Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 1

Neutrality

(Removed material per WP:BLP.)

Some of this article needs to be re-written from a neural point of view. --Cmoxon 08:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

(Removed material per WP:BLP.)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.113.202 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 14 May 2006.

Regardless of her conduct and performance, a neutral tone should be maintained. This is to prevent potential bias issues from occuring. Wikipedia is meant to be fact-based, not opinionated. Torinir

I tagged this article, because it continues to be tremendously biased. Attempts to correct a former heavy bias against Fiorina have not helped the matter, on the contrary. This article represents some of the worst of Wikipedia: It appears that some of the authors have a very personal ax to grind, others try to correct the bias with material that seems to want to prove that she's a good person after all, and finally someone adds personal trivia, none of which belongs in an encyclopdia. The achievement of Carly Fiorina continues to be inadequately represented. This article should be rewritten from scratch. I am still looking around for an adequate model (articles on Lou Gerstner, Jack Welch, etc.), but neither of the articles I checked is of any quality -- the biography group at Wikipedia is in urgent need of people with business knowledge who represent the achievement of these business leaders objectively and with insight. Jinmex 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Just wanted to point out that the picture looks like it's being censored by a white square with digitalfreedom.gov written on it. Even in the full size picture, it's hard to tell that it's her podium and not editing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.74.192.85 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 April 2006.

It is odd. Why not use the official HP photo of her? http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/bios/fiorina.html 06:02, 18 July 2006 User999999

(Removed material per WP:BLP.)

Previous Talk

Someone was fast in updating the info on her getting fired.

She's made lots of friends during her career.

Atlant 15:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

More enemies than friends, I should say. Or perhaps you were being sarcastic.--A. S. A. 16:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

(Removed material per WP:BLP.) Atlant 17:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

She is a woman who understands the limits to growth on our much exploited planet. She was bound to make many friends and enemies. User:18.120.0.135

It's hard to believe anyone is disputing the fact that she was fired, or trying to sugarcoat it by saying she resigned after she was asked to do so. It was a clear-cut boardroom ousting. Also, I read up on several articles analyzing the post-Fiorina prospects, and found no mention of Compaq devolving once again into an independent company. If you wish to include this reference, please cite it.--A. S. A. 11:42, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Most sources are saying that HP will likely split their printer and computer businesses, rather than an HP/Compaq split. Andros 1337 13:26, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pundits and industry experts may be saying that, but I think the truth is quite the opposite. NPR reported yesterday [1] that the board thinks that the company is more valuable with a "diverse portfolio", and thus wants to keep the company together, and is going to be searching for a CEO who thinks the same. -- Plutor 14:19, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

severance package

I followed the link given as source for the numbers about her parting benefits, but here the total amount is given as $21 million, not $42 million. Did I overlook something? regards, High on a tree 04:08, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Receptionist?

What she a receptionist somewhere? -- Toytoy 01:56, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. This information is verifiable, cited, and visible in the following revision, but the verifiable information was deleted, instead of edited, in an overzealous revert. Feel free to put the information back if you want to fight the reverters. Old version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=14871955 BBC source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1524555.stm

Way too many links in the first paragraph

Can some be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snafuu (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 July 2005.

This shows up Wikipedia's weakness

I'd never heard of this woman before today. This 'encyclopaedia' article about her is crude and uninformative, and I suspect, highly biased. 55% out of 100. It would be 40%, but it's 'free' after all. Unsigned

Thanks for giving the "out of 100" clarification after using the % sign. Good to see you are giving us 110%. Nina137.111.47.29 (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Weakness? Well, maybe

If you have never heard of her before, you probably don't work in the computer business. Her mismanagement of HP is now legendary.

It is a bit crude, yes. But it is not as bad as you think. If it is be about the truth, it has to be fairly brutal since the HP story is not a pretty story.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.129.124.44 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 April 2006.

Regardless of whether Carly drove the company into the ground or made it the #1 company in the world, the article needs to be written in neutral tones. The language used in the current article appears very negative and needs a rewrite. Torinir

An article can be written that is NPOV and yet very negative towards its subject. For example, an article on smallpox does not need to present a 50/50 view of the goodness of smallpox versus the badness. In the same way, an article about Carly Fiorina can be NPOV while still reflecting very badly on Ms. Fiorina's management "accomplishments".

Atlant 23:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Carly did not drive the company into the ground; quite the opposite. In the wake of the bursting of the dot-com bubble, a lot of tech companies were hurting, Hewlett-Packard not least among them. Compaq was headed towards bankruptcy despite Capellas' staving it off as much as possible, and HP wasn't far behind.

The merger was purely a business move - and a shrewd one. The combined PC market share put Hewlett Packard into the #1 spot, and "efficiencies" - layoffs of people in duplicated functions across the two companies - made that part of the company marginally profitable, as opposed to break even at HP and money losing at Compaq. More importantly, combining the service operations kept the bottom line from continuing to evaporate. HP continued to lose market share for a few months after the merger, as predicted in the merger plans, but that market share actually stabilized above where it was expected to stabilize.

