Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 → Archive 10

Legacy and Impact on Research in the United States

Bell Labs and Agilent were two of the great scientific entities of the last century, and now seem like shells of their former selves. She had a hand in that transition. This is especailly relevant considering that the USA is having a hard time competing in science and engineering. Has anyone studied how they've fared since her fingerprint? Perhaps a graph of patent filings or something? The stock prices certainly don't seem to reflect success. It seems like her legacy should reflect lasting impact to American science - not just snapshot improvements in stock price. --Mlprater (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are notable sources for such an analysis then it's worth considering for inclusion, but trying to collate such information as part of this project would be WP:SYNTH. Rvcx (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Demon Sheep

Is there any reason why the Fiscal Conservative in Name Only (FCINO) ad at (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yo7HiQRM7BA) shouldn't be included here? Its being widely discussed as being one of the most bizarre political ads in recent times... 129.79.35.119 (talk) 16:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It probably should be discussed here. For the record, I made Demon Sheep redirect here. If the ad gets enough publicity, perhaps we could give it its own article a la Daisy (advertisement). Stonemason89 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Note that taken out of context, that redirect could be interpreted as an offensive remark about Fiorina herself... 212.159.69.4 (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
I've deleted it - it's really not appropriate. If the video gets viral enough and takes off, then include it in the article but only if really relevant and sourced - Alison ❤ 09:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I was surprised both the demon sheep and boxer blimp ads weren't referenced - there's enough reliable sources covering them to justify a dedicated article. Here's a few to get you started:

This isn't my normal stomping ground so hopefully one of you can introduce this. -- samj inout 20:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see how a separate article could be justified. If it can be reliably sourced, I could see mentioning the strategy for running unorthodox ads at United States Senate election in California, 2010, perhaps. I still see it as a stretch here, but given that there are now two relatively widely covered ads, perhaps a single sentence could be justified? jæs (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that at least one sentence in the article should mention it. It thus added a neutral sentence that mentions the ad. --hroest 22:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Family Military History

I think her family's military history is interesting enough that it justifies inclusion in this article. Specifically:

Businesswoman Carly Fiorina was born Cara Carleton Sneed on September 6, 1954, in Austin, Texas. Her unique name was the result of family tradition. All the male members of the Sneed family who were named Carleton died while serving in the Civil War (1861–1865). To honor them, one child in each subsequent generation was named either Carleton (if a boy) or Cara Carleton (if a girl). Fiorina's father, Joseph Sneed, was a lawyer and at one time served as deputy attorney general under President Richard M. Nixon (1913–1994). He also served for more than thirty years as an appeals court judge in San Francisco, California. Fiorina's mother, Madelon, was an abstract painter. In 2003, during a ceremony honoring her father's longstanding career, Fiorina credited her parents for inspiring her to excel. "In times of hardship and uncertainty," she observed, as quoted on the OCE Public Information Office Web site, "people need a strong internal compass to find their way." Fiorina specifically thanked her father for "always being my true north." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westwind273 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
"Interesting" doesn't always mean "encyclopedic worth". The proposed text seems pretty coatrackish to me, but I really don't feel all that strongly either way. That sort of extra fat will get trimmed should this article ever approach GA status, so I don't know that it's worth the effort to insert now. Also, you have no inline citations or attribution to reliable sources. There may also be some weight concerns as well. Please don't take this note as an objection; it's intended to be a starting place for a wider discussion. Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm no great expert on encyclopedic worth. I just know what I would like to see when I go to a Wikipedia article. I think the text above is quite neutral regarding Carly. But to me it gives a window of insight into her psychological make-up. Hers is a family of strong traditions, and her abstract painter mother tells me that Carly is not one to force herself to fit into a mold. I feel like I understand the person Carly Fiorina better by understanding these family traditions and occupations. It all seems to come together as to why she is what she it today. So often, a Wikipedia bio is so dry that I don't really get a sense of the person. --Westwind273 (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is only my own, but I think "knowing the person" is beyond the scope of an encyclopedic article -- that sort of thing is best suited towards actual biographies. Encyclopedias are supposed to be concise, on-topic, and factual (and probably a little on the dry side). "Clinical" is the word I like to use.  :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Interesting fact, it would be more appropriate maybe for a magazine profile, but it seems to be a stretch for an encyclopedia. jæs (talk) 00:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Between the personal attacks on other editors and paeans to Fiorina's opponent in edit summaries, I've semi-protected the article for a week.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are. Any plans to un-protect it? --64.172.173.138 (talk) 19:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Anelson41, 9 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please delete "HP's stock price was $52 per share, and when she left 5 1/2 years later in February, 2005, it was $21 per share—a loss of over 60% of the stock's value.[42] During this same time period, HP competitor Dell's stock price increased from $37 to $40 per share." as it does not accurately reflect the change in market value as the statment seems to imply. HP issued a 2-for-1 stock split during this time which impacted the share PRICE in the marketplace. Dell had no stock split during the same time period. As such, to indicate the stocks "value" lost 60% is not accurate. The PRICE certainly fell at least 50% due to the 2-for-1 split, but the total amount of stock effectively doubled, so the stock's value would not necessarily change based on the split.

