Jump to content

Talk:Carly Fiorina

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 68.206.142.96 (talk) at 23:37, 2 May 2015 (→Section continuity; flow of Fiorina's overall career). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBiography B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconConservatism B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.



Deleted sentence

I deleted this from the lead: "She has frequently been ranked as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time." This is unsourced and seems like hyperbole. Also seems out of place in the opening section and POV.--Bobjohnson111980 (talk) 05:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's sourced in the article body. I will restore the condition of the article in which the sources were both in the lead section and the article body. The criticism is harsh, certainly, but well-referenced to multiple sources, showing that Fiorina has picked up a very poor reputation as a tech CEO. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Binksternet. This isn't just once or twice and it's over a fair number of years. Expect the POV pushing to get stronger with Fiorina considering presidential run. Ravensfire (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence is not encyclopedic in nature. It is hearsay and op-ed opinion. It is not introductory in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.240.53 (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree in the strongest terms. Fiorina is dogged by this ranking in many descriptions of her career, so it is important to her career. Binksternet (talk) 12:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re-election of US presidents is strongly correlated with changes in unemployment in the few months before an election; if US Presidents are evaluated with a "best/worst" rating similar to CEOs, it would not be surprising if the inclusion of a CEO on a 'worst' list is based on nothing more complicated than the way US Presidents are evaluated based on unemployment changes during the last few months of their first term, despite that the people making these lists probably have more expert knowledge than the average voter, because lists of CEOs are still subject to the pressure of appearing incorrect to a less-informed readership. While it might be somewhat unencyclopedic, for those familiar with non-wiki encyclopedias, it is certainly in-line with other Wikipedia articles that include "verifiable information that readers may find interesting". For example, traditional encyclopedias do not have extensive articles on anime, or book characters, while Wikipedia does. There are also many facts in articles that are basically trivia, such as things that happened during production of TV shows or movies. 50.135.249.113 (talk) 13:05, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of the worst tech CEOs

So various people have come by to remove from the lead section the sentence that says "She has frequently been ranked as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time." I guess a few people don't like to see that sentence at all, and others don't like to see it twice, once in the lead section, then once in the article body, in the form of "Fiorina has often been ranked as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time."

My position is that the ranking is relevant, widely known, very prominent, and that it continues to be strongly associated with Fiorina's career even now that she has declared presidential aspirations. Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should tell the reader a summary of all the important points in a topic, the points that are discussed in the article body. That sentence is certainly a summary of the negative evaluation of Fiorina discussed in greater detail in the article body. So the complaint about redundancy does not hold; the lead section is 100% redundant by design.

To review, here is a chronology of the sources which have described Fiorina as a bad CEO, have ranked Fiorina as a bad CEO, or have mentioned Fiorina's ranking.