The merger itself was executed much more smoothly than expected, thanks largely to Capellas' operational skill. HP would perhaps have been better off with Capellas continuing as COO, but it's pretty clear that Carly planned for him to leave after the job of merging operations was done, whether he knew that or not.

The dislike for Carly stems from two sources. The first is engineers who had been treated well under the old HP and ended up laid off under the merger. The fact is, though, that the post-burst tech world wasn't the world of the 1950s HP any more, and that model would not have survived. The second is Wall street stock pickers who feel threatened by woman CEOs for some reason. In their mind, Carly was the reason HP stock tanked in the wake of the dot-com bubble, while none of the male CEOs whose tech companies followed the same stock price curve got blamed.

And yes, I owned HP stock at the time, I voted for the merger, and I made money from it. Making money for the stockholders is the bottom line for any CEO. Warren Dew (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• added comment; It's true that the engineering section of HP were very anti-Carly. This is from a very old world tech viewpoint that was never going to be happy taking directions from a woman. The comfortable situation the company was in was going to be shaken by the bursting of the computer bubble anyway. The old guard did everything it could to maintain the staus quo, and the shenanigans that were hidden from public view were a huge liabilty to the company. This was not fair to Mrs Fiorina and was not fair to HP . People should have left their prejudices at home and not brought them into work. Looking at the bigger picture, people could have known drastic changes were needed in a company as big and as complex as HP. But old habits die hard. As someone laid off at the time, with a decent package, I hope the destructive attitudes of the anti- Fiorina camp serve as a warning that business is about results. If you can't improve the business, get the hell out. And don't blame somebody who worked their butt off to turn the company around from dinosaur to new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.216.66 (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed

(Removed section per WP:BLP.)

Anything positive to be said?

While it may be that she made a lot of mistakes at HP, are there still no positive comments to be made? I wouldn't go so far as to call this article 'biased', but it does seem to be lacking some balanced dialogue. I'd love to see some more history about her early career, as well as a better, more in depth discussion as to why her decisions were viewed as so harmful to the company by so many people. We should also consider an explanation/discussion regarding her book, now that it is on shelves. Perditor 21:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

(Removed material per WP:BLP.) Tangurena (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased is an understatement

This article seems more like a personal smear campaign against this woman, who lead the merger between the Hewlett and Packard families. She was clearly no saint, but she didn't "run the company into the ground"--unlike the CEO's of Enron, American Airlines, Adelphia etc. And the claim that she was "held on far longer than she should have purely based on her gender" is completely ridiculous. I mean, are we seriously suggesting that the American business world is being pussy-whipped by affirmative action feminists into retaining female CEO's? Scared, victimized, billionaire males on the board of directors at one of the most profitable companies in the United States? Please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Erin1983 (talk • contribs) .

But many folks feel that the HP/COmpaq merger was clearly a mistake, both for corporate political reasons and for financial reasons. They (and I) would make the argument that "leading the merger" was clearly a failure, not a sucess on Fiorina's part. (I have no particular opinion on whether she "stayed too long", regardless of gender, but I do know from direct contacts that she was reviled by many of HP's employees.) --Atlant 18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Now that the PC part of the business is doing very, very well, and selling lots of printers as a result, which bring in even more high-margin ink revenue ... perhaps the people who thought the merger was "clearly a mistake" should revisit that opinion. HP's PC biz was in the toilet pre-merger and the server biz was heading that way. The merger actually was one of CF's good decisions - the problem was that she wasn't focused on execution and ran off the people who were. Had she turned over operations to a strong COO, rather than absorb that into her own responsibilities, she might still be here. 15.235.153.101 19:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Rollback by MONGO

MONGO has rolled this article back [2] to this version ... A very large portion of the edits made in the interim, now rolled back, were by socks of permanently banned user Amorrow, or tags added in response to things added by those socks. Users include RidinHood25 and 75.36.230.91, who did the bulk, as well as others. Please review the history for anything lost that is key. Please also keep WP:BLP in mind, don't just blindly add things back because they have a cite. This article was shifting in the direction of a smear job and Amorrow's recent edits were pushing it along. This sort of corrosive and damaging editing behaviour, possibly to be used as part of a real life stalking campaign, is why Amorrow is "ban on sight, revert on site" here. Please be on the lookout for suspicious edits and bring them to the attention of concerned editors. ++Lar: t/c 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

missing links

2003:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/carly.html
How Carly arrived at HP

2005:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=141506
An Engineer's View of Carly Fiorina's Leadership

2005:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/02/07/8250437/index.htm
Why Carly's Big Bet is Failing

2005:
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=138854
HP CEO Carly Fiorina to Step Down

2006:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=190623
Forbes Now Thinks Carly Saved HP

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0709/gallery.MPW_100_years.fortune/14.html
summary

