Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Original research regarding jobs at HP

This is what the source says:

This statement is based on the fact that the number of employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger. [1]

... and this is what somebody added to the lede: "by 2004 the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total", as a counter argument to the layoff of 30,000 people post merger. That is exactly what WP:SYNTH tells us NOT to do. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi, Binksternet, Anythingyouwant: please discuss here. (a) This is SYNTH and (b) if there is a need to mention this with the proper context, the place for it is the article's body, not the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands. It is blatantly political skewing, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the above comments of Anythingyouwant. There is an attempt to leave out of the article important information and that is blatant political skewing. I completely agree.--ML (talk) 20:38, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am only objecting to the content being removed in total and the edit warring that is going on rather than actual discussion. I think the content could be condensed to provide verifiable statistics without the commentary and original research and give NPOV rather than POV. But the edit warring over it definitely has to stop. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am objecting to synthesis rather than summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The facts are clear, after the merger she fired 30,000 employees. That during her tenure the company hire additional people (many of which were through acquisition) is a completely different matter. I don't oppose including something to that effect in the body of the article with the appropriate context. But we cannot and should not conflate the firing of 30,000 people in one stroke, with the normal course of hiring people over a period of several years and through acquisitions. Otherwsie what we are doing is violation not only NPOV (false balance) bit violating SYNTH as well. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:00, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I do think the content on the firings could be a little more summary-like and pared down a bit. As it is, it's (in my opinion) bordering on WP:UNDUE for the lede. But, I agree, we don't want to venture into synth and OR territory with the disputed content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it is either removed from the lede, or context needs to be added. Given the multiple reverts, I have chosen the latter. More to come. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Context is a fine idea.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina has been observed by reporters to have reduced the number of American jobs while she was at HP. Mother Jones magazine said that she outsourced jobs from the US to other countries, and that she prominently advocated outsourcing American jobs, campaigning against legislation to keep jobs in the USA. She said "There is no job that is America's God-given right anymore. We have to compete for jobs." The remark brought wide criticism.[2] Fiorina stated her pro-offshoring position in the Wall Street Journal in 2004.[3] In the UK, The Guardian said she "shipped jobs to China."[4] Business Insider quoted a CNET piece saying Fiorina sent jobs out of the USA to other countries.[5] TechCrunch cited an SF Weekly piece about Fiorina sending American jobs overseas.[6][7] The Huffington Post quoted the Democratic National Committee spokesperson saying that Fiorina has an "affinity for sending American jobs overseas."[8] Barbara Boxer beat Fiorina in the political arena partly by making an issue of offshoring jobs.[9] Fiorina admitted to laying off 30,000 people and she said that "some" of these jobs "may have been [sent] abroad."[10] The exact number of jobs moved by Fiorina out of the USA is difficult to determine, but the National Review says "thousands". In that piece, a sympathetic Victor Davis Hanson said that the jobs outsourcing issue was going to be very painful for Fiorina in her 2010 campaign for US Senator from California.[11] Fiorina even outsourced her US presidential campaign.[12] I'm all for discussing how Fiorina affected the distribution of jobs at HP (and the acquired Compaq), but let's not put that discussion in the lead section. Instead, let's develop it in the article body, and provide a summary in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, a section on Fiorina's offshore and outsourcing hiring strategy deserves its own section. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I still believe it is UNDUE in the lede. I'll move it to the layoffs subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's still undue weight to put in the lead that she fired 30,000 people without mentioning the tens of thousands of later hires. I believe this is fairly obvious, and that there is no consensus to have the first in the lead without the second.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It does not make sense ... the fact is that after the merger she fired 30,000 employees, something that even Fiorina has herself acknowledged. That is not disputed and is widely covered in hundreds of sources due to its notability. That then HP went to add thousands of employees over the next few years, many of which through acquisitions is another matter altogether, and not that notable. Again, this is not a political pamphlet and it is not our place to create a false balance by NOR and SYTNH juxtaposition. I will post a request at WP:NOR/N to attract uninvolved editors' comments. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Request posted at WP:NOR/N#Carly Fiorina. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• There seem to be plenty of sources to support the significance of laying off 30,000 employees [13][14][15][16], which probably makes this fact lead-worth. As others have correctly asserted, we cannot use juxtaposition to imply a (false) balance by suddenly discussing the cumulative number of jobs that there were at some arbitrary future point in time resulting from M&A activities. Certainly our sources don't do that.- MrX 03:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors would like the lead to announce that the BLP subject fired 30,000 people, without mentioning the very well-publicized (and juxtaposed) fact that she also hired tens of thousands of people. Here is the material at issue in the lead, which I think is perfectly appropriate:

“ Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees.[1][2] By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001.[3][4][5][6] ”

[1]Rushe, Dominic (March 29, 2015). "Ex-HP chief Carly Fiorina sets sights on Clinton as she nears presidential run". The Guardian.

