Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

MIT corporation membership

Source for the fact tag - web.MIT.edu/corporation/members/Fiorina-C.HTML

better written as "member of the mit corporation."

ps- I know us ipcontributors don't count but the Cnbc source listed above seems pretty reliable re the worst CEO of all time comment, but I guess we're whitewashing republicans this week. 166.137.133.20 (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Protection level template

{{editprotected}} Because of the current protection level oif this article, the template {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}} should be removed from the top of this article. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Category request

I am requesting the following categories to be added to this article: "California Republicans," "Republicans (United States)," and "Women in California politics." Given recent activity toward a potential Senate run, it is important for this article to appear in these cats for those interested in researching these areas and does not touch upon the ongoing disputes. The Original Historygeek (talk) 23:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

But right now, the senate bid is speculative, correct? And beyond that, It might only be notable to be in the California Republicans cat. Isn't that category a sub-category of your second one, the Republicans (United States)? (If not, it ought to be). Until she's officially in the race, i don't see the last being relevant. ThuranX (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Her entry in the race is still speculative (so saying she's "in politics" might be premature), but her party affiliation is quite clear and is currently lacking from Wikipedia. Rvcx (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Actually, as of this month, she has officially formed an exploratory committee.The Original Historygeek (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
We really should add text that says she's a Republican as well. I can find one source claiming that she registered as a Republican in California in 2000, and of course lots of recent articles just call her a Republican incidentally, since it's taken as a given. There used to be an unsourced statement that during her HP days the San Jose Mercury News speculated that she'd run for office; if we can dig up a reference that she would have run as a Republican that might be relevant. Any political backstory before summer 2008 needs to be filled in; I assume a single paragraph will be enough once we get enough sources. Rvcx (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There's a 14 Nov, 2000 SJMN article titled "Women make progress on corporate ladder" that mentions Fiorina; she's also mentioned in a 24 October, 2000 piece about Republican politician Jim Cunneen. There's also a 23 Sept blurb on her that might mention political ambitions, a 10 August article about a Hastert fundraiser (that she presumably attended), and most promisingly a lengthy 18 June profile (that lists her as the highest-paid tech executive---another thing for which she was notable at the time). Unfortunately, all the articles are behind a paywall so I can't read them. Anybody have access to the archives? Rvcx (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe these are the articles in question...
Please let me know if any of the links do not work. user:J aka justen (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

After all your bitching rampant, hyperbolic, nonstop, circular scrutiny and complaints about sourcing, you expect us to accept YOUR website as an acceptable source? That's laughable! ThuranX (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, his web site isn't the source- it is simply hosting the source material which appears, IMHO, to be amply certified. But if I may go back to the original purpose of this section for a moment- what's the opinion on adding the aforementioned categories?The Original Historygeek (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Hosted materials aren't the same, there's no way to be sure they aren't adulterated. As to the categories, it appears there is consensus for the california republicans. If I read it right, no one's addressing the US republicans, as that's redundant, so no go there. The idea of the politician category seems too far in advance; an exploratory committee means she's getting people to help her decide, not to help her run, running is key to the politician thing if you're not appointed to a government position, and even then, arguments can be made based on the seriousness of the campaign and role of the position sought. ThuranX (talk) 18:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I can assure you they're not "adulterated." User:Rvcx asked if someone could access the articles, as he could not access them without charge. I spent about a half hour finding each article he was referencing, in the hopes it could assist him with the sourcing he was looking for. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
ThuranX, your comment above is completely uncalled for. Learn to address the article, and do NOT continue to edit in the manner which you have here. Your comment borders on a personal attack, and will not be tolerated. — Ched :  ?  05:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Source for membership in MIT Board of Trustees

{tlx|editprotected} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Grayce (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I see I am unable to edit this article due to disputes. For future reference, here is a source for Fiorina's membership in the Board of Trustees (also known as the MIT Corporation): http://web.mit.edu/corporation/members/Fiorina-C.html --Steve Grayce (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC).

Sock of banned user.   Will Beback  talk  19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

editprotected -- citizen voting record

{{editprotected}}

Please add the following at the bottom of the "Politics" section:

Fiorina has been criticized for having a spotty California voting record and for never casting a ballot in two other states where she lived previously. [1] In California, she voted in just five of 18 national, state and local elections in which she was eligible to cast a ballot since she registered in Santa Clara County in 2000.