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.132.217 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This reads like a fan page. It makes her departure from HP sould like she was somehow a victim, which could not be farther from the truth There is also nothing listed about the fact that under her leadership, hundreds of HP employees had their personal records compromised. The entire artical is far too suger coated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.160.5.25 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is being sanitized because she's one of McCain's advisors, and the election season is coming up. This page was "archived" last week and many comments were removed. Even the discussion of why they were removed has also been removed. Tangurena (talk) 23:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Any comments not relating to editing the article will be removed. This isn't the place to talk about whether you love or hate Carly Fiorina. Take a look at WP:NOT#FORUM if you need clarification.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Quotation from Lakshmanan's referenced article on Bloomberg News

"The company has become the world's largest personal computer and printer-maker and its share price has doubled since she left -- the fruits, say defenders and even some critics, of foundations she laid. Today, it's difficult to find a former adversary in Silicon Valley who will criticize her." [Emphasis added.] -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words aren't sources. The article doesn't cite any. 12.195.103.2 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article clearly asserts that "critics" and the CBS News article clearly asserts that "supporters" both believe she helped position the company for success. What you're calling "weasel words" aren't Wikipedia's, they're the words of those reliable sources. Stop removing sourced content from the article.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that the article supports your citation is factually false. Revert again and you'll be in violation of the 3-Revert Rule.12.195.103.2 (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Since there's so many critics coming out of the woodwork to support Fiorina, it shouldn't be much trouble to find a real one on the record.12.195.103.2 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

wp:3rr does not apply to vandalism; removing sourced content is indeed vandalism. Just because you don't like what a source says doesn't mean you can keep trying to sneak in its removal repeatedly over a period of days or months.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Accusing people making edits in good faith as being vandals is a good sign you're letting POV infect your editorial discretion.12.195.103.2 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's cool down here. 12.195.103.2 clearly feels strongly that the wording is inappropriate, and is not just trying to deface the article, so this is not vandalism. However, the consensus here seems to be that the wording is fine, as it comes directly from the source, and you don't get much more reliable than Bloomberg. So, while not vandalism, I think he or she is coming close to violating WP:POINT with your reverts. I see that he's just reverted himself in accordance with consensus, so let's just let it drop, shall we? Cheers, --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so he only half-reverted himself. I've restored the prior language based on the consensus here.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that we have anonymous unknown "some critics" being cited in a fashion that's almost impossible to argue against. If I cite several examples of critics who don't credit her with HP's success, the weasel wording in this article will still be used as evidence to the contrary. Outsourcing the weasel wording to poorly written journalism doesn't make the point any more accurate. 12.195.103.2 (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Find an example of a former critic or two who now credits her with the success, and then replace the source with those. Until then, that's the best we have.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First sentences - neutrality/length

Why is it necessary to include details like 'When Fiorina was asked by the Board of Directors to step down in 2005, the company stated that Fiorina had put in place “a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win" and that HP "look[ed] forward to accelerating execution of the company's strategy".' Shouldn't it be limited to something like "She served as CEO of Hewlett-Packard between 1999 and 2005"? Accolades, controversies, etc. should be relegated to the appropriate sections. Pxlt (talk) 04:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to take a whack at it, just be sure to not delete content, move it to the relevant section instead.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed nonsense

I removed the following: CNN reported that the McCain campaign announced that Fiorina would no longer act as a surrogate for the campaign, stating "Carly will now disappear. Senator McCain was furious. Maybe rewrite without political slant and agenda? --Tom 13:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, it's directly from the source. That's the statement MADE by the McCain camp. I know you hate negative information about Republicans, but there's no ground for removal here. Restored. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thats because I am a republican (sarcaism) You agenda pushing is really getting tiresome. --Tom 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A blog, which references a blog, which cites unnamed sources. Nice work. Real quality. --Tom 18:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the smart assery, please to note that no blog was referenced in my edit. MSNBC and CNN both explicitly quotes the McCain campaign as saying "Carly will now disappear. McCain was furious." /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The references aren't from blogs? There weren't multiple unnames sources used? You also didn't get the quotation right, try "Carly will now disappear," AND "Senator McCain was furious". Keep accusing others of whitewashing and smart assery as you keep pushing your agenda in here. --Tom 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You seem to equate "blog" to a self-published source. Check out WP:RS, WP:SPS, an WP:RSN. Additionally, MSNBC broadcast certainly is not a "blog". In any case, there is no question that the statement was made, though you're welcome to break the quote apart, though it comes from the same source in the same breath. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The MSNBC story referenced the Huffington Post story which referenced the CNN article now cited. CNN is a valid base source and is the one that should be cited (as it is in my edit, now restored). This incident happened, the story was reported as documented. I hold no real agenda here but clearly you can't just delete all mention of it. I left out the specific quotes because they unnamed and anyway are just too much detail for a general biographical article. Jgm (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