Stock Split noted on HP's investor website: http://h30261.www3.hp.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=71087&p=irol-stockSplit

Also, whoever posted below doesn't realize that no secondary sources were referenced in the original claim except for a superfical glance at stock prices. The company value did fall, as did pretty much all tech companies due to the Dot Com collapse. The Nasdaq fell tremendously in that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anelson41 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Anelson41 (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that what you're saying is simply false. If you've got a reference for a stock split then please provide it. It is noted in dozens of secondary sources (several of which are included here as references) that it's not just HP's "stock price" that got cut in half, but the overall value of the company (price times number of shares). You can't just make up a fairy story to justify the collapse; it really happened. Rvcx (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SpigotMap 12:33, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Anelson, please reply by adding another comment, not by editing your original. Editors shouldn't have to use the history tab to follow the conversation.
You may be surprised to learn that all major sources of financial information display (only) "split-adjusted share prices": they adjust historical prices to reflect the number of current shares. On paper a single share of 1999 HP stock was over $100 and there were around a billion shares outstanding for a total market cap (aka total value of the company) of around $100 billion. That 1999 per-share price, when split-adjusted for the current number of outstanding shares, is only $50. In 2005 the price of a share was $20 and there were 2 billion outstanding shares, for a market cap of around $40 billion, which is a 60% decline over Fiorina's tenure.
If you're still confused, try perusing historical data at the time of the stock split (which I think was official on 10 Oct 2000, not 27 Sept). You won't see a sudden jump on most charts, because they've already been adjusted to account for the split.
Hope this helps. Rvcx (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested correction to merger section

In order to aligne the article text with the information cited in the accompanying footnotes, I suggest replacing the following text:

The Compaq merger created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped[27] for a time,[28] a position the company regained shortly after Fiorina left the company.[29]

with:

The Compaq merger created the world's largest personal computer manufacturer by units shipped[27], a position it lost within 5 months[28], and would not regain until a year and a half after Fiorina left the company.[29]

DavytheFatBoy (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there are some errors with the language you're using. First, the data was reported a year and half after Fiorina left the company, but it was a retroactive analysis: theoretically, HP "regained" the "top spot" in the quarter after Hurd took over, about a year after Fiorina left. I'd rather we stick to how reliable sources phrase this, though, if any went on record, as opposed to cherry picking our own relative measurements. jæs (talk) 18:28, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
The article cites sources. I simply changed the wording to correspond with the sources themselves.

I posted this here long before making the changes. Reversing my changes to return to what you yourself note is inaccurate does not seem to be a positive move to me. I don't see any support for your "theoretical" date for the change in market share, but I am willing to accept it. "One year" would be more accurate (if it is) than the weasel wordy "shortly". If sources are cited, using the actual dates they mention is not "cherry picking". What do you suggest?

But regardlessly, it does not respond to the other corrections I made, which you also surpressed. 82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've made a revision to try to answer jæs' objections. However I feel that it would be better to have less vague ideas of time.

