Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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" 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)

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

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)

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)

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. Justen (talk

) 04:25, 13 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)

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)

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 should be avoided as much as possible and instead use paraphrasing, unless the quote is so unique that required a full quotation, per

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)

The lead says (emphasis added):

[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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Supreme court made a ruling on this. Its now no longer constitutional to deny gay marriage. This would make her position merely an opinion and have no weight in the rule of law. I think this section should somehow reflect this change. Not by omitting but a touch up by smarter minds than I. And such an edit should be reflected on the other candidates as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.211.126.73 (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Please sign your posts (

wp:sign). -- AstroU (talk

) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing here about the outsourcing of Lucent IT in late 96/early 97. One of the earliest outsourcing projects on record and a fiasco. American workers were laid off and it was 1 of the causes of the Lucent bankrupcy. And why was it a fiasco? Because no performance clause was written into the contract. As for source/citation - I am 1, I was 1 of the workers laid off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's appreciated that you want to contribute to the article,

biographies on living persons that have to be followed closely. -- WV ● ✉ ✓

18:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

There is plenty of other data out there - if someone bothered to look. And just as there are hundreds (thousands?) of HP employees that don't like what she did, so too are there many ex-Lucent employees. The fact is that under her watch, Lucent went bankrupt, and that is an important fact that should be in her "biography". I bring up the issue, get someone to write it up, so that my "biased" opinion won't be in it. The fact of the matter is that without a section on her performance then, the article is not complete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycroft 514 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Lucent did not go bankrupt under her watch (or ever, as far as I can tell), but it did slip into unprofitability from 2001 through 2004, and lost almost 97% of its market capitalization from 2000 to 2002, largely due to irresponsible loans that were agreed to during her tenure. Here's an outside source about it: http://recode.net/2015/08/30/time-to-revisit-carly-fiorinas-business-record-before-hp-yes-so-lets-begin-with-lucent/. I agree it's relevant and should be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.190.158 (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina was widely lauded for her performance at the undercard GOP debate, and I've updated the page on her campaign to reflect that fact, but should the presidential campaign section of her biography be updated as well? I didn't think that her performance (at the first of the many GOP debates which will come) was important enough to add to her biography, but now I think it might be, given that most of the information currently in that section is just criticism of her business past, it might help balance this article.Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The accolades for her performance are fairly wide-spread and definitely notable per Wikipedia standards. I see no reason why it shouldn't be included in this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, notable; but she currently is not photogenic. Here picture in the article is better than her political appearances. And with the new CNN criteria, she will be 'top-tier' in the Reagan Library debate, Sept.16th. -- AstroU (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

All we have in the article about this organization, is this: In April 2012, Fiorina became chair of Good360, a 501(c)(3) nonpartisan nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Virginia, which helps companies donate excess merchandise to charities.[112] As of August 2015, she continues to hold this position. Given that a lead should be a summary of the article, I don't think we need to have this in the lead at all, and most certainly not twice as currently. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The source used to add this content: D"uring her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[40] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product." missed the following paragraphs in the source starting with "Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal." - This kind of cherry picking is not acceptable. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk)

The article states that soon after she left there were issues "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company started to collapse due to financing vendor equipment loans during Fiorina's tenure, " She did not actually take that away it states later in the article that she left the stock at lucent. Both sides seem to be present. Jadeslair (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, what specifically are you suggesting needs to be changed in the section?CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an entire article as a source, and if we use that source we need to cover what the source says in toto. Read the source and you can try coming up with some text that reflects the source in proportion.- Cwobeel (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Two editors have questions your use of this tag. Based on that, I think it's reasonable to request more specificity regarding what you believe the issue to be.CFredkin (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC) Currently it sounds like you're suggesting that we should guess what and how much content should be removed, added, or changed to satisfy your concern.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Cwobeel, "Cherry Picking", huh? It is a fact that Fiorina did add 22,000 jobs. That is a fact. You can't remove that from the article. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact and it needs to be in the article. You haven't given a good reason to remove such a fact. The revenue did grow 58%. That's a fact. You may not, for whatever reason, want that in the article, but it is true. It is a fact that net income grew tremendously (from losing money to make tons of money) while she was CEO of Lucent. You may not like that fact, but it is a fact. It is a fact that sales in all departments grew. It is absolutely acceptable that this information be in the article. You haven't given one good reason to remove these facts. Nothing. “Tagged Accordingly.” I’m not even sure what that means. Also, you have put in the article information about the Lucent/Philips transaction, but not one of the so-called reliable sources that you cite ties Fiorina to the information that you put in the article. One of the sources might not be a reliable source because it is a press release from the day of the announcement of the transaction and the other article is a Wall Street Journal article that indicates that the Lucent/Philips transaction did not work out, but it does not mention Fiorina’s name, not once. This information should not even be in the article unless you can provide some kind of reliable source to support the information there. It looks like original research by you that attempts to somehow tie Fiorina to the Lucent/Philips failure. But you don’t have any sources to support your point of view.--ML (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Read the sources, and instead of just picking sound bites, pick the full story per

