Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Redundant: The HP Way

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reception again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Yopienso: used "Business leadership image". Hope that works. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. YoPienso (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing tag

It seems fairly obvious that the lead section briefly summarizes the most important points covered in the article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. The only exception being that omitting her presidential candidacy from the opening paragraph violates WP:OPENPARAGRAPH. There has been no consensus here at the talk page that the tag should remain at the top of the article. A discussion above resulted in no consensus to change the lead. So I will remove the tag.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion is ongoing at #Lede_does_not_summarize_the_most_notable_aspects. Pls don't remove the tag until addressed - Cwobeel (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Lede does not summarize the most notable aspects

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

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

And we should also update the article with new commentary that has the benefit of hindsight, such as this one [1] - Cwobeel (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The "worst CEO" was not based on a single source. In any case, per WP:LEDE, The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.. As it stands now, the lede does not match the criteria. If we don't use the "worst CEO" denomination, we should highlight the fact that her tenure at HP was controversial and adversarial. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning the firing and not mentioning the context, and the impact, is not a summary of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Be careful when using sources

MaverickLittle please be careful when using sources. You can't take a comment by Fiorina made about the HP board in relation to her firing in 2005 [2], and present it as a criticism of the board behavior in 2001. Do I have to check all your edits, or will you pay more attention from now on? - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I did not put any words into Fiorina's mouth. That is a bald untruth. Don't make stuff up. And as a matter of fact I am currently checking all of your edits and I will continue to check all of your edits. It needs to be done.--ML (talk) 20:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Gulfstream

From the Stamford paper

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

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

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

Here's a link to the cited WSJ piece.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I eventually saw it. I missed it the first three times. It was buried in a footnote in the Stanford Graduate School article.--ML (talk) 20:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Long quotes

Long quotes should be avoided as much as possible and instead use paraphrasing, unless the quote is so unique that required a full quotation, per WP:QUOTEFARM. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

No. Your comment is incorrect. The policy clearly states in the first sentence: "quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia." Your simplified interpretation of the policy is flat out wrong.--ML (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel: Agreed, however, I don't think having a few long quotes is an issue based on the size of the article. It is my opinion that the article has become somewhat of a quotefarm. If memory serves, I think I mentioned this about a week ago. It should be located somewhere above. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, please read the MOS guideline in toto. Quotations are indeed indispensable, but with the caveats expressed in the guideline (my highlights): While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. "Flat out wrong"? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Biggest layoff in history

The lead says (emphasis added):

“ Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 of U.S. employees,[7][8] the biggest reduction in the company's 64-year history.[9] ”

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

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

[9]"HP at Cultural Crossroads". IBS Center for Management Research. Retrieved 16 August 2015.

The italicized material is not properly supported by the cited "IBS" source, which says: "HP management announced that it would lay off another 6,000 workers in July 2001, the biggest reduction in the company's 64-year history." So the bit about the biggest layoff is with reference to 6,000 workers in 2001, not with reference to layoffs following the 2002 merger. We could do a little synthesis and original research to conclude that the layoffs following the 2002 merger were bigger than the layoff in July 2001, and thus conclude that the layoffs following the merger were the biggest in HP history. But the cited source did not make this connection, and so we shouldn't either. Even the description of the 6,000-person layoff as the "biggest" in HP history isn't something we can use if only one reliable source out of a zillion reliable sources describes the layoff that way, but here not even one in a zillion sources describes the post-merger layoff that way. So, I will remove that bit. Just to be clear, I don't doubt that the post-merger layoffs were the biggest in HP history, but it seems that reliable sources don't think it's a big deal how the layoffs compared to previous ones in HP history, probably because the number of people laid off speaks for itself.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks. I have restored the material with the correct chronology at Carly Fiorina#Layoffs. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, glad you saw it. Thanks,-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

An editor made an edit to the article regarding the infobox and it suddenly occurred to me, the wrong infobox was present. I removed the political office-holder infobox and replaced it with the person infobox, per the articles on other former and current corporate CEOs. If she goes anywhere in the U.S. Presidential election (or is appointed to a cabinet post after the 2016 election), then the infobox can be changed for one appropriate to her political position. I don't know who changed it to a politician's infobox, or why, but it never should have happened. I suppose it could have occurred during her senate run. Nonetheless, I've filled the fields as best I could for now; I think some of it is a chronological mess, but I've spend more time on it than I should have per my IRL obligations at the moment. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! - Cwobeel (talk) 14:12, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Puff piece?