82.224.103.123 (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I think calling it a "temporary" gain is not really great, either. Most companies hold "top" positions in their industries for very finite periods of time, to the extent that we usually only differentiate when a company is a longstanding market share "leader" or what have you. I also still think it sounds like a clear original editorial bent: "this lady pushed for this merger, but it only was good for a few months." jæs (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
If the sources present it in such a manner, so should we (with appropriate weight, of course). If they don't, we shouldn't be injecting our own editorial opinions. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree. jæs (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

We need a new photo again

Carly hasn't been blonde for years now. We need a more recent one, one since her bout with cancer and during her run for the Senate. Purplebackpack89 16:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replaced the outdated one with one that is more recent, but of lower quality. If you don't like it, speak your peace below Purplebackpack89 00:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Factual Error regarding EDS Merger

This article mentions that Carly proposed a merger with EDS but it was abandoned. I could be mistaken, but I believe HP during the early part of Carly's tenure proposed to acquire the consulting arm of PriceWaterhouse Coopers. It was abandoned when HP missed it's quarterly earnings. Cwash713 (talk) 22:55, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Why Merge? This is why: HP versus Dell in the PC market

I find it astonishing that there's no argument in favor of the HP-Compaq merger. http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/15/dell-still-struggles-hp-and-acer-grow/ is the answer: the idea behind the merger was to combine Compaq and HP's resources to achieve economies of scale to pass Dell in the consumer PC market. It worked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.81.17 (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that this is an article about Fiorina. Under her leadership, the merger or other factors led to a loss of marketshare. It would be difficult to show that the improvement that took place at HP long after she left was due to her actions. Especially since the change in fortunes is often attributed more to errors at Del than anything positive at HP. -- 82.224.103.123 (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, some people find the lack of WP:OR and the rejection of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies "astonishing", but that's neither here nor there. If you have reliable sources offering some argument, feel free to cite them. -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 02:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Is Fiorina a politician?

Let's at least get some discussion going instead of committed edit-warring. I think I was the one who originally named her a "politician" in the lede. I waited until she won the primary to do so. At this point she's not just an amateur who put her name up; she's a full-time politician. She has been for at least a year, and her time campaigning for McCain makes it clear that this has been a long-term career choice, not a one-time diversion. Other arguments? Rvcx (talk) 09:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Pardon the ignorance, but I haven't been following the article history lately -- what is(are) the stated objection(s) to acknowledging her status as a politician? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 14:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a small group of editors on this and other articles who claim that a person does not become a politician until they are elected. This flies in the face of any definition that I have ever come upon. Per the first paragraph of our wikiarticle a Politician is an individual who is involved in influencing public decision making. This includes people who hold decision-making positions in government, and people who seek those positions (emphasis mine.) In fact the article goes on to state that Political offices may also be held in corporations, and other entities that are governed by self-defined political processes so it could be argued that she has been a pol long before her current run for office but that is not germane to this discussion. It would be nice if these people who claim that she is not one now would explain how their idea of the process works. I mean is there a wand that gets waved or a diploma that gets handed out just after the final vote tally is counted where the winner is anointed a politician. Perhaps the pundits have been wrong all these years maybe the Greasy Pole is only greasy at the very top. Please note that the tongue is in the cheek here. I look forward to any input from other editors. MarnetteD | Talk 15:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
MarnetteD, I agree with what you have taught me about the meaning of the term--it includes those who "seek" office. I hadn't known that before. I originally objected to its use because a businessperson trying to buy their way into in office seemed to me to not be on the same order as a person whose life is devoted to public policy through holding office. They don't make politicians like they used to. :-) -SusanLesch (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
No, let's not have a "get some discussion going", let's instead use this page for its intended purpose, which is to improve the article. Whether Carly Fiorina is a politician is not to be determined by "discussion" among editors, but rather by consulting reliable sources -- like dictionaries -- on the meaning of the word. That Fiorina is, among other things, a politician follows immediately from the information in the "Politics" section of the article. People should not edit based on their own personal and idiosyncratic views that are not based on knowledge. Someone who "had not known that [those who seek office are politicians] before" has no business making editorial decisions about the use of the word. And I would point out that the belief that Carly Fiorina is trying to buy her way into office and is not devoted to public policy has no business being part of any editor's consideration -- that is vile and wretched behavior; go hang out at some blog and keep your POV-stained fingers off Wikipedia (and I say this as someone who personally has very negative views of Ms. Fiorina). -- 98.108.211.71 (talk) 02:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Missing info

She personally opposes abortion and, as a private citizen, stated that she voted for Proposition 8, which defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman, overturning a court ruling that same-sex couples had a right to marry

No mention here that the court ruling by San Francisco judges itself overturned the democratically voted ban on gay marriage of 2000. 98.176.12.43 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: She was fired by the HP board, she did not resign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.9.199.41 (talk) 20:54, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations needed?