WP:NPOV. After all that source is titled Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record. D'oh. - Cwobeel (talk)

20:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I read the sources. The facts are what the facts are. Did she add 22,000 jobs or didn't she?--ML (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing that. ??? - Cwobeel (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Answering your question, CFredkin"

Carly Fiorina's troubling telecom past [4]

And unlike HP, where Fiorina instituted large layoffs—a fact Senator Boxer loves to mention whenever possible—Lucent added 22,000 jobs during Fiorina’s tenure. Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

And this is directly associated with Fiorina's actions: Lucent and its major competitors all started goosing sales by lending money to their customers. In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset. So, if we are quoting figures we need to include context and critique of these figures per NPOV. Got it? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! The "Got it" comment is too much. Why the need to bite those who disagree with you. Please do not be rude. The facts are the facts. When she was at Lucent, she created 22,000 jobs. That's a fact and it needs to stay. While she was at Lucent she grew revenue and she grew net income. These are facts. Now you have cited one (1) source that admits that these facts are true. Other reliable sources support these facts. They can't be removed because they might fit into whatever story you want the article to tell.--ML (talk) 21:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't "got it". You've just provided excerpts from the source above. What specifically is the issue with the section in the article?CFredkin (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

really, don;t get it? In the article we have: During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit without the context is not NPOV. They used the loans with creative accounting to show increase in revenue. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and the para goes on to say: "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments to customers to finance equipment purchases (of which $1.6 billion had been dispensed), many of which were unstable startups.[42] The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure and eventually dropped to less than $1 per share, as part of an overall decline in the fortunes of telecom equipment companies.[42] According to Fortune magazine, "the company’s wild pursuit of growth gave it much further to fall."[42] The company later merged with Alcatel.[42]" Can you really not be aware of that? You added at least some of that content yourself.CFredkin (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not nearly enough. We are describing revenue figures as a fact without the caveat that these figures are from cooked books. The POV tag will remain on that section until we find a way to wave into the narrative what the source specifically says about it: In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added the necessary context and removed the POV tag. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Added a few more data points and now this section meets NPOV. Thank you for your patience. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 22

August 2015 (UTC)

You should probably start moving that to the Lucent page because it has nothing to do with Fiorina. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. Your section "US$65 million in performance-linked pay" is taken out of context and later in the Forbes article it says she left the money on the table. Your last paragraph is not even about the subject of this article. The merger has nothing to do with Fiorina and is not attributed to her so why is it in this article? ""In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt" are you saying the dicy debt has something to do with Fiorina? Because the author of the article in Forbes does not. You cherry picked and pulled a lot of items out of context, exactly what you said you did not want in the article. Jadeslair (talk) 03:14, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

if the merger has nothing to do with Fiorina, then remove the entire thing, which was there before I started editing that section to comply with NPOV. The compensation issue is also described in the section about the HP hiring. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

actually we can't remove the whole thing:

That year, Fiorina chaired a US$2.5 billion joint venture between Lucent's consumer communications and

Royal Philips Electronics, under the name Philips Consumer Communications (PCC).^[1][2]

References

1. ^ "Philip-Lucent Venture Kaput". RCR Wireless News. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
2. ^ "Philips And Lucent Complete PCC Joint Venture". prnewswire (Press release). 1997-10-01. Retrieved 2015-08-07.

So if she chaired that JV, then we need to give context about it, which I did. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

If her being chair of the JV is significant, it will be mentioned somewhere other than a company press release. Also, attributing the performance of the JV to her, when the sources don't mention her is

WP:OR.CFredkin (talk

) 04:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

See below, page 103 of the book Backfire: Carly Fiorina's High-Stakes Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard'. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Easy, easy. The material is well sourced and there are many more sources if needed. Restored. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I should have been more specific in my introductory sentence. The information about after she left should not be included in the article. Unless it could be directly attributed to her. I am not going to edit because you sourced them, and policy dictates I discuss it first. Jadeslair (talk) 03:53, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Also see page 103 of the book Backfire: Carly Fiorina's High-Stakes Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard,