You're not saying that CNN is the provider of news from a neutral viewpoint, are you? Please fight your political wars somewhere else, not in the form of editing an encyclopedia. Also, please read WP:BLP again. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 03:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try to assume good faith here, despite your ad-homenim and misguided personal attack. You keep deleting the entire section dealing with the statments Fiorina made on the radio show, the followup interview with Andrea Mitchell, and the fallout internal to the McCain camp as reported by CNN. Setting aside the CNN article for a moment, the interviews obviously occurred and are well documented with actual recordings availabe all over the world, and are adequately referenced here. There is nothing in BLP that remotely precludes their inclusion here; this person has entered the public eye as a political aide and newsworthy events with potential long-term import are obvious candidates for inclusion. (By the way, if you disagree with this please state your reasoning rather than just frothing). Now, on to the CNN article on the fallout: the edit I made explicitly mentions CNN (a major, and widely-cited source throughout WP and elsewhere, regardless of your personal opinion of it) as the source in its text as well as the citation. That is to say, the edit talks about what CNN verifiably reported (which is in itself a noteworthy fact about this person's life) rather than trying to define truth (see Wikipedia:Verifiability if you need to review the distinction).

I'm going to restore my edit once more. I urge you to think carefully on this before you simply delete the entire thing again (which would be evidence of bad faith on your part). If you want to try alternate wording, adding a verifiable source which you think would provide more balance or neutrality, or (best yet) want to try to reach consensus here, all to the good. Jgm (talk) 03:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs, quite simply, are not reliable sources, perhaps especially when citing rumors in a biography of a living person. Period. End of story. If it can be reliably sourced in the future, bring those sources to this talk page. Continuing to reinsert poorly sourced material in the article, however, needs to stop now.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't add the Huffington ref, but I assume it was used because it features the first and most direct link to the documentary evidence (audio recording) of what is cited. In my view this is a legitimate use of such a source, but I agree that Huffington et al are not, in general, reliable sources to cite so I switched out that reference to one of the many mainstream stories, and added one for the introductory statement as well. I'd still rather talk about it here than play revert games. Jgm (talk) 11:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion between a "blog" and a self-published source. Something isn't prohibited simply because the word "blog" is used. "Blogs" of organizations that already qualify as a reliable published source also are considered reliable. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case. Blogs like the Huffington Post should not be considered reliable sources. Such blogs are not subject to the same editorial or quality controls as newspapers or other reliable sources. In fact, newspaper publisher blogs aren't even subject to the same controls. I've not seen any discussion in which consensus has said blogs are reliable sources, self-published or otherwise. Care to enlighten me?  :)   user:j    (aka justen)   01:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The contention over what's still been deleted, the most recent version of which read:

CNN reported that (. .. ) sources within the McCain campaign indicated that she would be "discouraged" from making further media appearances on the candidate's behalf.

Seems to be not that CNN is not a reliable published source, or even that the CNN article cited is off-limits because it appeared in a bloggish format, but that the source they were quoting (previous versions, also deleted, including the quotes themselves, and which I paraprhased in the version just above) itself was anonymous/unnamed in the article. Which does indeed raise a very interesting point of order. Pretty much all news outlets use confidential sources for stories often far more important that this one. Historically, it's the journalistic integrity of the source that assures the accuracy and veracity of the information printed, not whether they reveal a confidential source or not. The deletors here keep pointing to various Wikipedia policy statements as supporting this deletion, but I've yet to see one that says if an otherwise reliable source does not name their source for a news item that that news item becomes unusable.

As to the Huffington issue, it's a bit of a red herring now that it isn't being used here as a reference, but it raises another interesting question: when a blog story itself makes mainstream news (and/or, in this case, contains the primary link to the documentary evidence of the actual news item), does it make sense to reference the mainstream news story that covers the blog content but not the original blog post itself? Aren't primary sources the best references of all? Jgm (talk) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

CNN ref redux

The "reliable sources" section of WP:BLP states:

Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.

I contend this is precisely the case with the CNN Political Ticker cited -- the writers are professionals whose stories appear throughout the publication, and are clearly writing under normal journalistic control and editorial oversight, not to express personal opinion. Therefore it is not necessary to muddy the reference with any weasel words beyond "CNN reported". Jgm (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are kidding right? You are saying that people posting on these blogs are not expressing their personal opinions? Thats a real stretch. --Tom 13:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "people posting on these blogs". The CNN Political Ticker page is exactly as the BLP describes, news items in the format of a blog (in fact I suspect that page or one very similar was precisely what the BLP founders had in mind when they wrote the above). Of course comments or responses to the items are not citable (which the BLP section goes on to make clear). If you don't agree you might argue it on the BLP talk page, not here. Jgm (talk) 13:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the people who write "articles" or "news items" as you call them for these blogs. I think that the project needs to be careful when using these pieces as citations because I do believe personal opinions are being presented and that they are not up to a higher standard that the project should be striving for. --Tom 14:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