Under the "Early Career" section, in the "After HP" subsection, a [citation needed] tag is inserted after "served on the board of directors for Cybertrust." This is actually cited in reference number 50. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomkalo (talk • contribs) 20:06, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

HP phone tap scandal

Now that there aren't hundreds of paid stooges running amok, reverting anything that makes Carly look bad, can we get the section on how she wire-tapped other employees phones while CEO at HP back, along with the citations that back it up as fact? Zaphraud (talk) 01:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Awards and achievements

In December 2010, Fiorina was ranked #10 on Forbes' “The Biggest CEO Screw-Ups of 2010” list. Gone south (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

These sorts of end-of-year photograph-and-blurb "lists" usually don't come anywhere near biographical (let alone notable). Certainly their Forbes 400 listing, their Most Powerful Women listing, and so forth have (obvious) notability and biographical implications, but "The Biggest CEO Screw-Ups Of 2010" doesn't strike me as anything more than trivial. Barely forty words recounting a gaffe about Barbara Boxer's hair wasn't notable then, and even with this passing mention, it isn't notable now. jæs (talk) 00:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, I am almost positive we've had discussions before around Fiorina being on other "worst CEO ever" type of lists (add this one to the pile). Negatively information is routinely excised from the article, such that (IMHO) it doesn't accurately reflect Fiorina's tenure at HP and Lucent (in historical context, or as it was perceived at the time). It was thoroughly hawked during her campaign, but the general trend has persisted for years. Regardless, reading your link in context, it doesn't even really mention any sort of criteria for making the list, and her entry doesn't contain any specifics beyond mentioning her campaign performances. I don't think there's anything of encyclopedic value in the piece, and recommend it is unsuitable for inclusion. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
I would like to organize her public recognition together in one section, and include the bad with the good. (I doubt that a 40-word blurb is worth mentioning, but would entertain better-sourced material. We might want to tag this article NPOV--it doesn't seem to have a neutral point of view.) As I found this article, there are mentions strewn in many sections; some break chronology and some are redundant. - Johnlogic (talk) 19:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fired from HP

I changed the article to reflect that she was fired from HP, but it was reverted as "Not clearly supported by source (and any significant change to the content like this should be discussed on talk: regardless." The source material was the Los Angeles Times article here: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2010/05/fiorina-defends-tenure-at-hp.html

From that article: Fiorina interrupted. "I got fired from HP, OK guys? It’s OK, you can say it."

I don't see how this is not crystal clear support by the source. Carly herself said she was fired to the LA Times. Can someone explain why it is a problem to reflect this in the article? If it's purely a matter of discussing this then consider this the kickoff of that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Over a week later and no one is disputing this. I am going to revert my change back, if someone has an issue with the exact wording then certainly that is open to debate, but at this point I think it's clear that "resigned" is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for not responding sooner, I don't have much time for editing these days. Both the HP announcement[1] of Fiorina "step[ping] down" and her "official" biography[2] on hp.com indicate she "resigned." There's a legal and factual difference between someone being "fired" and someone being asked to resign — it's not just a euphemism. I see the source where she was bantering, while running for office, with an audience member. That doesn't change the facts. That being said, I've always thought a bit more context would make sense in the lede. It could be as simple as: "In 2005, Fiorina was asked to resign as chief executive officer and chairman of Hewlett-Packard, citing 'differences' with her board of directors.[3]" jæs (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree there is a legal and factual difference, but being "asked to resign" is just a euphemism. What they are really saying is "you're leaving the building with your things in a box and you're not coming back. You can either make the announcement or we will." I believe that is why she said very clearly that she was fired, because for all intents and purposes she was, legal technicalities aside. If you'd rather make it "forced to resign" then I could probably see that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.249 (talk) 01:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
I think "forced to resign" is the appropriate phrasing in this case. GcSwRhIc (talk) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
It makes no big difference to me whether it's "asked to resign" or "forced to resign." Both reflect the fact that the board said to her that she needed to resign. If you both prefer "forced," I'm not opposed to going ahead with that. jæs (talk) 02:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The PR piece that HP put out just shows HP's spin on it. Plus Wikipedia sources are supposed to be reliable, secondary sources such as "Hewlett's Board Forces Chief Out After Rocky Stay". New York Times. February 10,2005. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) It cost them $21.5 million dollars to see her leave. When someone spends that kind of money, they feel pretty strongly about it. Follow the money. --Javaweb (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)JavaWeb

