-to-consumer e-commerce store, CompaqAtHome, joined hpshopping.com, creating a comprehensive, one-stop, on-line store for HP and Compaq home and home-office products.

Please feel free to correct me by reinserting (although an explanation of importance would be nice.)Jvandyke 04:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed "* the UDC (Utility Data Center)"

I removed UDC (Utility Data Center) as the article details that it is a cancelled project.Jvandyke 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HP pretexting scandal

Their is no mention of the HP pretexting scandal that is making the news.(see [1]). I am willing to try and tackle it soon if I can find the time but I welcome anyone else to take on the task. The link above should be a good start for a source. ----Cab88 09:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added a section on the spying scandal. It could use some more details but I think it's a good start. Their is more info available in the links I provide in the section for someone to go ahead and improve the section. --Cab88 13:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Groklaw has a few articles on the controversy. Most recent (as of Friday) is this one. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 15:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New news: Patricia Dunn steps down as Chairwoman, however HP has decided to keep her on the Board of Directors. - [2] [3] Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 19:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[4] Looks like the CA AG has his sights set on multiple individuals inside HP, if the wording of his public statement suggests anything. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 02:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the section on the scandal be {{current}} tagged? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 20:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes.
Atlant 00:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added {{current}} tag. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 06:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


[5] [6] Looks like charges could be handed out within a week. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 06:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also found this tidbit and it looks like a Boston security company is one of the "outside contactors" being targetted by this investigation. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 06:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-off from the scandal - [7] Shareholder lawsuit against HP, accusing top members of the Board of breach of duty. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole HP scandal is expanding as Verizon President Lawrence Babbio has been linked to the incident, and identified as an HP board member. [8] Seems he's caught himself on both sides of the pretexting fence, defending Dunn's actions while denouncing pretexting as the President of Verizon. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 01:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More from the front lines: Looks like this is a lot more involved than previously thought. [9] [10] Looks like the investigators from HP tried to install a logging utility on at least one journalist's computer as part of the investigation. Good Game? Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 17:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even more headlines on the Pretexting Scandal - [11] Apparently, emails were also sent with software attachments to track forwards. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with User:Kookykman. I don't believe cartoons in the public domain have any place in Wikipedia. We should only use cartoons from a major source, which probably means they're copyrighted. Amy Crescenzo 22:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's with this newspeak: "pretexting"? Seems to me that what we're talking about here is fraud.

The section on this scandal is getting too long for the main HP page. I have copied that section in its current form to the page "2006 HP Spying Scandal", and added the current event tag to that page. We should work on cleaning that article up, and making a short summary of the incident on the HP page while directing to the main article for additional information. --Rosensteel 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorina written out of HP history?

I know Carly was an object of derision throughout much of the IT industry, but is it right to say so little about her in the HP article on Wikipedia? After all, it was through her that HP obtained Compaq, and with it the remnants of DEC and Tandem. My recollection of the shareholder vote is that it was incredibly close (51:49), and there is strong suspicion that this was only achieved through Fiorina phoning certain investment banks on the final day of voting. Yet there is no mention here of this knife-edge decision which could have dramatcially changed the company's history.

It's hard to avoid the publicity for her forthcoming book. I'm not proposing that anyone should buy it, but presumably her side of the HP story will provide a little more content for this article.

Can we get a picture of the HQ?

It seems kind of funny that no one's been able to take a picture of the HQ. I would do it myself, but the problem is that I am so busy with lawyer stuff right now. The few times I've happened to be in Palo Alto recently, it's very late in the afternoon and the lighting angles are all wrong. The damn HP HQ sits on a slope at an awful angle so that probably the only time it's not in shadow is around 10 AM in the morning. And I thought the Googleplex was hard to photograph!