As I said, if you want to talk project policy this probably isn't the place. But I'm genuinely curious: what part(s) of the cited item do you find to be a presentation of personal opinion? Jgm (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you have a point about discussing the merits of RS and project policy in other places. I never read the cite...just kidding. That was more of a blanket statement about writers on these blogs. The writer did say that Fiorina has forced the campaign off message before and also used unnamed sources which isn't to reliable imho. Anyways, I think I have already said that this isn't that big a deal nor worth edit warring over. Cheers, --Tom 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) I dug up the history of that statement at wp:v yesterday. First of all, the policy specifically refers to "interactive columns" from "newspapers" that happen to call themselves blogs. Political Ticker is not an "interactive column," and I believe it's a stretch to say every post goes through the same controls as a newspaper story. In any event, the critical thing, as I see it, is that if this alleged excommunicating was fact and was sourceable, it would be covered by the mainstream media other than at a CNN Blog. So far, a few newspapers have opined on Fiorina's comments on their editorial pages, but I've yet to find a single report on what the CNN Blog alleged. That says a lot in my mind; if you believe the CNN Blog is a reliable source, fine. I think you're wrong.  :) But the bigger issue here, in my opinion, is we're placing much undue weight on a report from a blog that has yet to see any widespread reporting. It isn't biographical, yet (unless she indeed never returns to the campaign trail, but we're not fortune tellers, even if CNN is).   user:j    (aka justen)   16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the burden is that the statement is verifiable via reliable sources. I don't think you'll find anyone on Wikipedia who will support your claim that the largest news outlet on earth is not a reliable source, nor do I think that there is any doubt about the verifiability of the claim. Beyond that, other networks have already covered the story as well in broadcast as well as print, and WP:BLP specifically covers all of this. I don't see how any of your objections are sustainable upon rigorous inspection. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

A blog entry from what you call "the largest news outlet on Earth" is not the same thing as a broadcast report from that outlet. If there is a report that has, without a doubt, gone through the same editorial controls expected of reliable sources, then please share, and we can be done with this issue.   user:j    (aka justen)   21:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with Blaxthos here, I looked up a few such mainstream / newswire versions of the story with the thought to change from the CNN ref to something less objectionable to those who disagree, but I'm not going to do it -- each of those seems to depend somewhat on the CNN piece, and the CNN ref is actually the closest to primary and most complete version of the story. I don't think the wording matters that much; my main objection right now is the sheer ugliness of the sentence, with the phrase "A CNN correspondent blogged". Jgm (talk) 21:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

My attempts to find an actual report that confirms what was posted to the CNN Blog has been just as fruitless, which brings me back to what wp:v says about blogs in general: "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so." In this case, I think the accuracy is also at issue here; if the McCain campaign has effectively dismissed one of its most prominent advisors, CNN and other news outlets would have covered that extensively.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the term "blog" implies self-published, which is clearly not the case. Stop trying to equate the two -- continuing to do so is in bad faith. There is absolutely no justification for attempting to poison the well by using the misleading "blogged" in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Simply calling something "bad faith" doesn't make it so; I have a good faith disagreement with you over the reliability of the source. But I don't call Political Ticker a blog, CNN does, so if the term is misleading, you'll need to take it up with them.   user:j    (aka justen)   00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what word is used, you clearly are trying to draw a line between the conventional idea of a self-published blog and the CNN political ticker, which are absolutely not the same thing. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Has this "material" been reported by other sources? Is it noteworthy? --Tom 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it has (see article history for at least 3 examples). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) Blaxthos, you seem to be assuming a lot, quite a bit of it incorrectly. Do I "draw a line" between what CNN "blogs" about and what it broadcasts? Absolutely. If they're not willing to give it airtime or put it on cnn.com proper, there's a reason. Do I think CNN's blog is the same thing as the Huffington Post? No; the former is endorsed by what purports to be an objective news outlet, the latter admittedly has its own political opinions (which I often happen to agree with, for what it's worth). Nevertheless, CNN chose to call "Political Ticker" a blog, and (indeed) that's what it is. In any event, I (and others now) are still waiting for some reliable sourcing (aside from a CNN blog); the only other source I see in the article history is the Huff Post. Can you please be more explicit in what sources you're referring to?   user:j    (aka justen)   00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