[2]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010).

[3]Abcarian, Robin. "Profits may not equal success", The Los Angeles Times (May 20, 2010): "According to HP's government filings, the company had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. Together the two companies would have a total workforce of 148,100. But in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports. And in 2005, when Fiorina was fired, the company reported a worldwide workforce of 150,000."

[4]Farley, Robert. "Ad from Sen. Barbara Boxer attacks Carly Fiorina for layoffs at HP", Politifact (September 17, 2010): "According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad."

[5]Kessler, Glenn. "Carly Fiorina's misleading claims about her business record", The Washington Post (May 8, 2015): "[T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

How is this SYNTH? The sources provided make this statement repeatedly.CFredkin (talk) 04:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Exactly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE quote?

Why was a quote by the former chairman of Compaq undue?[17] NPOV tells us to describe significant viewpoints, and I would argue that former chairman of Compaq's viewpoint is significant. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You need to stop with the POV pushing by adding inflammatory quotes to this BLP. WP is not a good venue for advancing your political agenda.CFredkin (talk) 05:16, 23 August 2015 (UTC) The edits you've made which are currently in dispute are all either original research and attributed to sources that don't even mention Fiorina or inflammatory, opinion-based quotes from bystanders. Enough is enough.CFredkin (talk) 05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Rather than attack me, I would appreciate if you address my question above. Is the chairman of Compaq a "passerby" and not a significant opinion? - Cwobeel (talk) 14:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

You're the one who initiated the personal attacks here with claims of NPOV editing and whitewashing. It's not clear to me why I should answer further questions from you at this point until you address the issue of original research in your disputed edits above.CFredkin (talk) 16:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) It seems frankly as though we're reaching somewhat desperately to include quotes in the article that paint her in one light or another. As has been advised repeatedly here by neutral observers, we should stick with facts — with perhaps an occasional quote that provides indispensable context to those facts. Involved parties, Wall Street analysts, and those with axes to grind or favour to curry really aren't appropriate for a wp:blp. Justen (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Justen that there is way, way, way, way too many quotes in the article. What is seems to me is that Cwobeel wants to focus on making all aspects of her business career to look like a total failure. He is putting in every single quote from anyone that ever said anything negative about her time at HP. Also, he has one source (just one source!) that attempts to be negative about her time as a leader at Lucent and wants that one source to be the sole focus of what the article says about Fiorina's time at Lucent. It is not a fair representation. There is absolutely no need to have 5, 6, or 7 different quotes from various sources talking about how horrible they believe Fiorina was as a CEO at HP. Also, he wants the article to only quote the one negative source he can find about her time as a leader at Lucent. That one source that he wants to quote over and over again (essentially wanting to quote the whole article) admits that when she left Lucent her numbers were outstanding (that's a fact they were outstanding). Her numbers when she left Lucent were so outstanding that they supplied the reasoning for: (1) her being named by Fortune "The Most Powerful Women in American Business" and (2) why she was offered the CEO position of HP. The fact that she had those unbelievable numbers led to Fortune honor and the HP CEO position. There is reliable source after reliable source that talks about her time at Lucent in laudatory terms. But Cwobeel will not allow those reliable sources in the section. Why? I don't know but I only think that he wants the ATT/Lucent section to be one long list of negative comments about her business career--just like the HP CEO section, which is one long list of 5, 6, 7, or 8 quotes saying the same negative thing in just different ways. I'm not arguing that the HP CEO section should ignore the negativity but the redundancy is wrong. For example:

(1) In contrast, Arianna Packard, granddaughter of HP cofounder David Packard, wrote in 2010 that "I know a little bit about Carly Fiorina, having watched her almost destroy the company my grandfather founded."

Do we really need to quote Arianna Packard? The Packard's clearly have a bone to pick so you really can't call her a unbiased source.

(2) The New York Times described the ousting as an "ignominious end to a six-year run", and noted that her personality and management style ultimately led to her demise.

Is this comment really different than Number 3 below? I don't think so. They say the same thing.

(3) According to The Fiscal Times, Fiorina's tenure at HP "failed to reinvigorate the iconic Silicon Valley company, and it tarnished her credentials as an executive".

(4) Following her resignation from HP, Fiorina was ranked as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time.

How is this generic comment any different than Number 5 below? They are redundant to each other.

(5) In 2008, InfoWorld grouped her with a list of products and ideas as flops, declaring her tenure as CEO of HP to be the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers.