I've read a few parts of this article. It strikes me as what a Fiorina publicist would like. Example: I read the AT&T section; it's a list of her positions and her rise, with no discussion of the reasons she was promoted so high, so quickly. It said "At age 35, she became the company's first female officer ..." without giving the year; this looks like, possibly, an attempt to hint at how wonderful she was instead of providing important data. (I added the year.) How about the question of whether marrying an AT&T executive 5 years earlier did or did not help her rise up? Leaving out the date, but providing the age, looks like possibly eliding a connection. That's one thing I wondered about. Surely there are sources. I mention that, with the tone and lack of explanation, as one example of apparent puffery. I'm not asking for attacks; I'm asking for a better article. Zaslav (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There are several of us working on the article, Zaslav, and have been doing so for a while now. You are welcome to do the same. But referring to the article in total as a "puff piece" is, in my opinion, very inaccurate. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm surprised to say that I wholeheartedly agree with Winkelvi. I don't agree with parts of the article but to call it a puff piece is way off the mark. We have been focused on her time at HP, which is the most notable part of her life so far. If you have reliable sources to support your claim then you are welcome to work them into the article, while maintaining NPOV. You state that is but "one example of apparent puffery". What are these other oblique other "example[s] of apparent puffery" to which you refer?--ML (talk) 21:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Zaslav Articles in Wikipedia are never "finished". I welcome your participation to help improve it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a good source about her stint at Lucent, from which we can expand the article: [3] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidently I read the wrong parts of the article. I understand your focussing on the most prominent and controversial part of her career, but I didn't read that part because it wasn't what I was looking for. I was wondering, due to something I saw at the NY Times Web site, whether her marriage (second) had anything to do with her rise at AT&T. I read the lede, the AT&T part, and the personal life. The latter two seemed to be puff-like. The intro says nothing much about her career before HP. I based my comments on that and nothing else. If I was wrong about those parts, I'm sorry. As for the other parts, I wrongly assumed they were similar, for which I apologize to you hard-working editors.

I wish I had time and energy to spare to help but I am up against a deadline with a lot of work to do. Zaslav (talk)

Cwobeel: Thanks for the link. An interesting article. I wondered for years what went wrong at Lucent. Is there a single telecom equipment company left alive other than Alcatel? And I'm not sure about Alcatel. Zaslav (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

speaking of interesting articles: :Cwobeel, have you seen this from Andrew Ross Sorkin? Neutrality^talk 01:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

That certainly appears to be an editorial piece, not an article intent on surfacing original reporting or balanced facts. (The same is sadly true of the ridiculously glowing counterpiece, also printed yesterday, from the WSJ. What a shame that neither of these newspapers can manage to actually write a proper article covering the highs and lows of her career. If you wanted something of that nature, you'd evidently have to subscribe to at least two newspapers...) Justen (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion pieces can be used within some limits, including full attribution. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Having read both, I think we'd be straining to find something new in either piece that would be so significant so as to warrant specifically including something from either of these editorial pieces. Justen (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Having done the same, I agree. But the Sorking piece makes some points that we could research and provide facts about. I'll do just that when I find some time. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Net worth

The financial disclosures state a net worth of $59 million. How is that possible when she received $100 million from HP in total compensation? Just asking if there are editors interested in finding out more about Fiorina;'s wealth. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This is just rough math, but keep in mind the $100 million number is gross income, not adjusted net income. After paying 36% to Uncle Sam, $100 million easily become $64 million. Therefore, $59 million is reasonable post-tax number. (Once again, these are rough numbers, she will have other deductions, etc.)--ML (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I added other estimates based on her disclosures during the 2000 campaign. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Kids of Messrs. Hewlett and Packard

The two founders of HP had a grand total of nine children. Two of them happened to control about 15% of HP stock leading up to the Compaq merger, which they ultimately opposed (following some initial support for the merger). This would be barely okay to describe in the body of this Wikipedia BLP of Fiorina, I suppose. But having it in the lead seems a bit much. We don't yet know how the other seven children felt about it, though perhaps we could find out. The opinions of the two sons who controlled 15% of stock are perhaps more notable than the others' opinions; and if that is so, wouldn't we be obliged to figure out who else controlled big chunks of HP stock, and recite their opinions about the upcoming Compaq merger? In any event, I think none of the nine HP kids ought to be in the lead of a Fiorina BLP, unless they're notable for some other reason too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We report what the sources say, and we don't speculate about other sons and daughters. I have removed the obvios WP:OR from the lede. The reason the opposition is in the lead is that the merger was (and still is) controversial. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Just check Fiorina's website in which she puts front and center her tenure at HP, and see the multitude of sources that report on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

We can (and do) say that the merger was controversial, both before and after it occurred. That can, and should, be done in the lead, but it does not require picking out and (incompletely) describing the views of two of the nine kids of H and P. It's okay in the body of the article, but it's too particular for the lead, IMHO. We cannot report everything in the lead, right?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2015 (UTC)