Wideangle (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Notability is an issue here. This may be relevant to some voters, but it certainly doesn't serve as a major source of Fiorina's notability. Rvcx (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say this doesn't go in the article unless it can be shown as being primarily responsible for torpedoing her Senate run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
PS -- Wideangle, don't include the "tlx" next time -- it keeps the template from alerting admins that there's a live request out there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree. This sort of thing is used often against politicians, and on it's own is rarely cause for a political bid to fail. However, if this gets more coverage, then it's worth reconsidering. ThuranX (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Hey, I agree too. So much for the anti-CF cabal. Jgm (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not part of any "anti-CF cabal". Furthermore, to me, "CF" stands for Corn Flakes. Wideangle (talk) 23:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
We use the term "chicken lover" around the children... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus for resignation mention in lede

For a short time, there was an effort above to build consensus on what language to use regarding Fiorina's resignation. Following the article's protection, that conversation died, but the issue remains. I'm proposing this language for the lede, which I think avoids weasel wording and provides due context:

A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company's chairman. Under her leadership, HP completed a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002. In early 2005, following a series of "differences [with the board] about how to execute HP's strategy," the board asked[2] Fiorina to resign as chairman and chief executive officer, with the company stating that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win."[3]

Similar language could be adapted to the section later in the article where her resignation is also mentioned. My hope is that this helps reflect the fact that the resignation was not entirely voluntary, provides a very brief, sourced description of the circumstances surrounding her resignation, and gives a sourced statement from the company on the work that was done under her tenure. In one sentence, no less. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The board actually demanded her resignation (which, of course, is just a nicer way of saying she was fired). Let's not try to put lipstick on a pig -- it should certainly be made clear that she had no choice in the matter. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - I find this edit to be in particularly bad faith. J, if you recognize that there is a discussion ongoing and there is no consensus, then you damn well shouldn't go and change the language to what you want it to be before discussion is done. That's how edit wars get started, and that's also why you find people abandoning good faith. Beyond all that, there is absolutely no question of due weight -- there are dozens of sources that specifically note she was forced to resign. And you wonder why people always accuse you of trying to protect Fiorina... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Careless accusations of bad faith are what poisoned the last discussion we tried to have on this topic. Please collaborate, Blaxthos, or take your animosity elsewhere. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The exact words of Patricia Dunn (who became chairman temporarily after Fiorina resigned), the day the resignation was announced: "The board asked Carly to step down and she agreed to do so."[1] user:J aka justen (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These repeated attempts to add WP:UNDUE statements must stop. Attempts to obfuscate the fact that Fiorina was forced out are completely inappropriate, and there is an unambiguous consensus on that point. The "statement from the board" that Fiorina did a great job is utter drivel---pure commentary taken completely out of context in attempt to spin events to make Fiorina look good. If you feel the press release is so important that just using it as a reference is not enough, then I don't mind adding it to the "external links", but it's blatant POV-pushing to search it for quotes to try to "balance" the fact that Fiorina was fired, in an exceptionally harsh and public way that made it clear the company thought she was doing a terrible job. Every other editor has agreed on this point in all prior discussions, J. The consensus is clear. Rvcx (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat: The exact words of Patricia Dunn (who became chairman temporarily after Fiorina resigned), the day the resignation was announced: "The board asked Carly to step down and she agreed to do so."[2] user:J aka justen (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
We have already had this discussion. You were there. Read the talk page, J. Technically it was a resignation. That's the way it always is for top-level management. But the board gave her no choice whatsoever: if she had refused, should would have sacrificed her 20 million dollar severance package, and hurt the company by merely delaying the inevitable (until a formal vote was taken, which Fiorina could put off for a short time using her position as chairman) and laying HP open to weeks or months of "What a fucking disaster!" reports in the press. The board told her "we have the votes; you're out" and she left. She was forced out. The "forced to resign" language is completely and utterly correct; just saying "she resigned" is a whitewash and an attempt to hide a very notable fact that was reported in every business publication in the world. Rvcx (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
What matters is what can be reliably sourced. Whatever beliefs you (or I) have about how corporate America handles things don't have any bearing. We have the most direct source we can have saying she was asked to resign and that she agreed to do so. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
This is entirely consistent with her being forced to resign. Police officers "ask" people they are arresting to get in the back of the squad car. We have dozens of news reports saying she was fired. We have her in the official statement conceding that it was "the board's decision". We have her later saying that she "lost her job". There is no trouble with sourcing. J, your interpretation of WP:RS (and WP:BLP, and WP:UNDUE) has been proven incorrect repeatedly in the past, and you have repeatedly refused to abide by consensus either here or on WP:RSN. I suggest you become better acquainted with those policies before making claims about their import. Rvcx (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
My understanding of wp:rs, wp:blp, wp:undue, and wp:npov all tell me that your interpretation of the source doesn't supersede what the source itself says. If there's something I'm missing, please point it out. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Consensus everywhere is that she was fired. J, your defiance of the previous discussion's consensus is bordering on disruptive behavior. Just in case you missed the sources from earlier:

  • USA Today - "Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) finally forced out Carly Fiorina"
  • CBS/AP - "Carly Fiorina's nearly six-year reign at Hewlett-Packard Co. ended Wednesday as the company's board forced her out as chief executive, disappointed by her efforts to make the technology giant ... more nimble and innovative. HP shares surged after the announcement." (also note the headline Hewlett-Packard Fires Fiorina)
  • CNN - "Hewlett-Packard Co. Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina, one of the most powerful women in corporate America, is leaving the troubled computer maker after being forced out by the company's board." (Note headline Carly Fiorina forced out at HP)

Need I go on? J, your assertions are laughable and if you continue I'm going to ask that you be topicbanned. This is done. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Add the sourcing, Blaxthos, and you'll be on a lot sturdier ground. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit -- we don't need to overlink the intro. There is no question she was fired, and the sources have been provided here endlessly to satisfy your concerns that saying so gives that "viewpoint" undue weight. The fact is, I haven't seen any sourcing saying anything other than she was fired... you're the lone wolf here, trying to use a PR statement as some sort of justification for excluding the obvious fact that she was fired. Now, I'm all for passionate debate, but we ended this discussion weeks ago with every other editor agreeing that saying anything other than she was fired (or even leaving the possibility hanging) was inappropriate. For you to step back in and just unilaterally make an edit in defiance of that consensus is inexcusable. EOF. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The San Francisco Chronicle article was not a press release, Blaxthos. At least one of those links you're using need to be in the lede to source the assertion, per wp:blp. Do you somehow disagree with that? user:J aka justen (talk) 16:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It's clearly sourced in the article, and is uncontested by everyone but you. You should be topic banned for disruption to prove a point, and further discussion here is moot. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I presume that was the easier and less dramatic option than simply adding one of those sources you dug up to the article? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would think that replacing the press release with one of the three references above, or perhaps this one from the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/12/business/12hewlett.html), would be the thing to do. The sentence would be balanced by a source that backs it up, and there would be less reliance on primary sources. In fact, I'm going to do that. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Archiving content

We're getting up towards 200K here, so I just set up autoarchiving. Threads that haven't been touched in over 45 days will be archived, but there will always be at least 7 threads left on the page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing something

There's something missing - an adverb? I would fix it but I don't know what it was supposed to say

"During an interview with Charlie Rose, Fiorina said she believed that her leadership was strong her tenure with Hewlett-Packard, and that the Compaq merger was a critical step for the company, although the merger was misunderstood by the board of directors.[28]"

First marriage: to Todd Bartlem, 1977-1984, ended in divorce, no children [4] Tmoy (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Consensus on resignation context?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. Further discussion should be had in a new section.

A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the page.


Does this version of the resignation section in the lede of Carly Fiorina provide wp:due context and present the facts neutrally?

A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company's chairman. Under her leadership, HP completed a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002. In early 2005, following a series of "differences [with the board] about how to execute HP's strategy," the board forced[5] Fiorina out as chairman and chief executive officer, although the company offered that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win."[6]

Please comment on this proposal below. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see at least one alternative, with concerns about both (or each if there are more than 2 "contendahs").- Sinneed 21:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe there are now two additional proposals below, from both User:Blaxthos and User:Rvcx (the latter preferring the content as it is currently presented in the article). user:J aka justen (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I support the current wording. Fiorina WAS forced out of her position, a statement supported by a large number of reliable, verifiable sources. In short, she got canned. No amount of bickering over WP:NPOV or WP:BLP or any other Wikipedia policy will alter that simple, stubborn, irreducible fact. Alan (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Alan, just to clarify, by "presented wording," are you referring to the proposal here? That is to say, do you believe the proposal above conveys both that fact and the context accurately? user:J aka justen (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
That is incorrect. I support the original wording which made it clear that she was dismissed, under pressure. Alan (talk) 22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I regret that you changed your mind on the matter, but I appreciate your contributing here. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There is absolutely no question that Fiorina was fired, and there is absolutely no question consensus was reached on this issue long ago. If we're going to review that consensus, I propose we expand the text to the following:

    After six years at the helm of troubled computer company Hewlett-Packard, the board fired Fiorina after being disappointed by her efforts to make the company more nimble and innovative.[7]

    • Lloyd de Vries (2005-02-09). "Hewlett-Packard Fires Fiorina". Associated Press.
Clearly reflected in the source material. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see that in the source you provided, at all. In fact, I see this:

"Carly was brought in to catalyze a transformation of HP. She did that in a remarkable fashion, and she executed the merger with her management team in a superior fashion," [Interim Chairman Patricia] Dunn said. "Looking forward, we think the job is very reliant on hands-on execution, and we thought a new set of capabilities was called for."