(6) Political analyst Stuart Rothenberg pointed out Fiorina's downside, as a vice president running mate for McCain, "is rather easy to sketch out" because Fiorina would "become a talking point for Democrats" who would focus on Fiorina's severance package and her management style. Rothenberg concluded that Fiorina was "like a dream come true" for Democratic opposition researchers.

How is this quote any different than Number 7 below? They are different. They are redundant. Oh, and Sonnefeld is a consultant to the Packard family so he is inherently biased.

(7) Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated that McCain's pick of Fiorina to assist with the McCain presidential campaign showed "a blind spot in the McCain campaign to have elevated her stature and centrality", giving her “street bully” leadership style a platform.--ML (talk) 00

43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Please re-read WP:NPOV, which states unequivocally that it means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. - There are a preponderance of sources that put in question Fiorina's accomplishments, or that pass substantial criticism. That is a fact, and in Wikipedia we report these significant opinions and do not, I repeat, do not present a false balance. See also below for more of the same. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Resignation

The resignation section is incomplete in its current state. This was the most dramatic aspect of her entire career, and as such it deserves expansion, with not only details on the resignation itself, but also the considerable coverage it received, and the viewpoints of the financial press both in the US and abroad. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I will provide a list of such sources here, for editors to draw from as we expand that section. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Here are a few. Note that at that time, Fiorina was not a politician running for President, and thus the analysis of her performance at HP was untainted by partisanship.

• Fiorina out, HP stock soars, CNN Money [18]
• Fiorina resigns as chief of HP, BBC [19]
• H-P's Board Ousts Fiorina as CEO, Wall Street Journal [20]
• The Inside Story Of Carly's Ouster, Bloomberg Business [21]
• Fiorina Exiting Hewlett-Packard With More Than $42 Million [22]
• Hewlett-Packard Forces Celebrity CEO to Quit, WaPo [23]

We should use these sources to describe how her dismissal from HP was received at the time, and follow that up with recent commentary that have the benefit of hindsight. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

None of the those sources apply to her time a Lucent. You want to make the ATT/Lucent section as negative and quote-heavy as the HP section. You have not made your point.--ML (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you read? I am not talking about the Lucent section, I am talking about the "Resignation" sub section under the HP section. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Convoluted text

I appreciate the effort in improving the material, but this is gobbledygook and unreadeable (in particular the highlighted):

"Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wants a good deal then they must walk away sometimes and during this negotiation the U.S. never did. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal because Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf so that Russia and China can get access to Iran's economy and because the European Union negotiates weak deals."

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Then fix it. There is no need to drag grammar issues out to the talk page, unless that is what you want to do going forward. Is that what you want to do, Cwobeel? Huh?--ML (talk) 15:33, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I am just making the point that we should do better than that with a little bit of effort, so that we write good prose. This, after all, is an encyclopedia. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Edited version looks like the following:

Fiorina has criticized the Iran nuclear agreement, stating there are a lot of reason to be suspicious of the deal. She has stated that Iran was a not a good actor and did not negotiate in good faith. She also stated that if the U.S. wanted to achieve a good deal then the negotiators on the U.S.'s behalf should have to walked away from the bargaining table and during this specific negotiation (the Iran deal) the U.S. never walked away and lost its bargaining power. She has said that the U.S. cannot trust the verification components of the deal because Iran does not allow access to military sites and Iran has broken sanctions and inspection agreements in the past. She also said that the U.S. cannot trust the deal just because the international community approved the deal. She stated the reason was that Russia and China were negotiating on Iran's behalf and that Russia and China were looking out for their self-interest, specifically they were looking to get access to Iran's economy. She also stated that the deal could not be trusted because the European Union negotiates weak deals.

"She said", "she has said", "she also said", "she stated, "she has stated". Can we use a better narrative instead of a staccato? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just trying to get more substantive information into the article instead of simply saying "Fiorina says she would walk away from the deal" because that was not all she said and it was not even an accurate representation of what she said about walking away. There was a real lack of substance and whatever attempt at substance that was there in the foreign policy section was not accurate.--ML (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That is good work, ML. Just that it is better to use long prose than short sentences staring with a variation of "She stated" or "She also stated". - Cwobeel (talk) 19:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel removal AT&T and Lucent content

CwobeelThe newsource says " For example, when Hewlett-Packard granted new CEO Carly Fiorina restricted stock worth about $65 million and 600,000 stock options, the company specified that the awards compensated her for stock and options she forfeited when she left Lucent Technologies." which confirms what the other source says, you have removed content without context, contrary to your statements on the talk page. "The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared" It later says: "Fiorina’s stock and options were still worth a mint. (A total of $85 million, she says.) HP gave her $65 million worth of restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she was leaving behind."Jadeslair (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The two are separate issues. Fiorina collected $65 MM from Lucent during her tenure there. Then, when she left to join HP, the board compensated her with stock options to cover her loss of options she had at Lucent. Read the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dig under the surface, however, and the story grows more complicated and less flattering. The Lucent that Fiorina walked away from, taking with her $65 million in performance-linked pay, was not at all what it appeared. Nor were several of her division’s biggest sales, including the giant PathNet deal. [24]