How closely did you look? /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're killing me here! I think Mr. Olbermann is great, but his job is as a commentator not a reporter, just like Mr. O'Reilly at Fox. Editorial and opinion, unless notable in their own right, aren't reliable sources. Unless this "disappearance" can be reliably sourced; it's got not chance of sticking in the article. Unless it can widely reliably sourced, it's got barely a slim chance. So far, it's looking like the former.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MSNBC is unquestionably a reliable source, and Countdown with Keith Olbermann is generally accepted and frequently used as a reliable source all over Wikipedia. Not satisfied? How about Jimmy Orr with the Christian Science Monitor (Is Fiorina finished? Two big mistakes get Carly in trouble) (which specifically uses the phrase "CNN is reporting", not "blogging")? AOL News reports the quote from its own source, independent of CNN entirely (Will Carly Fiorina 'Disappear' Like Gramm?). CNN, MSNBC, CSM, and AOL News have all published the quote, which means multiple, independent sourcing. There is no question of verifiability that the statement was made, there is no denial of it by anyone. It really seems like you're more concerned about how the statement makes Fiorina look than you are with whether it actually occurred. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the issue here. The CNN source is a blog, for which we can only assume what their editorial policy is (which is unacceptable, especially for a wp:blp). The Christian Science Monitor piece is an editorial and opinion blog. The MSNBC clip is from Keith Olbermann editorializing, not reporting. The AOL piece is a blog. There must be a reason apparently not a single mainstream media outlet has reported on this issue; there must be a reason its coverage has so far been limited to the blogs and a scant few editorials. As to my intentions, they are that the comments be reliably sourced (and so far they have not been). I'm really not going to respond to your comment that I'm "more concerned about how the statement makes Fiorina look," aside from suggesting you retract it. Beyond that, I think I've said all there is for me to say.   user:j    (aka justen)   04:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you please show us the policies and guidelines that defines "reported" vs. "published", and requires one instead of the other? Multiple, independent, reliable sources (not self-published) have published the quote from at least two completely separate sources. There is no question of the reliability of the sources; there is no question that the sources stand behind the statements; there is no denial that the statements were made. You can repeat your assertion as often as you like, but you're just plain wrong -- there is no policy that supports your distinction. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Incremental nonsense

Editors have incrementally gone from arguing nits over how sources are referenced to removing well-referenced facts, to now deleting nearly a whole section with the comment "un-encyclopedic"; this is silly, transparently POV, and should stop. A public person becomes even more public upon entering politics, their documented public actions and the documented reactions to those actions are eminently encyclopedic and should clearly be included here. Jgm (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

"Transparently" pov? Wikipedia is not a newswire. We do not need to know her daily comments on Sarah Palin, what she thinks of Saturday Night Live, and the latest blog entries about her. That is "silly" and quite unencyclopedic. My only "point of view" here is how remarkably polarizing this woman is; so long as her biography is in line with wp:blp and our other policies, I couldn't care less if it reports she rides around on a broomstick (more power to her), so long as it's well sourced and biographical. Her daily thoughts on the campaign are, quite simply, not biographical, and I will remove them as such.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actions a person takes in a public forum that become newsworthy (as each of those documented clearly did) are, by definition, notable and biographic. Jgm (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Her thoughts on Saturday Night Live and the (only confirmed) single cancellation of a CNN interview are not biographical, and including them is pretty blatantly undue.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

You can keep saying it, doesn't make it true. Are you even reading the edits before reverting? I had reverted to one of your own edits (prior to your changing tactics here), then added another source and fact. Jgm (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I left the "Fiorina is 'disappeared'" business in temporarily because I was told more reliable sources were to be had (see above); none were forthcoming. My "changing tactics" was the recognition that every socalled "reliable" source for this massive controversy is a blog or an editorial apparently sourced from the blog. This is a biography of a living person, for which Wikipedia has particular policies that differ from how we would treat an article on a theory or a place, for example. The policies against undue weight and that we are not a newswire are relevant. Her thoughts on Saturday Night Live are not notable; her broad opinions on sexism in politics may be biographical, but an ongoing log of every single time she discusses the campaign simply is not.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

(←) I completely disagree with the inclusion of the Saturday Night Live nonsense, but so long as it stays, we should strive for accuracy and neutrality (the skit Fiorina was discussing did involve two politicians). I'm going to be away for most of the rest of today, but it looks like you were able to find a reliable source for the "massive end of the world unimaginably huge" scandal, which alleviates the immediate wp:blp concern there.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

justen, upon reflection, this may be less a matter of politics than a real bad animus directed at Fiorina. Fiorina has unhinged quite a number of people, from way back during her HP time. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it your contention that we're a bunch of former HP executives screwed by Fiorina who have come to Wikipedia to grind an axe? For full disclosure, I was a C-Level Executive with Lucent Technologies for a while, however my tenure there began a month after Fiorina left; I can assure you that I've had no personal interaction with her nor do I have any personal feelings either way. I seriously doubt any other editors have any ties to her whatsoever. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look through the talk archives for this page; there have been plenty of folks here with an ax to grind. I accept your statement that you're not one of said folks, however, although I hope you'll appreciate that neither am I. I read her biography, was surprised when hp ousted her, and think she's accomplished a lot. (Her recent foray into politics, in fact, puts her on the other side of the fence from me, and seems to have brought a lot more attention to her biography here, obviously.) But as I said earlier, broomstick or not, whatever can be sourced and that is biographical should stay, whatever else should not.   user:j    (aka justen)   22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; it's not implausible (perhaps even probable) that this article may be the target of axes. I would caution Iterator12n against prematurely accusing editors of such behavior. Regarding sourced material, see the thread above regarding a multitude of reliable sources currently available. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

In an attempt to render a third opinion here, I find myself unable to adequately verify that 1) there are only two editors involved in a content dispute, and 2) what exactly that dispute may be. Involved parties, please provide a one sentence summary of the issue as you see it. Jclemens (talk) 03:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the request may not have been entirely in line with WP:3O, but I'll give it a shot. There actually are five editors regularly recently involved in the editing of the article and the related discussion on this talk page: User:Jgm, User:Blaxthos, User:Threeafterthree, User:Iterator12n, and me. Earlier today, the two primary editors were Jgm and me. We disagree over the girth of the section covering Fiorina's political activities.