I'm not sure how to reconcile your paraphrasing with that, but I'd be open to suggestions. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No idea what in the hell you're talking about. From the very first paragraph:

Carly Fiorina's nearly six-year reign at Hewlett-Packard Co. ended Wednesday as the company's board forced her out as chief executive, disappointed by her efforts to make the technology giant whose strongest business is printers more nimble and innovative. HP shares surged after the announcement.

I have to ask at this point if you're just being intentionally disruptive. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Blaxthos, that was uncalled for. Please be more constructive during the discussion instead of combative. MuZemike 00:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It was certainly called for -- he accused me of misrepresenting the source, and then he pasted something from an entirely different source and attempted to attribute it to me. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The "Carly was brought in to catalyze..." quote is from the exact same source you posted. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that the above proposal is less clear than the current consensus version that Fiorina was forced out, and that it incorporates quotes from a press release completely out of context in an attempt to obfuscate the simple fact that she was fired. The present wording is:

The HP board forced Fiorina to resign from the company in 2005.

Rvcx (talk) 23:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


The third paragraph in the New York Times story reference I added is

Ms. Fiorina was forced to resign Tuesday after the board concluded that she failed to reverse Hewlett's sagging stock price and accelerate the company's turnaround after the merger with Compaq Computer.

The NYT story is an unimpeachable secondary source. This supports the current text, which is

The HP board forced Fiorina to resign from the company in 2005.

Since the secondary source trumps the primary source in this case, I honestly don't see where the controversy is. Any attempt to remove "forced" from the lede is flying directly in the face of the mass of secondary sources, including the one I directly referenced. (Those other sources are used later in the article, right?) Leave the lede alone! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, perhaps you misunderstood. None of the three proposals remove the word "forced" from the language. Two of the three proposals provide additional context. I believe one of those proposals provides additional context critical to neutrality. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • What, exactly, are the three proposals? I see only one proposal here, and several other sentences spread out from here to wherever. Maybe if the three proposals were listed it would be less confusing. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure...

First Proposal:

A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company's chairman. Under her leadership, HP completed a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002. In early 2005, following a series of "differences [with the board] about how to execute HP's strategy," the board forced[8] Fiorina out as chairman and chief executive officer, although the company offered that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win."[9]

Second Proposal:

A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company's chairman of the board. Under her leadership, HP completed a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002. After six years at the helm of troubled computer company Hewlett-Packard, the board fired Fiorina after being disappointed by her efforts to make the company more nimble and innovative.[10]

'Third Proposal:

A year after joining Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina also became the company's chairman of the board. Under her leadership, HP completed a controversial merger with rival Compaq in 2002. The HP board forced Fiorina to resign from the company in 2005.[11]

I hope I compiled those accurately and completely. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I would go with proposal 3. The first proposal tries to excuse the firing, the second tries to explain it -- neither is appropriate for the lede, excuses and explanations can go in the body of the article. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • My concern is that, without context, it's wp:undue. The poor analogy in my head is the frequent attempts to insert the word "felon" into the lede at Martha Stewart. To a certain extent, that wall has been breached here, as most folks equate being "fired" or being "forced to resign" as up there along with death and criminal conviction. So, let's say for a moment, that "felon" made its way into the Martha Stewart lede, but we didn't provide any context of why it was there. I believe the similar is occurring here: we're saying she was fired, without even a hint of why, what she has to say about it, or how it happened. The lede is an appropriate place to provide very brief context on such a seminal event in her life, and I don't see how trying to explain that neutrally equates to "excusing" it. user:J aka justen (talk) 00:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The context of her dismissal is that her tenure had been marked by continuous restructuring, increased politicization of management, an attempted merger that was vetoed by the board, a merger which was very contentious when she forced it through and was viewed as a failure afterwards, and a halving of the company's value. Incorporating such context into the lede would be good, but doing so in a non-judgemental way is difficult. A face-saving press release is not "context"; it's an undue attempt to include content-free blather in the lede to try to distract from a notable fact which happens to be unflattering. Rvcx (talk) 01:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and that's without mentioning the "context" that the stock market viewed her dismissal as a huge positive for HP and that the entire business press called her tenure an unmitigated disaster for the company. Clearly, the board agreed and cut her loose. I'm not judging Fiorina; merely pointing out that "Fiorina did a great job!" is unquestionably wp:fringe. Rvcx (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Number 3 simply glosses over her tenure at HP and the animus between her and the board and shareholders. Let's not forget her tenure was listed in a Conde' Nast publication as one of the worst CEO's of all time. While I don't advocate that in the intro, I certainly don't think we should bend over backwards to hide the true nature of her performance or her dismissal. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The lede isn't the place to go into the details, positive or negative. "Forced to resign" or "fired" is good enough for the lede. In the body of the article, one can cover the reactions at the time (nearly all negative) and the attempted rehabilitation in the present day (with references on both sides). -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx, it just isn't accurate to say that there is anybody out there today (or then) who would call her tenure an "unmitigated disaster." For example:

"Her biggest achievement at HP — pushing through the hugely controversial $24 billion acquisition of Compaq Computer, a deal bitterly opposed by descendants of HP's founders — was a source of strife at the time. But it wound up being a shrewd decision that paid off after she was forced out in 2005. The Compaq acquisition helped HP regain the title of world's biggest personal-computer seller, a position it still holds today." the Associated Press

"Did Carly Fiorina leave new CEO Mark Hurd an HP on the verge of collapse? Not at all, as evidenced by second quarter results that saw most of HP's main businesses turn profits." The Register

"Although Carly Fiorina was sacked in one of the most humbling ousters in corporate America, her initial moves to reinvigorate Hewlett-Packard Co. are now paying off in HP's healthy profit and recent stock surge. While HP Chief Executive Mark Hurd can take responsibility for the company's financial success in recent quarters, some observers say Fiorina, who was fired as CEO 18 months ago, deserves some credit for the earnings growth that has propelled the computer maker's stock to a new yearly high. [...] But while analysts praise Hurd's low-key style, many are quick to credit Fiorina for laying the groundwork. She was the biggest proponent of changing HP's culture, and although her hard-charging style ultimately worked against her, HP desperately needed someone like her, said Roger L. Kay, president of Endpoint Technologies Associates." the Associated Press

"Carly Fiorina must be smiling. As chief executive of Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) eight years ago, she proposed buying a computer services company to bolster HP’s position in a critical market.Shareholders balked, driving down the shares, which prompted Fiorina to abandon the bid. On Tuesday, HP said it plans to pay almost $14 billion (Rs58,800 crore), including debt, for a computer services company, Electronic Data Systems Corp. (EDS). [...] the bid for EDS shows yet again that she had the right strategy. [...] For Fiorina, the fallen celebrity CEO [...], the HP-EDS deal must bring satisfaction. After eight years, HP has come around to her thinking. " the New York Times

And those are just a few. It's just helpful in pointing out that those who believe her career was an "unmitigated disaster," are, in fact, those on the wp:fringe. user:J aka justen (talk) 01:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice. So you managed to find four people---whose names you omit and who don't speak on behalf of the organizations you list---who write articles calling her tenure a mitigated disaster, then quote the one piece of praise in otherwise critical articles, and cite this as proof that nobody considers her a failure as a CEO. All articles written years after the "context" we're supposed to be discussing. No cherry-picking there, obviously. Rvcx (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Oy vey. Yes, I cherry-picked those choice phrases from articles with titles such as "Eight years and $14 billion later, HP ex-chief Fiorina vindicated" and "Ex-CEO Gets Some Credit for HP Surge." Additionally, I'm not exactly hiding the names of the reporters from you, there are links to each article, and I guess they speak for the organizations they represent about as much as a journalist ever could. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Some more cherry picking...

"But who is really vindicated by the rise in HP's shares? It may say more about former CEO Carly Fiorina than Hurd. Fiorina's ghost, it seems, still haunts the hallways in Palo Alto. 'The stock is vindication for Carly,' says Tim Ghriskey, chief investment officer for Solaris Asset Management in Bedford Hills, N.Y. 'This is really the company she put together.' His point is that Hurd came into HP at just the right time to benefit from the groundwork Fiorina set down before she was ousted in the early part of the year. Hurd has largely stuck to that strategy." the Houston Chronicle

"Still, supporters say Fiorina has been vindicated by HP's success since her firing. They argue the changes she made ultimately helped a hidebound HP and demonstrated a decisiveness and willingness to take risks that could work to her advantage in politics. They also say her leadership in the Compaq merger showed deft political maneuvering..." the Associated Press

"Although nobody at the company would admit it, HP's recent ascent is in part a vindication for former chief executive Carly Fiorina, architect of the 2001 merger with Compaq that caused internal schisms and eventually led to her ousting. In hindsight, that deal was what gave HP the scale, breadth of assets, and the cultural jolt that it needed to fight back." news.com.au

"A year after a lynch mob went after Carleton Fiorina, it appears that her decisions laid the groundwork for profits at Hewlett-Packard. [...] Fiorina's demise was chalked up to bad execution of bad strategic moves, most notably the 2002 Compaq acquisition. But Hurd has always said there was nothing wrong with Fiorina's strategy. He seems to be hewing close to it. He rejiggered the org chart but said he'll keep the company together instead of breaking it up along premerger lines, as Fiorina's loudest critics suggested doing. [...] Whose results are these? You could make a case that they are as much Fiorina's as Hurd's. The effects of strategic moves like buying Compaq stretch out over years. Forbes