This shows that Fiorina's very negative ranking by three publications has been widely reported, and continues to be connected to Fiorina in news stories about her presidential aspirations. The ranking is of top importance to her biography, and must be stated in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that more than ample evidence has been provided for this prominent claim about Fiorina; however, I'm wondering how it was decided which sources are cited in this Wikipedia article. In other words, on this talk page, several different sources (i.e., Fobes, Fortune, USA Today, Daily Mail, Observer, etc.) are mentioned, but within the front page of the article itself, it's a shorter list (not a bad thing), but sometimes citing the same sources. Maybe it was decided that these were better written sources? But, what about diversity thereof (by ownership). Ca.papavero (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She has also been equally noted in positivity. The sources listed are to personal opinion pieces and/or not endorsed by the publication or have absolutely nothing to do with "ranked" positions. These have previously not been allowed (in the lead, at the very least) for bios, regardless of political party. For a few select examples:
In "Why Carly's Big Bet is Failing" The only rankings mentioned is: "FORTUNE, publishing its first-ever ranking of the 50 most powerful women executives in the U.S., put her smack at the top of the list. A line heading the accompanying article said, "It may surprise you that our No. 1 woman is someone you've never heard of."" In other words, it actually cites her being ranked #1 at one point, and goes with the opinion of the author without ranking.
"Carly Fiorina: Don't Believe the Hype" <--op/ed, blog listing, no rankings (also just references another site listed in this list).
Forbes link: "HP Is Broken, And Meg Whitman's Not The CEO To Fix It" - This is a contributor piece, and it makes no mention of her being rated the worst, even though it is being used to bolster a "worst CEO" claim. It actually mentions repeated failures of HP and isn't even a piece on Fiorina explicitly. It mentions perceived missteps, in a couple paragraphs on the history of HP, including post-Fiorina. However, there are numerous articles that mention her status as one of the "most powerful" or "most influential" such as Forbes mag's official ranking of #51 here, which is a direct list by Forbes and not a contributor article: "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women". In fact, most of these sources have nothing to do with rankings whatsoever. This is the problem created the by NPOV. These sources are being using to make a claim that the references themselves don't make, thus it becomes the personal opinion of the editor, then, to make that claim.
I also hardly think sourcing Keith Olbermann's opinion book on GOP politics is also a bolster to facts over opinion. One would not use Rush Limbaugh's books as a valid ref (nor should they). If it is noted she's been ranked as worst, it should be noted she is also ranked as best by other publications. Given official lists from these sources have officially ranked her well in the past, it's more than supported she's had positive rankings, likely far more than she's been actually ranked as "worst". Hence, it should be either both or none. The current references on the published article are listed as commentary, (one actual ranking), public list in a running series of ousted CEOs, and a non-allowed source who has unsourced claims for their op/ed. Seola (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the history of this article, I see that it's been reversed back and forth several times, as well as contested. Myself, I never called for a rollback, nor do I think it's appropriate. Even the references have been invoked, now appearing in bold red color and providing no live links. So, I now confused even more than previously, trying to figure it out. I never called for this action. I simply suggested a review of those references to cite in the article. At that, I'm also noticing that the previous citations in the article do not seem to be included in the lengthy list here on the talk page. But, again, I'm somewhat confused.
Meanwhile, we're mostly talking about just one paragraph in the article; whereas, its first sentence actually reads "Fiorina's tenure at HP has been both criticised and defended." That represents both sides of the so-called point of view, thereby remaining objective. The sentences thereafter also continue to show Fiorina's divisive role and regards from her peers, as well as from industry analysts. But, this paragraph also serves as a transition to the next point of discussion in the article, which is how and why she moved-on in her career, as well as with other ambitions.
This has to be addressed, one way or another. Fiorina was no longer welcomed at HP, as she was essentially forced out from the company. That is well established knowledge at large. So, a compromise to both sides of the scenario would be to cite statements from both parties; that is, including Fiorina's own words, as well as those from the HP board of directors and/or the company's official press release(s) on the subject. After all, it's not as though such scenarios don't happen in employment all the time, with all sorts of people. Employers and employees disagree on the terms of employment, performance and termination quite often. So, it need not become more than just that. The regards thereafter her leaving HP do not seem to have any significance in this article, such as with the considerations that she's the "worst tech CEO in history," or not. All that needs to be established here is that it was at this point in her life that she changed her career path, leaving her previous and primary role as a Silicon Valley executive. That's with a brief explanation as to why she left that career path, then to go enter the world of politics. End of chapter… move on. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: After thinking about this for a few hours, I've decided that I don't agree with the abrupt changes made by Seola; whereas, I believe this article should be reversed to its prior status; i.e., before 19 April 2015. My reasoning is that this change by user Seola has created what's essentially a broken article; that is without any apparent solution, substitution or alternative. That's not acceptable. Why would you leave the text "as is," but then go and break its supporting links and references? That doesn't make sense. The links are there to simply show readers the background citations for the statement that's being expressed. If you don't agree with the premise, then make a suggestion and edit the sentences and paragraphs; but, don't disrupt the citations to a standing sentence, leaving the readers of Wikipedia guessing and/or confused. This disruption of citations has also seemingly compromised their overall numeration and order. Then, as I've already pointed out, these editing differences have been discussed time and again, as well as have several reversals and revisions made. There's no resolve, but frequent disruption and disorder. Meanwhile, this article is more than likely going to become a greater priority, if and when Fiorina announces an official Presidential campaign, or otherwise she improves her stature as a "politico" of sorts at large. By the way, I am not necessarily agreeing, in entirety, with either Seola or Binksternet. Again, I am simply restoring the citation links, to make the article functional, as it should always be. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seola, Fortune's "50 most powerful women executives in the U.S." list was published in 1998. Fiorina's star was on the rise at that time. Unfortunately, she ran HP into the dirt after topping the 1998 list, and her star fell a long way down. The negative evaluation is widely repeated, making it the mainstream evaluation of Fiorina's career. It's important. We must put it into the lead section, per WP:LEAD. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see advice about WP:LEAD: as pointed out by Binksternet. I also see other notifications atop the article. I can see some areas that need to be addressed in this artlce, to which I've already mentioned. But, I don't yet want to move forward with these and other changes, therein escalating the instability. So, I was looking into the possibiltiy of using Wikipedia:Subpages in order to draft and share proposed changes. From there, a transfer can be made to the so-callled live article. The problem is that I have never done this before on Wikipedia, so I'm not yet sure how to create that subpage (even though I've seen a brief instruction). I also have other articles of which I'm thinking about doing the same. So… if either of you (Seola or Binksternet) — or anyone else — could advise, that would be good. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Election Year 2016 Campaign, talking points & role

As of April 2015, it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, but it does not seem to be officially confirmed; [1] meanwhile, the page currently says "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. My question: to what extent shall some of those points of view be covered at this article on Fiorina?