That's as far as I can summarize the situation neutrally. Here's my viewpoint: I believe it's becoming a bit of a current events log, now listing her commentary on a Saturday Night Live sketch, when she has canceled appearances and where, how many times she's repeated certain statements, etc. She worked at AT&T for fifteen years, and became one of the most powerful women in business while there. We got practically a sentence fragment on that. She worked at Lucent for four years, and became the most powerful woman in business while there. We've got a paragraph on that, sans bullets.

As of right now, we've got two paragraphs, and growing, on her political career, which has gone on for two months. Fiorina the political creature has nowhere near the notability that Fiorina the businesswoman has, yet that section of her biography here is becoming a coatrack for any and every comment she makes on behalf of the McCain campaign and the blogosphere and editorial response to those comments. I think it passed up wp:undue ten miles down the road, and I think Threeafterthree and Iterator12n may agree with me on that point. Jgm and Blaxthos, I believe, do not necessarily agree with me there, and hence why I believe Jgm asked for a third opinion (or, in this case, a sixth).   user:j    (aka justen)   04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's try three sentences: Several sources have reported an undenied statement from the McCain campaign that states:

There are multiple, verifiable sources that have reported this statement, none of which are self-published and are specifically allowed in WP:BLP. Given multiple sources (including broadcast) and the direct coverage with a "political activities" section in the article, the comment is verifiable and should be included in the article. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the fever swamps on the Left and the Right, what you are looking at is the crisis in American journalism: a narrowing of the news channels, primarily caused by extreme cost pressures on newspapers, and by self-selected readers more interested in seeing their opinions confirmed in print or on a screen rather than learning the street-level facts of the matter, or willing to pay for the information. For newspapers, copying materials (coloration and all) and generating opinions behind a desk is much cheaper than going out and finding the facts. Particularly the generation of opinions is real cheap. (On most subjects, I have two or three opinions myself – and you can have them all for free!) On top, the newspapers have gone up-scale in their hiring, with over-educated English Lit and Pre Law majors (more cost pressure!) on board who consider hitting the pavement as hacks far below their station. Instead of reporters, they all want to be editors, if not shapers of world opinion. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, can you speak to how WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTNEWS affect the inclusion (or curtailment or exclusion) of this material? How do you view it? Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I freely admit I am new to the Third Opinion process and apologize if I have breached protocol. (I'm not sure how one determines when there are only two editors at work and for how long).

Jclemens asks for a one-sentence summary of the issue as involved parties sees it. I think I have done so somewhere above, to wit: Actions a person takes in a public forum that become newsworthy (as each of those documented clearly did) are, by definition, notable and biographic; more specifically I see the move into the political arena as a major phase of this person's biographic life, and I see the particular events being debated for inclusion as important milestones in this phase. If balance between the depth and breadth of the sections dealing with Fiorina-the-businesswoman vs. Fiorna-the-politician is the goal, I would welcome futher expansion of the former. Jgm (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ideally, the third opinion is not simply a "vote" as in "he's right" or "she's wrong", but a previously uninvolved collaborator attempting to find middle ground and consensus. To that end, I seek first to understand. This isn't remotely an "official third opinion" (oxymoronic as that term may be), but I do think there's room for a collegial discussion focused on positive outcomes. Regardless of whether "just" two editors were previously involved, it's been my experience that third opinions are successful or fail depending on how open the conflicting editors are to listening to a third party--and, of course, how well that third party focuses the dispute and brings out possible solutions that the opposed parties hadn't considered before. Jclemens (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens: Getting back to your questions of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTNEWS... there is no question that there has been a dramatic shift in Carly's role in the McCain campaign. Since she is and adviser to McCain, and since she was a surrogate of the campaign until recently, it's fundamental that the reason for and context surrounding her changed role is explained. Since we have a subsection dedicated to her political activities, and since her recent missteps and campaign response have gotten fair amounts of press (multiple reliable sources), quoting the source directly is the most prudent way to represent the situation. Any sort of analysis, or attempts to re-color the statement in the stories (which were the subject of the stories), adds undue editorial influence. Ignoring the statement entirely, treating them as a simple news flash, largely whitewashes the significance of the entire issue. Hope this helps. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, You treat "that there has been a dramatic shift in Carly's role in the McCain campaign" as a given. In fact, there is somewhere a stmt from the campaign manager (I could find the citation) that the Fiorina kerfuffle is not a big deal. While on one side we may speculate that Fiorina is "out" as far as McCain is concerned, with equal right we may speculate that Fiorina could be the next US Trade Representative, or the next Secretary of Commerce. BTW, I grant everybody one thing: certain politicians may not be able to lead a large corporation, but people like Fiorina would seem to be miscast as politicians. Nothing new here. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 04:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no question that Fiorina is no longer a surrogate of McCain's campaign... all of her events were canceled, and there is no indication from anyone that her association with the campaign is anything but done (hence the statement quoted). Regarding what might be a future role, it's completely irrelevant -- it would be a future association with a McCain administration (not campaign). Regarding the rest, Fiorina made a choice to become involved in a campaign in an official capacity -- an article on Wikipedia would be severely derelict if we didn't properly cover the issue thoroughly. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Blaxthos, you are conveniently overlooking the following words from the source quoted by CNN's John King, still referenced by the article: "she would be off TV for a while – but remain at the Republican National Committee and keep her role as head of the party’s joint fundraising committee with the McCain campaign." That is Victory 2008, also mentioned in the article. Cheers. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing her role in the Republican Party with her role in the McCain presidential campaign. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