From articles with titles such as "HP recovery a victory for Hurd ... and Fiorina" and "Carly Resurrected." user:J aka justen (talk) 02:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Of the three, the third proposal is the most clear and flows the best. Hobit (talk) 05:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I say option 3. It's clear and concise. AniMatedraw 06:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It's short and concise, it doesn't try to justify or excuse anything, it just says what happens. Just from the discussions here (and from my personal recollection of everything), there are a number of different viewpoints in sources about her firing. It's better, in the lede, to stick with a short, concise statement and get into it further in the details. Ravensfire (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3. It's accurate, concise, and appropriate for the lede. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3 It gets straight to the point of what happened to her. There are differening viewpoints on her having been fired recently depending on the source. This would be the best choice because it is neutral about the issue at hand. Hmrox (talk) 11:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Option 3 comprises facts rather than analysis and is most appropriate for a lead section. Option 2 is a bit more interesting to read (despite a major grammatical problem as it currently stands), but I think the cause-effect-analysis is better left to the detailed section. Jgm (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus seems to clearly prefer option three (the content as it is currently presented in the lede of the article). user:J aka justen (talk) 13:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Further discussion should be had in a new section.

HP Stock Price

I'm not sure how to handle the new material on HP's stock price under Fiorina's tenure. The numbers added by User:Thething88 don't match what I'm seeing from Google finance, which is that when Fiorina was hired the stock was hovering in the $52-55 range, and that just before her departure was announced (8 Feb 2005) it was around $20. (There was a boost after the announcement.) What's the "correct" way to cite historical stock numbers?

I certainly think that comparing to similar companies is relevant, and the numbers provided for Dell do look correct, but how do we verify that Dell is in fact a comparable company? Can anybody suggest sources? Rvcx (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You need reliable sourcing to survive wp:or, and more importantly, wp:blp. It shouldn't be difficult, as I recall, immediately following her resignation there were a number of articles that cited the stock price before and after her tenure. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
In a cursory search, it appears the reliable sources don't agree. BusinessWeek says 32%, while the Los Angeles Times says 49%. In neither of these stories was the fact given significant prominence, though, I should add. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

First paragraph of the AP source provided references "HP stocks surged upon the announcement" [of her dismissal]. I'm pretty sure I saw that in plenty of other sources too (even headlines). This shouldn't be very hard to source. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality, sourcing

Recent revisions can be addressed further as editors are able to review them. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I am disputing the neutrality and sourcing of this article due to the hundred plus edits that have been made over the past several days. While several of the edits improved prose and structure, a significant number of the edits also moved the article further aways from neutrality, and a number of edits appear to be serious violations of wp:blp:

  • This edit speaks for itself.
  • This edit is original research.
  • This edit adds material that is not reflected in the source cited, and appears to be original research.
  • This edit uses weasel wording to minimize any positive commentary on her tenure.
  • This edit furthers that goal and directly attempts to minimize reliably sourced material.
  • This edit should probably be sourced and kept.

Some of these edits have since been reverted, but I'm afraid it makes it clear that each of these (over a hundred) edits have to be individually evaluated, and it should probably be a group effort. The edits above are not the only issues, unfortunately: one series of edits, for example, has inserted several "conservative" and "religious" groups that it is purported Fiorina is involved with (without sourcing for most), while a significant portion of the politics section has become a coatrack about Sarah Palin. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Brass knuckles?!? Who cares? Those are old edits. What matters is: what is the state of the current version of the article? It looks carefully sourced to me. I suggest that we remove all the tags in a week if nobody else has any work to offer to find out more stuff for this BLP.--75.36.185.96 (talk) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought the "brass knuckles" part was quite entertaining (if quite inappropriate for a wp:blp), but that's neither here nor there. The "current" article still has four of six issues mentioned above, the entirety of the unsourced "conservative" and "religious" group business, and the Sarah Palin coatrack issues are still there (and, in fact, you just attempted to expand that issue even further). user:J aka justen (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
There clearly are conservative and religious groups in that list but it is not important if they are or are not there. I just tore them out because it is does matter. Why did you not just do that yourself? As far as Sarah Palin goes... that is a big event for Fiorina with political consequences. She is a super-wealthy super-qualified super-experienced communicator and she communicated about Palin and then "something happened". Now it is something about Palin and Fiorina and if she did not want the entanglement then all she had to do was keep out of it, but she did not. It takes a few sentences to explain. If you have specific improvements to make, then edit that section yourself or enumerate them further here and I will make them for you there. Easy. Come on: just collaborate in a productive fashion and these issues you raise can be resolved in minutes.--75.36.185.96 (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
To be fair to J, I looked through his list and couldn't find anything incorrect in what he pointed out (other than the satirical brass knuckles). I haven't taken the time to see if those changes persist in the current version, but I am also a cautious editor who prefers to ask on talk pages instead of just rapid-fire adjustment of newly minted text. I'd say J is, in this case, trying to "collaborate in a productive fashion" and recommend we not make much of anything other than the content discussion.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
To which source are you attributing her participation in those groups? user:J aka justen (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Further, please do continue to reinsert disputed coatrack material. I'm also concerned that, per your edit summary (which was: "It may not be a coatrack for Palin, but Fiorina is a very wealthy person who wants more power. The current status of her public image and name recognition is fair game") you may not necessarily understand our policies on neutrality. Nothing is "fair game" when it comes to a wp:blp, everything must be neutrally presented and reliably sourced. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