ISBN 9780471465041, which clearly states that The new venture, which would have roughly $2.5 billion is sales would be called Philips Consumer Communication (PCC). It would be 60 percent owned by Philips ad 40 by Lucent. Florina would be the chair. And of course we should include what happened after she left, as these point are made by sources in the context of describing Fiorina's tenure. We follow the sources, not our opinions. - Cwobeel (talk)

03:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the source that makes the assessment and from which the text is derived. [1]

- Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin if you have concerns about that section, then you should address them to those that added cherry picked superlatives about her tenure at Lucent. But now that such material was added, we have to follow NPOV and provide the necessary context and provide a full picture to our readers. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Currently the para on the results of her tenure at Lucent mentions both the highlights and the lowlights. In fact there's currently one sentence on the highlights and five sentences on the lowlights. Your attempt to add a POV quote on top of that is uncalled for.CFredkin (talk) 04:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally uncalled for, and blatant suppression of material that is not only relevant but properly sourced. Tagged POV until a addressed.- Cwobeel (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

from what I can see you were trying to put in information that was unrelated to the article Which is about Carly, not Lucent and introducing information that was cited in the Forbes article but only as speculation. The article used sensationalism and you included that in the Wikipedia Article. You introduced Contentious material about a living person. Although you used a source it was poorly sourced because it was not about the subject and implied a

restored and prove that is should be included in the article. Jadeslair (talk

) 13:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. The material is relevant and well sourced. No one is implying any type of crime, but we can't have a one-sided presentation of Fiorina's tenure at Lucent: NPOV is non-negotiable. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not delete dispute tags until issues are addressed. We shall follow

WP:DR to the letter. - Cwobeel (talk)

14:05, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The dispute is resolved, you must prove your point before continuing, you are also misusing the tag. Jadeslair (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You are not serious, are you? The dispute is not close to being resolved as the section is in full violation of NPOV. We should follow

WP:DR until resolved. - Cwobeel (talk)

14:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Once possible compromise is to reduce the size of that section to the bare minimum, excluding the resume-like superlatives and the criticism, and leave it bare bones, with the material moved to the Lucent article. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

You should refrain from editing as you might start an edit war, it might be appropriate to seek outside comments. I want it noted that I warned you about introducing defamatory content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

No need to template me; I am fully aware of policies. Now, if you can engage in a constructive discussion, please respond to my proposal above. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

There was no defamatory content whatsoever. Please stop making false accusations and engage in

WP:DR. - Cwobeel (talk)

14:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

I did participate, see above regarding blp and I cited rules. When you tag an article you are supposed to provide a basis on the talk page which you did not do originally. I am required to warn you prior to requesting administrative intervention, so I did. You are not requesting npov edits in my opinion, you are seeking to introduce speculation that this person cooked the books among other things. Which I have shown to you that she was not even with the company at the time nor during the investigation. That is not npov it is pov pushing, hence no npov dispute. Jadeslair (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Citing rules is not

WP:DR. I made a proposal above to which you have not responded. If my proposal is not acceptable, it is your turn to propose an alternative. - Cwobeel (talk)

20:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Started RFC below. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:23, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The section "Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation" is very critical POV as it does not describe what the two organizations are and what they do, it only uses one source. This source discussed their status as not being registered with the Santa Clara County or the Secretary of State for California. This section requires expansion with multiple sources to make it NPOV. I will attempt to do this, and am interested in any editors advice/opinions. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

These sections are not needed. Best would be to make a short mention of these somewhere in the article, or to omit altogether given the lack of RSs that have reported on them. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The awards list currently in the infobox includes a mixture of awards with other accolades that have nothing to do with awards. Some of these should be removed accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Which ones are you referring to specifically? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 07:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

The ones I removed. The others that seem to be awards, need sourcing and have been tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay and thanks for doing it. No need to clutter the infobox up with crap that doesn't apply to the field. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• This Politifact story [5] makes clear that the 8000 jobs added through acquisitions figure relates to "the same time period" as the pre-and post- Compaq merger employee figures. It also notes in passing that the 8K count does not include employees from outside-the-US acquisitions, but the overall employment figures do. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • • I think the problem here is inconsistency between WaPo and Politifact regarding the 8,000 jobs. WAPO says: “The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees" (amphasis added). POLITIFACT says: “In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'” So we need to find out what the "same period" referred to. Was it the period after the Compaq merger? Or Fiorina's entire tenure? Here's a link to the LA Times article. It says: "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000." So we're not talking about Fiorina's entire tenure, but rather 2001-2005.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
      • I have put the "8,000" number back into the lead, and there are now three supporting footnotes at the end of that sentence in the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Sure. Incidentally,

WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina.Anythingyouwant (talk

) 03:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

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