Talk:Carly Fiorina

Edit request from Anelson41, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please delete "HP's stock price was $52 per share, and when she left 5 1/2 years later in February, 2005, it was $21 per share—a loss of over 60% of the stock's value.[42] During this same time period, HP competitor Dell's stock price increased from $37 to $40 per share." as it does not accurately reflect the change in market value as the statment seems to imply. HP issued a 2-for-1 stock split during this time which impacted the share PRICE in the marketplace. Dell had no stock split during the same time period. As such, to indicate the stocks "value" lost 60% is not accurate. The PRICE certainly fell at least 50% due to the 2-for-1 split, but the total amount of stock effectively doubled, so the stock's value would not necessarily change based on the split.

Stock Split noted on HP's investor website: http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-stockSplit

Also, whoever posted below doesn't realize that no secondary sources were referenced in the original claim except for a superfical glance at stock prices. The company value did fall, as did pretty much all tech companies due to the Dot Com collapse. The Nasdaq fell tremendously in that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anelson41 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anelson41 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what you're saying is simply false. If you've got a reference for a stock split then please provide it. It is noted in dozens of secondary sources (several of which are included here as references) that it's not just HP's "stock price" that got cut in half, but the overall value of the company (price times number of shares). You can't just make up a fairy story to justify the collapse; it really happened. Rvcx (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anelson, please reply by adding another comment, not by editing your original. Editors shouldn't have to use the history tab to follow the conversation.

You may be surprised to learn that all major sources of financial information display (only) "split-adjusted share prices": they adjust historical prices to reflect the number of current shares. On paper a single share of 1999 HP stock was over $100 and there were around a billion shares outstanding for a total market cap (aka total value of the company) of around $100 billion. That 1999 per-share price, when split-adjusted for the current number of outstanding shares, is only $50. In 2005 the price of a share was $20 and there were 2 billion outstanding shares, for a market cap of around $40 billion, which is a 60% decline over Fiorina's tenure.

If you're still confused, try perusing historical data at the time of the stock split (which I think was official on 10 Oct 2000, not 27 Sept). You won't see a sudden jump on most charts, because they've already been adjusted to account for the split.

Hope this helps. Rvcx (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested correction to merger section

In order to aligne the article text with the information cited in the accompanying footnotes, I suggest replacing the following text:

The Compaq merger created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped[27] for a time,[28] a position the company regained shortly after Fiorina left the company.[29]

with:

The Compaq merger created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped[27], a position it lost within 5 months[28], and would not regain until a year and a half after Fiorina left the company.[29]

DavytheFatBoy (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some errors with the language you're using. First, the data was reported a year and half after Fiorina left the company, but it was a retroactive analysis: theoretically, HP "regained" the "top spot" in the quarter after Hurd took over, about a year after Fiorina left. I'd rather we stick to how reliable sources phrase this, though, if any went on record, as opposed to cherry picking our own relative measurements. jæs (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The article cites sources. I simply changed the wording to correspond with the sources themselves.

I posted this here long before making the changes. Reversing my changes to return to what you yourself note is inaccurate does not seem to be a positive move to me. I don't see any support for your "theoretical" date for the change in market share, but I am willing to accept it. "One year" would be more accurate (if it is) than the weasel wordy "shortly". If sources are cited, using the actual dates they mention is not "cherry picking". What do you suggest?

But regardlessly, it does not respond to the other corrections I made, which you also surpressed. 82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a revision to try to answer jæs' objections. However I feel that it would be better to have less vague ideas of time.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it a "temporary" gain is not really great, either. Most companies hold "top" positions in their industries for very finite periods of time, to the extent that we usually only differentiate when a company is a longstanding market share "leader" or what have you. I also still think it sounds like a clear original editorial bent: "this lady pushed for this merger, but it only was good for a few months." jæs (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

If the sources present it in such a manner, so should we (with appropriate weight, of course). If they don't, we shouldn't be injecting our own editorial opinions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. jæs (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a new photo again

Carly hasn't been blonde for years now. We need a more recent one, one since her bout with cancer and during her run for the Senate. Purplebackpack89 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error regarding EDS Merger

This article mentions that Carly proposed a merger with EDS but it was abandoned. I could be mistaken, but I believe HP during the early part of Carly's tenure proposed to acquire the consulting arm of PriceWaterhouse Coopers. It was abandoned when HP missed it's quarterly earnings. Cwash713 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Why Merge? This is why: HP versus Dell in the PC market

I find it astonishing that there's no argument in favor of the HP-Compaq merger. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/dell-still-struggles-hp-and-acer-grow/ is the answer: the idea behind the merger was to combine Compaq and HP's resources to achieve economies of scale to pass Dell in the consumer PC market. It worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.81.17 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that this is an article about Fiorina. Under her leadership, the merger or other factors led to a loss of marketshare. It would be difficult to show that the improvement that took place at HP long after she left was due to her actions. Especially since the change in fortunes is often attributed more to errors at Del than anything positive at HP. -- 82.224.103.123 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people find the lack of WP:OR and the rejection of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies "astonishing", but that's neither here nor there. If you have reliable sources offering some argument, feel free to cite them. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Fiorina a politician?

Let's at least get some discussion going instead of committed edit-warring. I think I was the one who originally named her a "politician" in the lede. I waited until she won the primary to do so. At this point she's not just an amateur who put her name up; she's a full-time politician. She has been for at least a year, and her time campaigning for McCain makes it clear that this has been a long-term career choice, not a one-time diversion. Other arguments? Rvcx (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon the ignorance, but I haven't been following the article history lately -- what is(are) the stated objection(s) to acknowledging her status as a politician? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a small group of editors on this and other articles who claim that a person does not become a politician until they are elected. This flies in the face of any definition that I have ever come upon. Per the first paragraph of our wikiarticle a Politician is an individual who is involved in influencing public decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions (emphasis mine.) In fact the article goes on to state that Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes so it could be argued that she has been a pol long before her current run for office but that is not germane to this discussion. It would be nice if these people who claim that she is not one now would explain how their idea of the process works. I mean is there a wand that gets waved or a diploma that gets handed out just after the final vote tally is counted where the winner is anointed a politician. Perhaps the pundits have been wrong all these years maybe the Greasy Pole is only greasy at the very top. Please note that the tongue is in the cheek here. I look forward to any input from other editors. MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

MarnetteD, I agree with what you have taught me about the meaning of the term--it includes those who "seek" office. I hadn't known that before. I originally objected to its use because a businessperson trying to buy their way into in office seemed to me to not be on the same order as a person whose life is devoted to public policy through holding office. They don't make politicians like they used to. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

No, let's not have a "get some discussion going", let's instead use this page for its intended purpose, which is to improve the article. Whether Carly Fiorina is a politician is not to be determined by "discussion" among editors, but rather by consulting reliable sources -- like dictionaries -- on the meaning of the word. That Fiorina is, among other things, a politician follows immediately from the information in the "Politics" section of the article. People should not edit based on their own personal and idiosyncratic views that are not based on knowledge. Someone who "had not known that [those who seek office are politicians] before" has no business making editorial decisions about the use of the word. And I would point out that the belief that Carly Fiorina is trying to buy her way into office and is not devoted to public policy has no business being part of any editor's consideration -- that is vile and wretched behavior; go hang out at some blog and keep your POV-stained fingers off Wikipedia (and I say this as someone who personally have very negative views of Ms. Fiorina). -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)