. The stock options offered at HP is a total different thing, and is already covered in the Hiring section, which reads: "Fiorina received a larger signing offer than any of her predecessors, including: $65 million in restricted stock to compensate her for the Lucent stock and options she left behind,[44]." so you have confused two things and now we have a mess. Please undo your edit.- Cwobeel (talk) 14:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jadeslair: Please see above, I think you are mistaking two different things. Fiorina got $65MM at Lucent, and she left on the table Lucent stock options. That is the reason HP gave her a massive signin bonus to compensate her for that loss. What the article says now is incorrect. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

ok, I will look at everything closely. So, you believe that I am confusing two different things that are both 65 million? Jadeslair (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. She received total compensation at Lucent of $65M according to that source. The HP hiring bonus to compensate for what she forfeited in options by leaving Lucent, is already covered in the HP hiring subsection. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

From HP she received that for having unexercisable stock options at Lucent at the time she left, it is the same thing you called performance pay. Which may be included later but you inserted her pay, I just corrected it. Jadeslair (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What material about Fiorina's tenure at Lucent should be included?

In the article we are describing information and figures related to Fironia's accomplishments at Lucent based on reliable sources. Should the material also include information and reports from the same reliable sources that challenge these accomplishments or that puts these figures in context?

Diff: [25]

Comments

• No, information about Lucent after Fiorina left should not be included. Unless it is directly attributed to her. Information about Lucent years after she left has nothing to do with her. Jadeslair (talk) 23:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes if the sources state that there were events that took place "soon after Fiorina left", and as a consequence of actions taken during her tenure. For example in this source:

References

• Yes, to a degree per Cwobeel's reasoning above. That which occurred right after her departure, if it is directly related to her tenure there and subsequent departure. Information that is not directly related, no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• I find the structure of this RfC to be incredibly misleading. I agree with the text of the RfC, which is worded generically. However almost all the content removed in the diff is referenced to sources that do not actually even mention Fiorina. This is called WP:original research and is not acceptable, particularly in BLP's.CFredkin (talk) 04:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC) This has already been pointed out in the discussion located in the "Cherry Picking" section above. The author of this RfC has declined to address this issue there, but instead initiated this misleading RfC.CFredkin (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The only content removed in the diff that is reasonably sourced is the following:

"According to Fortune magazine, 'In a neat bit of accounting magic, money from the loans began to appear on Lucent’s income statement as new revenue while the dicey debt got stashed on its balance sheet as an allegedly solid asset'."

It was removed as WP:undue as almost all the content in the existing paragraph (shown below) is from the same source (and 7 sentences from the same source is enough already), the paragraph adequately represents the substance of the article, and the quote above adds nothing beyond being needlessly inflammatory.

During her time at Lucent, Fiorina added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit and the company's market share increased in every region for every product. During that period, Lucent and its major competitors started spurring sales by lending money to their own customers. Leaving Lucent in 1999 to join HP as CEO, Fiorina took with her US$65 million in performance-linked pay. Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments to customers to finance equipment purchases (of which $1.6 billion had been dispensed), many of which were unstable startups. The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure and eventually dropped to less than $1 per share, as part of an overall decline in the fortunes of telecom equipment companies. According to Fortune magazine, "the company’s wild pursuit of growth gave it much further to fall." The company later merged with Alcatel.CFredkin (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Why is this misleading? I am arguing for the inclusion of material from sources that refer directly to Fiorina. There are hundreds of such sources, and currently there are editors like you doing everything possible to suppress that information, in violation of NPOV. Let the RFC run its course, please.- Cwobeel (talk) 05:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct. The sources for all the statements removed in the diff, with the exception of the one I mention above, do not mention Fiorina at all.CFredkin (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This has already been broken apart, "Soon after Fiorina left Lucent, the company reported $7 billion in loan commitments" that has nothing to do with her. "The company's shares also began to collapse after her departure" has nothing to do with her. "The company later merged with Alcatel" years later so why should this be included? "The company's shares also began to collapse" wasn't that years later also and it started dropping because of what people did after she left and after the sec investigation which had nothing to do with her. I would love for you to try to address each item. This is not science but it is a fringe theory that even the author of the article fails to tie to her. Jadeslair (talk) 06:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