J: please do more work rather than just the easy moment of ripping out the results of others. The "in popular culture" section is fair for politicians. It helps to show if they are fit for real leadership. She wants to be a Senator: that is the group that declares war on other nations and treaties and stuff. It is notable and it matters.--75.36.185.96 (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to be "fair" or "true", per se; that you so assert indicates that you don't understand foundational policy of the encyclopedia. While this is generally not a big deal (lots of editors like you regularly contribute in a helpful way to the encyclopedia without understanding our policy), a) this is a high profile article, b) it is a biography of a living person (aka a BLP), where policy in general is extra-specially important, and where there are additional policies, c) many of your edits clearly, obviously, and flagrantly violate policy. You need to review the five pillars of Wikipedia and especially the neutral point of view policy, as well as the supporting policies of verifiability, reliable sourcing, and no original research. There's certainly a lot of negative material about Fiorina that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion in her article; you're simply going about pushing your agenda in a way that violates policy, instead of learning the policy here and adapting your work to the requirements of the project. Studerby (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Crossreference. That list of associations comes from /Crossreference. She is referred to in a Wikified manner on those pages.--75.36.185.96 (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular culture

Everyone is on the same page: unsourced disputed material should be removed. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

J removed this two-paragraph "In popular culture" section:

Near the end of Fiorina's time at HP, the parody website Kumquat Computer Corporation appeared, renamed PH corporation with a CEO named "Karla Fidora" who continues to parody Fiorina's career path.

On Octoboer 17, 2008 Tina Fey appeared on Late Night with David Letterman and talked with Letterman about her Palin impersionation. After explaining her approach to the impersonation and the SNL skits, she comments on the strange reaction is got from Palin supporters and opponents because each thought that the publicity was good for the other side and that Palin supporters said it was sexist, with Letterman scoffing at the notion that such comedy being sexist. She continues her Palin's voice, and then make fun of herself and then breaks out of it: (Tina Fey talks to David Letterman about Sarah Palin impersonation 2008-10-18) (Tina Fey Talks Sarah Palin with David Letterman 2008-10-19)


The Kumquat article established its notability years ago. I think that having some outside opinions about this would-be Senator is appropriate.--75.36.185.96 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea why you think the Palin/Fey stuff is appropriate, but I can find no plausible (or even implausible) reason to include it on a BLP about Carly Fiorina. However, the first sentence about Karla Fidora should be reflected in the article, probably towards the end of the HP career section. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Please remind others that the Kumquat website has been proven notable by the WP project by the fact that it has been a WP article for several years.--Popovvk (talk) 05:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just because it's been there doesn't mean it's notable. If you'd really like, I can start the AFD process. As the article currently stands, I suspect it won't last too long.
That said, the material doesn't add anything useful to this article. A few lines from an imitator on a comedy show? Really? We could probably get better material from the monologues. Addition will be reverted again. Please be cautious adding it back without at least some consensus that it's appropriate. Ravensfire (talk) 05:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see that while the edit summary says you reverted, you actually only left in the one sentence. I'd still like to see something about how that particular parody is notable. Who else has seen it and commented on it, in other words. Parody websites, even well done ones, are common. What sets THIS one apart from any of the others? Ravensfire (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
To prove you wrong, I will start the AfD on Kumquat myself. This woman wants to be a Senator and that website has been tracking her relentlessly for years and you think it is destined to become less notable?!? I will do the AfD just to put WP through its paces and I will word the AfD with calm neutrality.--Popovvk (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Just hit the link for the Kumquat Computer Corp, and it's now a redirect to a parody blog site. I've got serious notability questions about this - it just doesn't appear to be of any significance. Someone's got a parody site making fun of Carly. Umm, that's not all that big of a deal by itself.. Do you have any link to some commentary on this parody? And yeah, the usual verifiable, notable stuff applies. Ravensfire (talk) 06:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
The AfD on Kumquat is underway. If that article/website is not-notable, then we can yank the reference. All the article asserts is that "there is a parody web site". That is true. It has been doing so for four years and it appears to be notable. No problem. Let us keep the sentence until the AfD process is complete.--Popovvk (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Going forward