See McCain Palin Victory 2008 Joint Fundraising Committee. From that website: McCain-Palin Victory 2008 is a joint fundraising committee by the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund ["the campaign"], Republican National Committee, and Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Republican Parties. And note again "with the McCain campaign." No confusion here. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 02:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hometown

Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1kDc35TIy2-ITakDUW0fjjciQlQD96MP2UG0) says that she lives in Los Altos Hills, not Palo Alto. --haha169 (talk) 06:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Condé Nast Rehash

Copying from wp:blp/n:

The article was just semi-protected by Tom harrison. Unfortunately, User:Jgm decided to reinsert the material anyway, with an edit summary that included: "add link to article on source so readers can gauge import." The simple fact we're including it adds credence to the "import" of the source. I think wp:blp is clear: stick to the facts (and, perhaps, include notable opinion when it can be impeccably sourced and clearly named). It's about as clear a poorly-sourced, controversial statement as you can get, and adding a link to it doesn't make it any better sourced or less controversial. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

J, your one-editor crusade to keep any negative information out of this article is what's unfortunate. It may be pointless to try to discuss this rationally with you, but here goes:

• "Semi-protection" - I don't think this means what you think it means.
• include notable opinion when it can be impeccably sourced and clearly named: you said it (via WP:BLP), not me. This item fits in that category. By my count, at least four editors have supported inclusion of this material, either in editing the article or here on the discussion page, while you have consistently been the only one to delete it.
• Controversial? I dunno. We are talking about a tenure that ended several years ago. It's clear (and not just from this ongoing biff) that Fiorina is a polarizing figure and that there are a variety of opinions about her public life out there, we would be remiss not to include some aspects of criticism. If you think there are better-sourced or more cogent criticisms out there, feel free to add those as well.
• You have now reverted this item well more than three times, you might want to take a breath and think (or discuss here) before you jerk your knee again.

Jgm (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should look at wp:blp again. It's pretty clear: stick to the facts. You can reliably source the stock moves during her tenure. The rest of the Condé Nast piece is opinion (that is contradicted by actual reliable sources). If the Wall Street Journal or New York Times were saying it, you would be able to make a case. An otherwise unattributed opinion in a photo caption from a now defunct publication doesn't come anywhere near "impeccably sourced." user:J aka justen (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was "opinion" are inaccurate, and the defunct status of the publication is not relevant. (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

As I said, no sense trying to discuss rationally. While you savor your "victory" in getting the page locked you might do some research on Conde Nast and the business editors and writers there, who are at least as respectable and mainstream as any WSJ or NYT staffer writing on deadline. Also, you (and the redoubtable Mr. harrison) might think a bit on the difference between facts about a public figure (which is what BLP addresses) and facts about what professional analysts have said about a public figure (which are clearly allowable under BLP when proper controls and citations are in place, even when you happen to disagree with their opinions). And if you want to disagree with that you are going to have to consider how all the cherry-picked NYT etc. statements of support are going to survive the same gauntlet. One other thing for now: your characterization of the properly-cited and webpage as "defunct" is simply incorrect. Cheers. Jgm (talk) 02:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You seem to read a lot more into things than is actually there. The only "savoring" I'm doing is knowing that some poorly sourced opinion isn't sitting in a vulnerable wp:blp tonight. That certainly is a victory, but it isn't a victory for me, it's a victory for the project. And I didn't call the "web page" defunct, I called the publication defunct, which it most certainly is (although you are correct in that the domain name has been bought by BizJournals). The fact remains that a photo caption with unattributed opinion does not a reliable source make. user:J aka justen (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll let your edit history here speak for itself. But face it, Sparky: no matter how much you defend her honor here, she's still not going to adopt you. Jgm (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss the edits, not the people making them. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)