One option would be to reduce that section to the bare minimum, and expand in the respective articles about Lucent and PCC. This is is how it would look like, if we do so: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=677476509#AT.26T_and_Lucent - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I'm ok with that.CFredkin (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) Actually, I believe I was mistaken about this. I agree with User:Jadeslair that the impact of Fiorina on Lucent's performance after her departure is merely speculation.CFredkin (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• Summoned by bot. The answer is yes, of course. Wikipedia is not censored, and all facts related to her career deserve to be in this article in proper proportion. I see no BLP or UNDUE issue related to this material. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

He is trying to include information that is a year or years after she left the company. She was not there at all during that fiscal year1, nor was she one of the ten people charged during that investigation 2. The investigation is what caused the stock price to fall and the loan commitments were from the people that operated the company the following year after she left. The merger happened about 5-6 years later. Jadeslair (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We follow sources, and the sources clearly states that the decline happened soon after her departure, and that the risky vendor financing programs that Fiorina was said to have supported as CEO at Lucent were made during her tenure. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's Hillary Clinton. Then we call it "opinion" and therefore inappropriate for inclusion. Right, User:Cwobeel? Ah the hypocrisy.CFredkin (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't care much about that article, I just commented on an RFC. Democrat politician bios bore me to death; Republican politician bios are way more fun to edit - Cwobeel (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel. If the sources make the connection, and they are reliable and independent of the subject, then we do include the material. If it is one guy writing for The Daily Mail or New York Post it's a different matter entirely. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• It does indeed look like there's a significant amount of wp:synthesis and wp:or going on in at least part of this proposal. So, no to a fatally flawed "RfC." Justen (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• No, the article is about Fiorina so the information should be relevant to Fiorina. If the information relates back to when Fiorina worked there then it should be included. Information about Lucent after Fiorina left is not notable because it is about Lucent, not Fiorina, it is undue because the fact that Lucent merged into Alcatel years later after she left Lucent is NOT relevant to her biography, and the attempt to wp:synthesis all of Lucent's fortunes into the Fiorina article is a clear violation of BLP--as I stated a long time ago: it is a Wikipedia:Coatrack. The article is about Fiorina, not the long-term history of Lucent. I also agree with CFredkin (talk) about this RFC. These issues have been raised in other places on the talk page; however, they are being re-hashed by Cwobeel in a failed attempt to bring some legitimacy to the argument that information about Lucent (that is not relevant to Fiorina's life) be jammed into the article about Fiorina--information that would never be allowed in other politician's biographies. ONLY Information about Lucent when Fiorina was at Lucent should be included. The article is about Fiorina, not Lucent.--ML (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• If that is your position, why do we have in the article this text? During her time at Lucent, the company added 22,000 jobs, grew revenues from US$19 billion to US$38 billion, net income went from a small loss to US$4.8 billion profit[44] and the company's market share increased in every region for every product.[37][44] (corrected because you or somebody else erroneously quoted the source as Fiorina being the one that added 22,000 jobs and grew revenues). - Cwobeel (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It is my position. It is quite clear why that information is in the article because it clearly states that those were the numbers when she was with the company. It says "During her time at Lucent". It can't be more clear. Those numbers are tied to her service at the company and are clearly notable to this article about her. Also, I noticed that you edited the sentence before you made this comment to say that "the company" did these things, not Fiorina. But of course you have been a loud advocate for saying in the HP Layoffs section that Fiorina is to blame for the layoffs. It is very clear that you want Fiorina to take the blame for layoffs but when jobs are created she doesn't get any credit. It does not seem to be a NPOV presentation of the track record.--ML (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

At Lucent, she ran Operations, at HP she was CEO. Big difference. If you don't understand the difference between a CEO and a someone running corporate operations, then you should not be commenting on these matters. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

And, by the way, even Fiorina herself admits firing 30,000 employees. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

2015 comments by Perkins

If we include comments made by Perkins 10 years after Fiorina's firing, we have to include other commentary as well from other board members and shareholders. Section tagged as POV until this is addressed. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I added some material from these sources which improves the material there with some useful context, but it still needs additional comments from other board members for balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And given that Perkins letter was in response to the scathing commentary by Andrew Sorkin, [26] as described in the sources provided, we have to also include some of Sorkin's commentary. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A alternative of having additional comments from other board members, and given that Perkins' letter was paid by her super PAC, I believe that material needs to be moved to the presidential campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've got no objection to including commentary from other board members, as long as it's not excessive. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Given the spiral that has occurred here in the past, personally I'd prefer to have no opinion-based commentary.CFredkin (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree. I will move that entire passage to the Campaign article. There is content there questioning Fiorina's business bonafides and Perkins comments would be useful for counterbalance. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Putting the content into the campaign article is a good move, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Moved to Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016#Controversy over tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard for a much better fit. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle I see you disagree. Can you explain why? The reasoning is very simple: this is related to the campaign as the letter was paid by Fiorina's SuperPAC as a way to deflect criticism of her business career. Much better would be to keep the content at the campaign article. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any problem at all with simply naming the board members who have had positive things to say about her, and naming the ones who have had negative things to say about her, with a footnote for each so interested readers can find out more (the footnotes can include not just links but perhaps also quotes for the convenience of readers). This would take probably no more than a single sentence in the main text of this Wikipedia article. If a board member has said both positive and negative things, then it's important for us to not include only one or the other, and important for us to say which came first.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