For example, just recently she's become outspoken about the California drought, to which she has made a very controversial stance by many people's regards. That controversy began when she was quoted as saying "“This is all about politics and policy, and it is liberal environmentalists who have brought us this tragedy.”[2]

It's also been said that "Fiorina called for the U.S. to keep up sanctions against Iran until the country agrees to larger concessions in negotiations to dismantle its nuclear program." [3]

Again, she's not yet an official candidate, but her take on the California drought (as a fellow Californian) is indeed highly visible, contrary and controversial. And the drought is not necessarily a marginal state's issue. So, myself, I'm wondering how much and which of her stances should be mentioned and when, since that some of these issues are significant, whether or not she officially runs and becomes a nominee. Despite criticism and many failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility or career as a conservative pundit.[4] [5] [6] Ca.papavero (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice that, in the current article, it doesn't describe Fiorina's present-day appearances at large as mostly what's being described as a pundit. It does describe her "Media Career" and her appearances; whereas, it then continues into her "Advocacy" with more brief mentions, but this does not really emphasize her current profile of sorts. The article also mentions "Carly Fiorina Enterprises" which was subject to controversy and questionable status back in year 2009, when she campaigned for a year 2010 Senate nomination.[7] That should be mentioned. But, without following-up on the question of her so-called "Enterprise," as well as her "Foundation," (see same reference) there's a question as to how her current role and/or status should be defined. Whatever that be, it should be included in the lead paragraph of the article, because most of the public recognizes her as a pundit, advocate or potential candidate these days. She's been removed from her position as a Silicon Valley executive or CEO for many years now. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Next, this article does not mention her other associated entity, known as "Up-Project," which is short for "Unlocking Potential Project."[8] From that website page, said "mission" of the organization is "...to engage women with new messages and new messengers by focusing on personal interactions with voters and going beyond the traditional methods of identifying, persuading and turning-out voters…" This again seems to imply yet another role, as possibly a political organizer. Up-Project appears to be a Merrifield, VA based entity, at least as contact information goes. Fiorina appears prominently in the website's pages, excluding other political candidates, even though her name does not appear in the organization's brand or "doing business as" name itself. In this organization's profile for "Leadership," it solely names Carly Fiorina, without mention of anyone else.[9] Ca.papavero (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: NEW ADDITIONS MADE PER ABOVE. As of Sunday 26 April 2015, I made the above additions to Fiorina's media career profile, so included in that section of the article. I should go back and better cite the news articles, as well as perhaps make a few finer edits; but, that concludes many of these talking points made in the above (and then a few more). I believe these new additions greater substantiate the article, bringing it significantly up to date on her career and profile status; that is except for some of her notable points of view and agenda items, which (as I've noted) may be too early to note here, unless (perhaps) she decides to run for President or other high office. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST RE-ASSESSMENT: I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Wikipedia projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/fiorina-cites-corporate-chops-in-possible-2016-run/
  2. ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/carly-fiorina-california-drought-116711.html
  3. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/fiorina-cites-corporate-chops-in-possible-2016-run/
  4. ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/17/what_does_carly_fiorina_want.html
  5. ^ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carly-fiorina-chances-run-2016-higher-90-percent
  6. ^ http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/carly-fiorina-2016-leading-pundits/2015/02/03/id/622252/
  7. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fiorina-failed-to-register-business-foundation-3293194.php
  8. ^ https://www.up-project.org
  9. ^ https://up-project.org/leadership.php

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

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

"Fiorina has been, and continues to be….

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

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

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

"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared…"

There as paragraph that needs better citations and relevance:

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

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

Section continuity; flow of Fiorina's overall career

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

1 Early life
2 Education and early career
2.1 AT&T and Lucent
2.2 Hewlett-Packard
2.3 After HP
3 Media career
4 Politics
4.1 Senate candidacy
4.2 Advocacy
4.3 Potential 2016 Presidential run
5 Personal life

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

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

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

I agree with your assessment. It is a bit messy and choppy. The tone of the article was more akin to a PR exercise than a WP bio, which was off putting when I read it first. I made a few changes, but it need a lot of work. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay… that's a good start. I took a glance at the "Contents" section and it looks like you comprehend what I was saying. I think you probably helped with the logic and progression. I'll have to read through again and see if it all jives per you own and and my analysis. Thanks.Ca.papavero (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least now we have a rational structure. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re. User:Cwobeel: Okay, I read through the article and it does make lots more rational flow. I was impressed with your work… I realize you did a lot. Not easy. I still had a few questionable matters as I was reading between the lines; but, it's all much more workable now. Just as one of the things I noticed, is that you questioned when Up-Project began. It didn't occur to me to add the date at the lead of the paragraph (good idea), but I did include the state filing of the "incorporation date" with its citation (later in the paragraph). Would that suffice? Unless we can find evidence of the website being launched before becoming an LLC (such as from a news article or press release), then I would think this would be its official date. I guess you could do an internet domain registration search to find out when the domain name was created and purchased, if you want to go that far and think its pertinent? So far as I can tell, I'm not sure how much more this LLC does, other than own and manage the website. Doing an internet search for news about Up-Project, I actually only found two short pages of news that's mostly from 2014 to 2015. So, that provides a bit of a clue, although we should seek more insight about this and her other entities.Ca.papavero (talk)

07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

No list of her positions on Issues

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Fiorina&oldid=660511506"