NYT in lead

Hello. I tried to fix the statement in the lead but I failed. Sorry. Can anybody help? Now it says "In 2008, Fiorina served as an advisor to Republican presidential candidate John McCain, and was cited by The New York Times to be among the women most likely to become a candidate for President of the United States." Actually the NYT mentioned Fiorina in parentheses in a paragraph about Meg Whitman, "(Carly Fiorina, the former Hewlett-Packard chief executive advising Mr. McCain, is another name mentioned as a possible executive turned candidate, though she is not believed to want to run.)" That's it. No other mention. So I would say what we have here now is undue weight and not true. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It would probably make sense to mention it in the body, but it doesn't seem necessary for the lede at this point. user:j (talk) 02:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
If you can improve what I did, please do. Thank you very much for your comment. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias article

This article is hard to read since it is, in my opinion, carefully worded and choosey about how it portrays the subject in such a way as to bias the reader to think negatively about the subject. I am adding a tag for the neutrality to be checked. Please do not remove the tag until this matter is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

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

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

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

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

One of the worst tech CEOs

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

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

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

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

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

(←) The "worst CEO" statement started out with sourcing to a series of clickbait listicles that often contained no more than a few sentences (if that). It was removed, with consensus from this talk page (reaffirmed more than once), until the recent campaign to cram it in regardless of how many reverts were necessary to protect its reinclusion. She was forced to resign. That's the biographical fact. The editorial opinions of whether she was the worst CEO ever or the savior of HP (neither is true in my opinion) don't belong in the lede and make a joke of wp:blp. If there's reliable sourcing for it being a widespread opinion, it belongs in context, in the body of the article. Justen (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Without exaggeration, almost every single article about Fiorina getting into the race contains some reference to how she was an utterly abysmal failure as a CEO and that she is frequently said to be one of the worst CEOs of all time. Destroying the wealth of HP's investors and "The HP Way" culture is literally the thing that she is best known for in both the business world and the tech world. Removing this established fact from the intro is blatant PoV pushing. Bueller 007 (talk) 03:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid that is, indeed, an exaggeration. And your "blatant PoV pushing" argument would work, except for the fact that I'm the editor who added to the lede the fact that she laid off 30,000 people and readded to the lede fact that her resignation was forced rather than voluntarily. Your assumption of bad faith is intriguing, however. I've brought up the issue at wp:blpn. I hope outside, objective editors can take a look and help convince you of what I've clearly been unable to — that the sourcing you're fighting to restore is absolutely unreliable for a wp:blp and that clickbait headlines aren't appropriate for the lede of a biography of a living person. I won't hold my breath that you can see this from my perspective, but here's hoping. Justen (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There's still back and forth takes on this "worst CEO" issue; but, while that seems contentious in terms of its place and emphasis in this article; similarly, so could it be in terms of another claim, wherein it says "Fiorina was considered one of the most powerful women in business during her time at Lucent and Hewlett-Packard." And that's the lead sentence to the paragraph. Then, the final sentence of this lead paragraph makes an overkill with citations for "worst CEO." This entire paragraph needs to be reworked, so as to do away with the strong POV. What is more, since Fiorina has reconceptualized herself as a politician over the last several years, much of this older news in the lead is disproportionate to more recent news, as it's now cited with additions herein. Outside from the lead, the "most powerful" claim appears several times in sections AT&T and Lucent, Hewlett-Packard and Other aspects; whereas, "the worst CEO" claim appears only in the section Forced resignation. Perhaps, this entire lead section (with three paragraphs) can be reduced in size, per WP:LEAD. In fact, would it suffice to include a one-sentence address to her so-called corporate performance in the lead section of the article, included at the end of a sampling of her corporate career? This entire paragraph, in the lead, should be shorter, more concise and focused primarily on her corporate career itself; that's while ending with a note on such performance and reputation as a secondary mention, but not excluding the well noted controversy. This lead paragraph should not concern itself with a main emphasis on whether or not she's the most "powerful" or "worst," but more so with what her role and job entailed, as well as its major tasks. In other words, simply end that lead by stating that her legacy and reputation is divided between being one of the most powerful women in business and being one of the worst CEOs. Then, allow for explanation in later sections of of the article. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