And how do we do that? Perkins was one of the board members that voted to fire her, and now he is saying something else, aided by her Super pac. So, how do we do this? Do we quote what they said then? what they say now she is running for the nomination? It is a massive can of worms if we open that. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Politics makes strange bedfellows, even more so when the relationship is strange to begin with. The observation is prompted by a full-page advertisement placed in Thursday's New York Times by Carly for America, the super PAC backing former Hewlett-Packard Chairwoman Carly Fiorina's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. The ad, headlined "The Truth About Carly," features a letter signed by multimillionaire venture capital investor Thomas Perkins defending her management at HP and expressing his support for her candidacy. [ sidebar: "I was...appalled by the reemergence of Tom Perkins and the very active role he was now playing. - Carly Fiorina, in 2006, on her newest, bestest campaign supporter, Tom Perkins" ] It's a curious document. Perkins was a board member of HP during much of Fiorina's tenure as its chairwoman and chief executive (1999-2005). In her 2006 memoir, "Tough Choices," she depicts him as a member of the cabal that forced her out and a close ally of George Keyworth, the director who was her leading adversary. [27]

That's what I mean... if we add Perkins comments, we need to add the context, for what is obviously a political issue, and not much to do with her bonafides as an executive, according to many sources commenting on his letter. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is no can of worms at all. We say something like "Both before and in the time since her resignation, people who were HP board members at that time have made a variety of remarks about her, and about the board's decision. Focussing on the most recent remarks, board members who view her tenure mostly unfavorably (i.e. who support the board's decision) include X, Y, Z while those who view it mostly favorably include A, B, C; of these board members, the views of P, D, and Q have changed substantially over time." Plus footnotes.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel No. That's not what your job is Cwobeel. You don't get to decide if Perkins means what he says. He said what he said. You don't get to do your own original research and decide that, well, I read so and so AND so and so said that Perkins is not telling the truth and that Perkins is just saying what he is saying now for political reasons. That's not your job. So you personally agree with a some liberal commentator at the LA Times. He has expressed his opinion that Perkins does not mean what he says today. It's fine to have your own personal opinion on whether Perkins is telling the truth or not and it is great that you have a liberal commentator at a reliable source to be saying exactly what you agree with, but it doesn't matter. Why? You have put in the article at least six (6) long-winded quotes from various people to comment on Fiorina's business experience--people that Perkins points out in his letter that were not at HP at the time, did not know the internal discussions of HP's board, and some of them have no business experience at all, and some of them are paid consultants to the HP Family members. But now that one of the most central figures from that time period, the man that was on the Board of HP, left the Board and then returned the HP Board and was instrumental in firing Fiorina comes out and says that he was wrong, the Board was wrong and that Fiorina was a great CEO of HP, you suddenly don't want any long quotes (especially not from him) in the article. It is a joke. You haven't given one good reason to not have Perkins quoted in the article. Not one. The two reasons that you have given are: (1) too many quotes in the article, which of course all of the extremely long ones and most of them were put there by you and they, for the most part, bash Fiorina, and (2) there are articles that exist that basically say that Perkins is telling us what he believes now about Fiorina and he believes that she did a good job and was a great CEO of HP, but these article writers know what Perkins believes better than Perkins himself knows and since you believe the LA Times commentator then we need to leave out all of Perkins quotes because like the LA Times writer said Perkins doesn't know what he is saying or Perkins is lying or, at any rate, you and the LA Times writer know more about what Perkins thinks than Perkins does. You haven't given a good reason not to put in the Perkins quotes. If you want to start trimming the article of quotes then we need to start with your 6 or 7 or 8 long-winded negative quotes that you jammed into the article and dare anyone to remove. You want to trim the article of quotes then let start with those 8 negative ones, ok?--ML (talk) 22:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MaverickLittle, what you are accusing Cwobeel of is WP:SYNTH, and frankly, I don't see that happening at all. Currently, consensus !vote-wise is for removal of the content to be replaced at the Fiorina campaign article. I think that is the best move, for removal of undue weight for one thing, but also for the reasons given by Cwobeel and SuperCarnivore591. Please take your rhetoric and accusatory tone down a notch or two, for the sake of collegial discussion and peaceful collaboration. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, no. There is no consensus. That is not true. We just started this discussion. If Cwobeel or you want to trim the article of quotes then you need to start with all of the long-winded Fiorina bashing quotes. This quote is directly on point and neither you or Cwobeel have give one good reason for it to be whitewashed from the article. His comments are more important that all of the quotes in the article so far. Neither you or Cwobeel have provided any reasoning why the one person who had the biggest role in the time period needs to be whitewashed out of the article. Not one. I have explained why the quotes (and he comments on a broad range of issues that are brought up in this article) are directly on point and there is NOT one person quoted so far whose comments are as important or more important that his opinion. There was no closer to the situation and the fact that he has changed his mind is a whole new FACT that is notable for this article. You are leaving out an important notable FACT. Thank you for expressing your opinion but your opinion does not make consensus. I will not be hit over the head with that false "consensus" hooey. There is ZERO consensus does not mean: "I think so and so and therefore consensus is reached and now we will shut down debate." It doesn't work that way.--ML (talk) 22:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is consensus. The discussion already occurred; you came to this discussion late, after consensus had already been reached. My opinion alone doesn't make for consensus, but the three of us in on the discussion at the time the content was being discussed does. Like I said, you came to this late. Can't help that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