There are several sections in the article that will need to be revised for neutrality. It's best to start fresh in this section. I should have more time tonight to go through the article and address these issues. If anyone else would like to take a look, that would be very helpful. Thanks, in advance. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Carly's phone scandal at HP

Why is there no info on her misappropriation of HP execs phone records in this article? Looks like the broad has paid someone to whitewash her article. This needs to be fixed ASAP. From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/09/20/hp_investigation_roundup/ And in yet another twist, The San Jose Mercury reports Carly Fiorina, predecessor as chairman, CEO and president, to the recently promoted Mark Hurd, was spied on by her own investigation. Fiorina, eager to trace the source of leaks, launched the orignal bugging operation in 2005. Also, to the vandal who removed this, do NOT erase others meaningful contributions. If you have something to say, say it; don't censor others like some sort of totalitarian. Save your whitewashing for the main article - the talk pages aren't heavily indexed by search engines anyways - this is the RIGHT place for such information. If you don't like it, you can go ahead and try to sue every single source into submission. LOL. Zaphraud (talk) 06:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The HP spying scandal is mentioned on this page. There is no reliable evidence, however, to link Fiorina to the illegal tactics used. Accusing someone of an actual crime without evidence is 'precisely' the kind of thing that can't go into a wikipedia article. A casual mention in one article that Fiorina launched the "bugging operation" is not much basis for anything---it's well-established that she launched the investigation, but the Register doesn't even attempt to pretend that it has any special information that she was directly responsible for the tactics used in that investigation later on. Rvcx (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Senate candidacy and conservatism

There's been some back-and-forth on the new content about Fiorina's stance on various hot-button political issues. With regard to Proposition 8, we should definitely not sugar-coat what the referendum was about. The context was an attempt to outlaw same-sex marriage in the state; no more and no less. Neutral wording was arrived at for the Prop 8 article; let's not go through all that again. Rvcx (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly, which is why I copied the language word for word from the lede of the Proposition 8 article. You then promptly reverted and called the language "tendentious".  ;) As it is, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other, but I thought using the language that was chosen at the other article would be easiest course of action here. I see it still resulted in a talk section. C'est la vie en wiki, I suppose. jæs (talk) 03:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The "tendentious" comment was over the edits by User:Boromir123. Just using the dependent clause from the Prop 8 lede but not the explanation (that this change outlawed same-sex marriages) is not to my taste, but nor is it an unreasonable attempt to save space; I didn't revert your addition but instead extended it with a bit more from that lede. Making no mention of opposite-sex or same-sex marriages and just saying that Prop 8 defines marriage as "between one man and one woman", however, is obfuscation, and that's what I reverted from Boromir's edits. Rvcx (talk) 07:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for my misunderstanding. Likewise, I'm not in love with the language, but I didn't want to reinvent the wheel, especially since it was already a controversial wheel. jæs (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Rvcx is guilty of long-running contentious editing on this page, as seen at this admin noticeboard incident. Rvcx has done little the past few months and is suddenly back here, reverting the work of others. Rvcx should take another six-month or one-year vacation from this article.--201.73.215.194 (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Bad example, considering that Rvcx's edits were judged to be more suitable than those of the editor who brought him to the noticeboard. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The revert was necessary, the revision was quite blatantly lacking in neutrality; further, there's long been a trend towards limiting the proliferation of polling data on biographies. We don't need a paragraph — in this biography — about another politician's polling numbers. One or two neutrally worded sentences will cover it, along with reliable sources. jæs (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ Carla Marinucci (2009-08-19). "Senate bid dogged by Fiorina's failure to vote". San Francisco Chronicle.
  2. ^ [3]
  3. ^ [4]
  4. ^ Backfire, 2008, Peter Burrows
  5. ^ [5]
  6. ^ [6]
  7. ^ Lloyd de Vries (2005-02-09). "Hewlett-Packard Fires Fiorina". Associated Press.
  8. ^ [7]
  9. ^ [8]
  10. ^ Lloyd de Vries (2005-02-09). "Hewlett-Packard Fires Fiorina". Associated Press.
  11. ^ Eric Dash (2005-02-15). "Fiorina Exiting Hewlett-Packard With More Than $42 Million". New York Times. Retrieved 2009-09-28.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_3&oldid=1142755359"