You make a lot of really important points. I would say, though, that the idea that the publications that called her the "most powerful woman in business" are simply not the same as the few opinion pieces that called her "the worst CEO ever." Forbes, Fortune, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times on the one hand and Condé Nast clickbait and a "Complex" listicle on the other. The fact that she was widely named the "most powerful woman in business" for a bit shy of a decade is biographical and absolutely worthy of the lede — as is the fact that she was forced to resign and that she had a highly controversial tenure at HP. The opinion that she was the "worst, like, evar" is great for a Facebook headline and you might make a stretch case that it belongs somewhere in the body, but it's simply not worthy of the lede of a wp:blp. Justen (talk) 04:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
All said, these points about "Worst CEO" and "Powerful Woman" are nevertheless mostly based in "Opinion." It does not matter who's printing it, nor how many times. Even the New York Times, the supposed and traditional "national paper of record" seperates "Opinion/Editorial" (Op/Ed) from the rest of the news in its paper. Reporting on popular opinion is just that. It does not establish it as "fact." It just establishes what popular opinion says or believes; and that's whether it's verified or not. Like I said, "opinion" should not override the basic facts about her career. Fact: We know that she worked at HP. We know that she fired thousands of people. We know that she was forced out. But, this other stuff… there's really not much scientific methodology or measure to it. It's a ranking system that is seemingly based on ratings that can be easily manipulated, if not also include subjective characteristics. It's basically something that's created as a moniker of sorts by certain media outlets. Indeed, who gets nominated "most powerful" anything (CEO, politician, corporation, nation, athlete, etc.) is a formulated concept that is primarily decided in view of certain preferences of criteria, that's again determined by select media editors. It's not something that is transparent, altogether scientific and exclusively fact based. In short, rankings are not the same as straight news. And even if we were to go on at length about Fiorina's own so-called rank or loss of status, then, perhaps, should it be mentioned to which criteria and so-called competition? Don't get me wrong, because I'm not dismissing the entirety of this public opinion; but, certainly, I am questioning its place amongst the rest of the information that's presented here. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
All valid points. Instead of focussing on improving the article, though, it now looks to be tit-for-tat. The lede has fully tipped over into coatrack territory. Cullen said it best at wp:blpn: this is "contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy." Justen (talk) 18:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Bueller 007 edited a sentence to the section about →‎Disputed claims as "most powerful woman" versus "worst CEO": User:Ca.papavero original edit read "Unchanging are divisive regards to Fiorina's public persona; whereas, that is either for claims such as 'most powerful woman' or 'worst CEO'." User:Bueller 007 revision reads "Whereas early in her tenure at HP, Fiorina was considered to be one of the most powerful women in the tech industry, her image has been reevaluated in light of her forced resignation." His explanation thereof was to say it's "100% untrue that these claims are 'unchanging'. note how references that she was good come from BEFORE she was ousted)" User:Ca.papavero undid the revision and responded, saying, "Original sentence reflects ONGOING DISPUTE about her pubic persona. 007's edit reflects POV, not the dispute.)" Bueller 007 then flipped the edit back once again, stating (with seeming sarcasm) "Nope. The edit accurately summarizes the contents of this section of the article. If you disagree, add MODERN references saying how powerful and great she is." But that said, it's not making any clear sense or acknowledgement of the issue. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Also see discussion about a questionable infographic placed by User:Bueller 007, at this Talk Page, under the section for "Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc." Ca.papavero (talk) 10:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Reversed back to read "Unchanging are divisive regards to Fiorina's public persona; whereas, that is either for claims such as 'most powerful woman' or 'worst CEO'." (per User:Ca.papavero) after adding significantly more explanation thereof, with CITATIONS, showing both the dispute and the differences of public opinion in regards to Fiorina's opinion. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:50, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Grammatically that was a really strange opening paragraph for the section and hard for the average reader to understand. I have attempted to make it clearer, happy to discuss further if anyone feels I have not been balanced - I have no opinion either way, just trying to clarify the sentence for ease of reading and comprehension. Melcous (talk) 11:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Given the almost laughable amount of point-of-view-pushing going on in the edits to the article, I'm not even sure that pointing out anything matters at this point. Still, the "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" assertion in the lede is pretty blatantly wp:or (presumably by way of wp:synthesis, but given that there are no citations or reliable sources for it, I'm just guessing). Granted, it's the least of this article's problems. But it's certainly one of its newer issues. Justen (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Re: Reversed back to read "Unchanging are divisive regards to Fiorina's public persona I think the various phrasings are really really awkward. It reads more like some kind of poem than a clear and comprehensible sentence. --Replysixty (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I saw the edit from Melcous and I'm actually satisfied with that. My only point has been that you cannot have these critiques of Fiorina scattered throughout the article tit-for-tat and then ludicrously put forth that there's no defense for this woman. What's absurd about that, is that this naively presumes that Fiorina can put together a national campaign, appear on countless television shows, make appearances, receive organizational designations beyond HP, etc.; but, then to overlook that she actually does have both a following and defense for her career. Then, to even call it a "defense" of Fiorina (a reactionary term that I've developed from other editors here) as opposed to "support for" or "accolades" for Fiorina would also seem to reflect POV. None of us —individually as editors— have to actually like, support and agree with her success or lack thereof to acknowledge that. To what extent she's favorable is not our role… that's for an election and so on. Next, while describing this debate and division, the only reason I had included words like unfinished, ongoing, "notably changed over the years" is to reflect from that point at which Fiorina's criticism began (primarily from her exit at HP) and still dogging her as of today. But, again, those same counter arguments in defense or support are also along that same duration. (Just look at how it's not resolved here.) I accept the deletions of some of those words, because it could already apparent in the sentences; i.e., without the sometimes stilted constructions. But, frankly, the constant back and forth and politics on this issue makes me (and maybe you) appear self conscious, especially when working between the lines of someone else's work. Finally, Justen does make a very good point about wp:or and wp:synthesis; but, I am not convinced that it can be discounted; because, as I've shown, her public persona is "clouded" (see CNN citation, for one). I think it's said "changed" persona, because there was the original onset of criticism after HP, but not all of this has to do with her performance thereof, nor her political regards… A "change" in "persona" was also partly her own doing, such as by conscious change (choice) of career paths, as much as it is all this other stuff. So… I see your points, but then there's this other side. Given the done editing, I'm not sure how to convey that, given from where this article originated. All in all, all I can suggest at this moment is to better rephrase it —hopefully in one sentence (so far as the lead goes) — to reflect that. Got ideas? Let's hear it. This is all good stuff… we shouldn't beat-up on ourselves, because we've actually improved the article tremendously, in my opinion, despite that there's still some issue to resolve. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead currently has the line "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" (unsourced) and then the paragraph goes onto talk about other people's assessments of her (good and bad). My problem with that is that the most natural reading of "public persona" is how a person presents themselves, whereas what is really being talked about here is the opinions of others. I would suggest changing that sentence to something like "Commentators have varied widely over the years in their assessments of Fiorina's impact" (or a better word for impact that I can't think of right now). Any thoughts/objections? Melcous (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't really want to acknowledge "commentators" in the lead, but I also don't think they should be outrightly named there, either. And by the way, for a while, we were wondering Fiorina's own status… if you see my earliest notes here. I questioned if she's a pundit, commentator, politician (or politico), advocate, consultant, etc.? So were other editors of this article. Indeed, many people still question that. Just as an example and play devil's advocate: maybe you've heard some of the criticism of Fiorina's campaign itself, saying that she really doesn't have any real chances of winning, whereas some people think she's just doing it for self-promotion and visibility… even to buy into a new career. I'm not necessarily questioning that myself; but, maybe you get my point. I'm not making an accusation against her, as much as I'm pointing out that slippery slope of putting her against these others. Don't forget that she's on that same hilltop herself, trying to push others off… it's a king (or queen) of the mountain thing. I also think that it's hard to deny the dramatic changes she's had in her life, which has really become a central part of any conversation about her. And I think most of us have already agreed that's a central theme, like it or not. Its become very difficult, if not actually impossible, to find any significant piece of information on Fiorina that doesn't mention her controversies, her performance, divisive regards and so on. And, I've already added that contrasting content, myself, which supports her; beginning to bring in that balance. You can indeed bring balance; but, don' get me wrong, because it can also get to that point where we're trying too hard at Giving "equal validity" can create a false balance. Again, that slippery slope. As we get further into the federal election, False balance can become more and more of an issue, especially when dealing with political talking points, stances and agendas… just wait, if you think this is bad, it's probably going to get worse and ever more contentious. I appreciate your points, something needs to be done, but not with too much haste. I want to hear what others say, at length or even at short. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Election Year 2016 Campaign, talking points & role

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

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

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

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

By the way, I notice that, in the current article, it doesn't describe Fiorina's present-day appearances at large as mostly what's being described as a pundit. It does describe her "Media Career" and her appearances; whereas, it then continues into her "Advocacy" with more brief mentions, but this does not really emphasize her current profile of sorts. The article also mentions "Carly Fiorina Enterprises" which was subject to controversy and questionable status back in year 2009, when she campaigned for a year 2010 Senate nomination.[7] That should be mentioned. But, without following-up on the question of her so-called "Enterprise," as well as her "Foundation," (see same reference) there's a question as to how her current role and/or status should be defined. Whatever that be, it should be included in the lead paragraph of the article, because most of the public recognizes her as a pundit, advocate or potential candidate these days. She's been removed from her position as a Silicon Valley executive or CEO for many years now. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Next, this article does not mention her other associated entity, known as "Up-Project," which is short for "Unlocking Potential Project."[8] From that website page, said "mission" of the organization is "...to engage women with new messages and new messengers by focusing on personal interactions with voters and going beyond the traditional methods of identifying, persuading and turning-out voters…" This again seems to imply yet another role, as possibly a political organizer. Up-Project appears to be a Merrifield, VA based entity, at least as contact information goes. Fiorina appears prominently in the website's pages, excluding other political candidates, even though her name does not appear in the organization's brand or "doing business as" name itself. In this organization's profile for "Leadership," it solely names Carly Fiorina, without mention of anyone else.[9] Ca.papavero (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/fiorina-cites-corporate-chops-in-possible-2016-run/
  2. ^ http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/carly-fiorina-california-drought-116711.html
  3. ^ http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/04/16/fiorina-cites-corporate-chops-in-possible-2016-run/
  4. ^ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/04/17/what_does_carly_fiorina_want.html
  5. ^ http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/carly-fiorina-chances-run-2016-higher-90-percent
  6. ^ http://www.newsmax.com/FastFeatures/carly-fiorina-2016-leading-pundits/2015/02/03/id/622252/
  7. ^ http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Fiorina-failed-to-register-business-foundation-3293194.php
  8. ^ https://www.up-project.org
  9. ^ https://up-project.org/leadership.php
UPDATE: NEW ADDITIONS MADE PER ABOVE. As of Sunday 26 April 2015, I made the above additions to Fiorina's media career profile, so included in that section of the article. I should go back and better cite the news articles, as well as perhaps make a few finer edits; but, that concludes many of these talking points made in the above (and then a few more). I believe these new additions greater substantiate the article, bringing it significantly up to date on her career and profile status; that is except for some of her notable points of view and agenda items, which (as I've noted) may be too early to note here, unless (perhaps) she decides to run for President or other high office. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:06, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
REQUEST RE-ASSESSMENT: I've been working on the article regarding Carly Fiorina over the last month, as well as making a few changes and improvements; but, I've also realized that this article is still marked as "low importance in the WikiProject Conservatism. It also has no such rating for WikiProject Biography and WikiProject Women writers. Yet, I've realized that as of April 2015 (especially) it has been intimated that Firorina will campaign for a 2016 GOP Presidential nomination, although it does not seem to be officially confirmed; meanwhile, the page currently says that she "actively seeking," which seems to be an adequate description, since she appears to be making strong and more visible talking points in the media. Despite criticism and many past failures in electoral politics, Fiorina is considered a main public figure and, if in any regards, a Vice Presidential possibility by some people's standards, as well as having a career as a conservative pundit. It is my belief that Fiorina should have a higher ranking than "low." In most of these Wikipedia projects, I believe she should at least be at the next level, "Mid-importance." Ca.papavero (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4&oldid=1156013639"