hey MaverickLittle, can you be a bit more concise, otherwise you run the rick of TL;DR. The commentary about Perkins is all over the news; it is not just a "liberal New York Times journalist's" opinion. And the context is needed if you want to keep that material here. Much better is to have it at the campaign article, otherwise you will have to accept adding commentary about Fiorina from other board members, including the sons of the HP founders who had very harsh words for Fiorina, as we can't just have one board member's comments. So, please state what you want to do. You have two options, (1) keep the material from Perkins + commentary here (including material from the original article that prompted this letter – after all the letter starts with a mention of that article The Truth About Carly" New York Times 8/27/15 By Tom Perkins. RESPONSE TO: Andrew Ross Sorkin, August 17, 2015 “Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling” – and adding comments from other board members, or (2) move the material to the campaign article. What say you? - Cwobeel (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) There's already significant "context" for the challenges HP was facing and how outside individuals speculated that played a role in her forced resignation. The comments by Tom Perkins certainly reflect a critical viewpoint of why he believed, as a leader on their board, they made the decisions they did. We should pare his thoughts down to what is essential and include those. Justen (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

We can't just have Perkins' comments, as that would violate NPOV. If we add Perkins, we will also need to add other board members comments. That is the problem we are facing, Justen. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Another interesting aspect is that this "letter" was not "published in the New York Times". It was an ad. So, an ad is a primary source and not notable by definition, and the only way we can refer to an ad is by sourcing it to secondary sources. These sources provide the context, which can't be ignored. Case in point. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Primary sources are acceptable in certain circumstances. As a key director at the company, I don't think I would rush to call his position on Fiorina's tenure "not notable by definition." In addition to the Bloomberg article you've linked, reliable sources already exist covering the significance of Perkins' viewpoint, the relevance of the ad, and the "context" you were looking for...

• WSJ
• The Hill

Nonetheless, "context" isn't arguably disputable: he was a director of the company with a significant viewpoint that isn't otherwise covered in our article. Going out of our way to exclude it violates wp:npov, not the opposite. Justen (talk) 03:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

All I am saying is that is we include a mention of Perkin's comments, we also have to include not only the context and the background in which these comments were made, but also include other board members comments, per NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

(←) It appears like this article now has numerous, at times very long, quotes of various peoples/orgazizations positive and negative points of view. While this might address "balance issues" in the article, it makes for a highly dramatized article. These create multiple POV issues and a poorly constructed article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that many quotes, but if there is such a perception, it should not not that difficult to paraphrase and summarize. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparently. Justen believes there is consensus to include the content on Perkins. I don't see a clear consensus here -- did consensus occur somewhere else other than this talk page? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:57, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) It occurred here, although I'll grant that you weren't in agreement with the consensus. A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included. I agree that there's not a clear consensus on brevity or the section it should live in, but outright removing reliably sourced content as opposed to finding a compromise for its placement is a mistake. Justen (talk) 03:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I haven't been part of this discussion yet. The Perkins bit should stay out. Perkins flip-flops his stance at a suspiciously opportune time, making it promotional, paid for, and political; as such, it should be kept in the Fiorina for Prez article where it can be accompanied by explanatory (and contradictory) text. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like you're valuing your opinion over coverage from reliable sources. It's clearly an issue of the campaign, and it's gotten enough coverage to make it notable solely in that regard. But the context it provides in course of her forced resignation is ridiculously undeniable. Justen (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

"A significant majority of commenters above agree the content should be included". Well, Justen, since you seem to see something I don't ("a significant majority"), perhaps you can point out who is in that majority. Then how about point out those not in that majority. Then we can see who is where on this and decide if we have consensus or not. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