--Coolcaesar 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I finally made time to drive by this morning and it's just as hard to photograph in the morning as in the afternoon. The problem is that the corner of the building which probably has the best lighting would be the eastern corner (the complex is on a diagonal to the compass), but that corner is fenced off with a barbed-wire fence like much of the HP complex. The only part of the complex that is open to the public is the parking lot at the northern corner which faces the main entrance, but that corner is probably in shadow all day long thanks to the shape of the building and the terrain. Anyway, I'm posting my best attempt right now. --Coolcaesar 19:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"HP's Noughties and the Law of Unintended Consequences" section

I'm not sure this section is appropriate for Wikipedia. Although it does cite sources for some facts, it then draws conclusions based on these facts, which may violate the WP:NOR policy. Stylistically, the eight level bullet list is problematic. Last, what are "Noughties"? Factual info should be moved into the pretexting scandal section, if there is anything in this section that isn't already covered there. The personal analysis should probably be deleted. Rhobite 10:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the benefit of this section is that it provides the glimmer of an explanation over why Fiorina was sacked. It also mentions Michael Capellas, who is incredibly important to the server and PC history of HP. (Interestingly The Register today speculates that Capellas may return, if Hurd has to resign. Such speculation has no place in Wikipedia, but mentioning Capellas's historic role in HP would help the reader of such gossip understand his import.)
Without this section, mentions of Fiorina in the entire HP article are minimal, and it reads as if it were written by an obsessive who wants to remove all traces of Fiorina's existence. Compare that with the amount of space that the current pre-texting scandal gets on this HP page. Have a look also at the IBM page, which admittedly is over-heavy in explanation of what went wrong for the company, but at least it provides an explanation.
I don't think this HP section is personal research or opinion. It's a factual history of what happened. The bullet style is awful, but we should retain the section's meaning. Thegn 14:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how sentences like "HP, under the chairmanship of Fiorina and Dunn, seemed adept at finding poor solutions to its problems. Both seemed to assume that aggressive behaviour would win the day. In every case, the resentment that this aggression caused resurfaced later" are anything but OR. Why not split this into a separate article? It's starting to build up steam beyond HP (Congressional hearings, privacy concerns, etc) and there should a separate article for something of this complexity. Then people can go into more detail of the overall history, starting from Fiorina onwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Ricky81682. Those passages go too much into motive, which is notoriously difficult to prove (after all, I am a lawyer) unless all the key players have agreed to be interviewed or one has direct access to their document/email archives. Even then, a lot of inferences would have to be drawn, which goes directly into the realm of original research. That is the realm of historians and journalists who cover HP, not Wikipedia! When they finish documenting this event with the benefit of hindsight, then we can cite and quote appropriately. Until then, we need to focus on documenting what is objectively known to have happened for certain, as opposed to what some people think may be going on inside the company with regard to internal politics. --Coolcaesar 06:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I know when I'm beaten. My overall concern about this HP article is that it is very trainspotter-ish -- a whole heap of facts for use in 'Trivial Pursuit games, a long list of HP products which might look nice in an HP sales catalogue, and almost zero analysis or explanation. I've recently been reading the Wikipedia article on the Anglo-Saxons, and that article, along with the history / arts / law articles that branch off it, is a model of description, explanation, and summaries of the various theories concerning their origins and movements. Above all else, it is very interesting. I regret that I don't think the HP article, though it starts reasonably, sustains this level of interest. It is very, very patchy, and unbalanced in the amount of space it gives to certain subjects. Fiorina deserves more; pre-texting deserves much less. Thegn 07:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not that the analysis shouldn't be done. The issue is that Wikipedia is not the place to publish said analysis. That falls under the heading of original research. If someone else performs this analysis, and publishes it in a reliable source, it can be reported on, cited, and verified. In particular, articles must "make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" (WP:NOR, Section 2, Paragraph 5). With that in mind, take a look at the section in question. For example, the fifth bullet point. The source cited makes no mention of phone calls by Fiorina. The bit about shareholders wondering also violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The whole section is like that -- filled with speculation and analysis. It is Original Research, pure and simple. It may be accurate OR, but it still violates core Wikipedia policies. I'm deleting it as such. I personally think the dark side of "the new HP" should be covered, but it has to meet Wikipedia standards. I will applaud anyone who can add such content that meets policy (in particular, citing a source so others can verify it). --DragonHawk 04:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I could step in here. I don't believe the section was original analysis -- have a look at this recent article from the reputable Arik Johnson of Aurora: [12] He refers explicitly to Fiorina's phone calls: That vigilance had no doubt been heightened when a voice mail from Fiorina to Chief Financial Officer Robert Wayman regarding last-ditch efforts to find support from big institutional investors ended up in the press. One high-ranking former executive tells BusinessWeek that the initial concern was that an employee who opposed the merger had hacked into the corporate voice-mail system. which seems to provide 3rd-party support for the fifth bullet in the section.
Arik Johnson's article provides 3rd party support for all the gaps in the original Wikipedia section, as far as I can make out. I know deletion is so easy, and some Wikipedians seem to enjoy pushing their weight around. I don't believe that deletion of this section was the right answer. It just needed a bit of editing. Gavin Wilson 11:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know who Arik Johnson is, but that page appears to contain a lot of primary source opinions, as per WP:RS#Some definitions. (NOTE WELL: I'm not saying everything on that page is.) • Regarding my choice of delete vs edit: The entire section was, originally, unsourced. Someone (you, I think) added a scattering of links, labeling them all "Source". I attempted to verify using said links, and found the sources did not, in fact, back-up the content. It was thus content that failed to verify using the sources it explictly cited. That's a pretty big failure. • I'm not "pushing my weight around". I don't have any particular weight here; I'm not an admin, or a long-timer, nor do I have a huge edit count. • Please understand that WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are fundamental Wikipedia policies. They are not negotiable. • As it happens, I agree with the original analysis here, as well as Arik Johnson, but my opinion does not matter on Wikipedia. It's not about what you and I think, but about creating an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --DragonHawk 02:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. Much of what you say seems right. I don't think anyone has been using this article as a soapbox, which to me is a device for would-be politicians to make political speeches. I don't know when Wikipedia started, but I suspect the HP-Compaq merger had happened, before Wikipedia had much energy to devote to the matter.
I have a concern that corporate histories on Wikipedia could become simply what these companies and their executives, perhaps through the threat of legal action, want Wikipedia to say. I have absolutely no idea what Fiorina's autobiography is going to say when published next month, but no doubt it will influence what is written in the HP article. I don't think that what she says about the era should carry much more weight than what the IT press at the time wrote. I think Wikipedia needs to be ready, with its own version of the Fiorina era based on IT press reports of the time, so that it can slot in Fiorina's own comments in the right place. But at the moment, the Fiorina era is virtually bare here in Wikipedia, so she will have the initiative. Fiorina's version of events could well become the official Wikipedia version.
The writing style in much of the IBM article is dreadful, but it contains a lot more opinion and suggested explanations. If I were a business studies student again, I would find the IBM article, despite its speculative and turgid nature, a lot more useful for ideas and criticisms than the HP article. The HP article here seems to suffer from precisely the corporate HP suppression that Arik Johnson criticises in the link that Wilson provided. Company entries on wikipedia should not be mere product catalogues and copies of the approved company history from their Web site. Thegn 07:37, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A soapbox is also a box on which a madman stands to better announce his conspiracy theories. That is what everyone here is afraid of. After all, a legitimate politician would use a real podium, not a soapbox! I agree with you that the tumultuous Fiorina era should be documented in this article, but any details, particularly those concerning motives or reasoning for actions, must be carefully documented with citations to reliable, verifiable sources (see the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy). For an example of a properly researched article, see my work at Lawyer or Roger J. Traynor. --Coolcaesar 13:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is posting pictures of the charged persons' houses appropriate for this article?

Hi everyone:

I have been too busy to do much research for Wikipedia recently. But yesterday when the HP arrest warrants were posted online by the AG's office I couldn't help but notice that Kevin Hunsaker's residential address is not that far off my route home. So I got a photo of his house while driving home this evening. Do you think it would be appropriate to add that photo to this article? Hunsaker was on the front page of the San Jose Mercury News this morning!

I also happened to see Hunsaker and his wife leaving as I turned onto their street. She was driving him in a white Mercedes SUV. They both looked totally stressed out. I would have taken a picture but it was already dusk and they were driving fast. Anyway, now all the WP editors on the Peninsula know what vehicle to look out for! It's time WP got some newsworthy photos properly licensed under the GFDL that don't have to be brought in under the fair use defense.

Also, if Hunsaker's house is not newsworthy enough, how about Dunn? Not that I would be in Orinda any time soon, though.

--Coolcaesar 02:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how a picture of someone's house has any value for an encyclopedia article. jaco♫plane 02:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hewlett-Packard&oldid=92790199"