This has already been discussed. Given the nature of that "letter", which is nothing more than an ad paid by Fiorina's PAC, this material does not belong in her bio. It has been moved to the political campaign article were it belongs alongside commentary from the sources that reported about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• I am also opposed to including this content in this bio as WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTPROMO. I'm especially opposed to direct quotes, when really we should use third-party analysis to summarize the material. In this case though, Perkin's opinion doesn't represent a widespread view of the subject and seems to be nothing more than an advertisement. - MrX 13:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• That's correct. It doesn't belong in this article, it belongs in her campaign article, which is why it was moved. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please do not re-add the disputed material, as there is consensus for excluding it. See also WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: don't you think that it is a little disingenuous to argue against edit warring when it is you doing the warring? Please read WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE - Cwobeel (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Horse Hockey. Don't edit war. It takes two to tango and you are an active participant. Don't edit war.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Nope, sorry. You have used the revert button twice in succession today, another one two days ago, and added the content three days ago. You did not respect WP:BRD thus you are edit warring, not me. So stop with the nonsense and stop edit warring. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, focus on how to make the article better and stop whitewashing the article of information you don't particularly like. I believe you whitewash of notable, reliably sourced information that puts Fiorina's firing in a more positive light is clearly a violation of BLP. You need to stop your violation of BLP.--ML (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(ec) The discussion above explains the rationale. You can chose to put your head in the sand, but that is not helpful. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel, you have been hangin out with editors that constantly point to templates that are not relevant. You just gave me another template that is not relevant. I know you know better than that. Also, there are several editors that believe the information should be in the article. Also, removing information that is historic fact and it puts the subject in more positive light is a violation of BLP. There is no discussion above about that. And the 3RR area is not the proper place for that discussion.--ML (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've had enough of this crap. He may not be at or beyond 3RR, but there is definitely disruptive edit warring behavior going on. If anyone's interested, see this. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

Once again this article has fell victim to pro and anti Fiorina POV's. These conflicts need to be worked out through talk page consensus instead of edit warring. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on your comments a few minutes ago at AN3, I assume you think I am in the "anti" camp. Because of that, I am going to challenge you to back up your claim(s) with something that would give indication as to where I fall in regard to Fiorina and how I've edited this article and commented at this talk page, Ism schism. As far as I recall, I've never given any indication about my personal POV re: Fiorina. If I have, it certainly hasn't been recently and it definitely hasn't been noted by how I edit the article. Diffs, perhaps? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

My comments and diffs are at AN3. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw them (and easily refuted your claims). Again, where is the POV you are claiming? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to create a new discussion to complain about perceived biases. I'm sure that many here are neither pro- nor anti- Fiorina. I recommend commenting in the thread above so that we can better determine consensus. - MrX 23:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a much more productive use of time and bytes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Protected for three days

As per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MaverickLittle reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Page protected for 3 days), I've protected m:The Wrong Version of the article for three days. Please take the time to develop consensus ab initio. The protection can be extended if necessary. Thank you and good luck. -- Avi (talk) 00:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I haven't checked out this article in weeks. Sad to see it has turned into a virtual campaign pamphlet. Notable, relevant facts have been buffed away, minimized, and spun -- from the number of employees post-merger ("...worldwide"), to her HP years, now made to sound as if she were a lone champion railing against the board's foolhardy and short-sighted opposition... the raw fact she has never held office (a simple fact, right? Perhaps meriting a statement of six words: "Fiorina has never held public office"), it now includes a multiline "counterargument" from Fiorina including a Fox news quote including her claim the American people want people outside the "professional political class". What? Contemporaneous sentiment and commentary on her performance at HP-- important context-- has been excised. Cited facts are pulled from articles without their original context (which is sort of amusing when you go and read the source). The above-the-fold summary is atrocious and very POV. This article has no nuetrality indeed. It reads like there must have been a focused effort to shape this article for her political benefit.--Replysixty (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand that both POV sides are upset that the article doesn't read more anti or pro Fiorina, and that in itself is the problem. Editors need to be working towards a quality article, and stop getting upset when it does no read to their POV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape, in particular as it presents a false balance. NPOV is not achieved by adding pro and con viewpoints, but rather, it is achieved by presenting a subject in accordance and in proportion of viewpoints held by reliable sources. It is a fact that the main accomplishment of Florina is her tenure at HP and her business career as a whole, and the overwhelming majority of sources have a pretty critical viewpoint. The article needs to reflect that reality. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ism schism, please stop with the generalized finger pointing. It's not helpful. You are right that we need to be working toward a quality article, but the other comments are just going to inflame more of the same crap some of us (in the neutral camp) have already been fighting against. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC)