Talk:Carly Fiorina

missing links

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quotation from Lakshmanan's referenced article on Bloomberg News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First sentences - neutrality/length

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

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

Removed nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CNN ref redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incremental nonsense

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Third Opinion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing something

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

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

Hometown

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

Condé Nast

19th worst CEO ever, according to business magazine Condé Nast Portfolio. [1] Info worth adding, I suppose.

A consummate self-promoter, Fiorina was busy pontificating on the lecture circuit and posing for magazine covers while her company floundered. She paid herself handsome bonuses and perks while laying off thousands of employees to cut costs. The merger Fiorina orchestrated with Compaq in 2002 was widely seen as a failure. She was ousted in 2005.

Ouch. -- Stormwatch (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Condé Nast "info" was a photo caption, the entirety of which you just quoted. Source reliability "depends on context" and opinion pieces (which that would be, at best) are "not [reliable] for statements of fact" (both from wp:rs). And then there's wp:blp, which has an entire section dismissing exactly that sort of source material.   user:j    (aka justen)   12:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Same list was worth a mention in the Kenneth Lay article. Also, as explained here, they consulted a panel of experts to determine these ranks. So it's not a single writer's opinion. -- Stormwatch (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No cherry picking please, in either direction. If it's already being used as a reliable source elsewhere, I don't see why we would choose to exclude it here unless that choice is based on the content (which is cherry picking, of course)... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) I don't know about our "cherry picking" policy, but I do know that other stuff exists, and the argument(s) above don't give the Condé Nast "list" a leg to stand on here. (To clarify, while wp:wax is a deletion discussion "argument to avoid," the core principle is that you have to make a convincing case for your assertions. In this case, pointing to the fact that an unreliable source made it into another wp:blp doesn't advance your argument, it just highlights an issue with another article.) If I had the Ken Lay article on my watchlist, I'd have raised the same points I made above over there. It's simply not a reliable source for a wp:blp.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I made and make no other assertions beyond the point that one can't contextually award a qualification of reliability within the same genre -- a source is either reliable within a field, or it's not. If it's been judged to be reliable within the subject of the business world, then it can't be deemed unreliable here simply because it says something negative about the subject. My assertion is one of principle generally, and does not specifically address this source; nor does it preclude the fact that there may be other reasons to exclude this information (for now). I would posit that it's probably a moot discussion, unless there are mentions of this issue in multiple independent secondary sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we cannot assume, especially when it comes to a wp:blp, that simply because a source is used in another article somewhere else that it has automatically been vetted and determined to be reliable. Indeed, I can't find any discussion of the reliability of the source on the talk page for the Ken Lay article. Moreover, the presentation in that article was factually inaccurate and wp:undue. In any event, I've removed it over there and explained why on that talk page.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly citable; the article is currently quoting (mostly positive) opinions from unnamed AP and NYT writers; Conde' Nast is of equal import and heritage. WP:BLP does not prohibit citing analysis and opinion about the subject. I've cleaned up the statement a bit and moved it out of the lead to the HP section (since that is the subject of the item). Jgm (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly being listed among the worst CEOs ever is just a relevant and just as citable as being listed among the "most powerful women in business". So the options are deleting both or including both. Rvcx (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One is not reliably sourced, the other is quite notably and very reliably sourced. Also, your ultimatum view of how to enforce your opinion of balance in the article is really not in line with wp:undue. Please take a look at that to get a better sense of how to address your concerns. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what "source" means. There is no citation whatsoever given for Fiorina's ranking by Forbes. None. There are now two sources given which prove beyond question that Portfolio did in fact include her in their list. There is no dispute over whether she actually is/was powerful or whether she was the worst CEO: the article only asserts that she was included in these lists. Rvcx (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Condé Nast Rehash

Copying from wp:blp/n:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Removing content per wp:blp

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically:

• "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (per wp:blp)

• "Is it important to the article, and has it been published by [multiple] third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts." (per wp:blp)

• "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page." (per wp:rs)

• "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." (per wp:arbcom)

Do not reinsert the content without multiple "high quality references" supporting the opinion. If you believe I am incorrect in my assessment that the defunct Condé Nast photo caption is a poorly source, gain a consensus supporting that position before reinserting. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Carly Fiorina was listed by Conde Nast as the 19th-worst CEO in history is, in fact, very reliably sourced. This material should be put back, and your continued deletion of it on dubious grounds unsupported by any other editor is a violation of consensus. Rvcx (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't reliably sourced. It was a photo caption. Please see wp:blp for the definition of why there's a higher standard for sourcing content for biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First, it was not a caption. It was commentary which appeared alongside a photo. The entire piece was titled "Worst CEOs", and it included a large picture of her, with the number 19 next to it, and some commentary. I have trouble understanding any interpretation under which Portfolio did *not* list her as the 19th-worst CEO. Sources don't get any more rock-solid than this. Rvcx (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Relation to Morris Fiorina?

Is she related to Morris Fiorina - a famous political scientist? It mentions she has two siblings, but not their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.87.50 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The possible names of her siblings are mentioned here; no idea if he's related in some other way. Kuru ^talk 03:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like a press release. Selectively including repeated mentions of various "most powerful woman in business" awards isn't appropriate if none of the criticism appears here. Rvcx (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the article is lacking in its criticism of the subject. As you can see from the talk archives, there are a lot of folks with varying viewpoints of Carly Fiorina who have worked together to put together an article that stays within wp:blp while highlighting both the achievements and failures of her career. Much of the material you removed was (quite) reliably sourced, and your assertions, for example, that you were "removing meaningless [...] business-speak," doesn't jive with the chunks of the article you were actually deleting. If there are specific sections you'd like to see removed, I'd suggest you itemize them here and build consensus for their removal. user:J aka justen (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did actually cite reasons for each change, and I suggest you actually comment on those reasons before reverting a half-dozen edits. Citing a face-saving press release from HP about Carly while ignoring the many many articles pointing out why she was fired is not NPOV.

The claim that Calry was "reinventing" by both "ushing the company into new markets" and "solidifying the company's leadership in existing markets" is utterly meaningless drivel, beyond the fact that it is unsourced.

There is no evidence that HP had "the top spot in the computing industry". What they had was the greatest market share (and *not* the most profits) in the PC hardware market (which is decidedly not the same thing as the computing industry). But no source for this is provided either (thus the "citation needed" template).

It is *not* the opinion of the New York Times that Carly did a good job at HP; the selective quotation to that effect is particularly egregious.

The fact that some people credit her with doing a good job is completely irrelevant. Just as many people blame her for HP's woes. Selectively citing one opinion but not the other is inappropriate. Rvcx (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The main point here is that all critical opinions have been expunged from this article (primarily by user:J aka justen (talk)). In that case, supportive opinions must be expunged as well. NPOV requires a consistent standard within an article. Rvcx (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You came to the article this morning with the statement that the article wasn't critical enough of Carly Fiorina. If you have reliably sourced criticism, include it or propose its inclusion here. Don't delete any fair or "supportive" content wholesale to try to enforce what you believe to be balance. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not obliged to add content to restore NPOV, and given the extensive history of you deleting any criticism of Fiorina that avenue for NPOV seems problematic. Further, your reversions have eliminated changes which are not even directly related to NPOV, including the ridiculous assertion that HP was "the top of the computing industry" (which was repaired in a separate edit from all other changes). I strongly suggest that you discuss your desire to add commentary supportive of Fiorina here before editing the page. Rvcx (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "adding" anything, I was restoring the wholesale deletion of any, in your words, "supportive" content. The burden is on you to build consensus for your removal of the content, see wp:brd if you need clarification on how that process is supposed to work. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in lists

So Fiorina has appeared in several lists: one by Forbes (for which no reference has ever been proffered), one by Time (Fiorina was named to the Time 100 in 2004.), and one by Portfolio (the Conde Nast discussion, above). Clearly, if inclusion of any of these lists is a violation of WP:BLP then they all are, so we need to get consensus on whether or not they are appropriate. Rvcx (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite clearly veering into the trolling category now. The Condé Nast piece is poorly sourced and controversial. The past efforts by one or two editors to include it both resulted in the article being fully-protected for some time. The Time and Forbes lists are not controversial in the least. If you can't understand the difference between the two, you really don't need to be editing biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition of "controversial" as "embarassing to Fiorina" betrays your prejudices on this topic. There is no controversy whatsoever that she appears on all three of these lists. Rvcx (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you can't see how there would be any controversy around the Condé Nast piece, then we have a problem. Your retaliatory (there's no other definition, that's what it was) removal of the Time and Forbes list is quite a remarkable example of edit warring. I won't go to war with you over the article, you're not interested in editing the article in the spirit of wp:brd, and you've clearly shown you have no regard for wp:3rr. I'll wait for an administrator to deal with the situation and go from there. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do see the previous discussion of the Conde' Nast list and J's ongoing efforts to be Fiorina's Wiki-Knight-In-Shining Armor. Good luck, but be warned that he will sic his pet admin on you if you try to stick to your guns. Jgm (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. In all actuality, I don't have any "pet admin[istrators]" at the moment. The last several I adopted weren't tame and I had to release them back into the wild. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mess

Between the dozen or so edits by User:Rvcx today, a significant portion of reliably sourced and notable content was cut from the article inappropriately. This sort of a hatchet job on a long stable article, though, isn't easy to deal with, as there have been intervening edits (my own included), all of which have to be preserved individually. I'm going to try to sit down tonight or tomorrow and go through the revisions to restore the article to a point that satisfies wp:blp and wp:undue. In the meantime, if anybody wants to beat me to it, you'd make my day.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of it deserves to be out -- regardless of whether it was sourced, it was puffery. The article as it stands now looks reasonably neutral. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just at first glance, the bit about EDS (one of her two "big" proposed strategic moves while in charge of HP), the sourcing of HP becoming the top PC maker (by units), and the fact that many analysts say she took the right steps at HP have all been removed. It's a little shocking to me that someone comes to the article, says the article needs to be much more critical, declares his intention to remove any "supportive" content -- and then does so, and the most concrete response is "Oh, well, that's reasonable." Oh, yeah, and he's blocked for putting on one of the most aggressive, blatant displays of edit warring I've seen in quite a while. Really disappointing. And, when he's unblocked, I hope you'll stick around, because what you just said will undoubtedly provide him further cover to move the article more and more towards an wp:undue state it's been free from for quite some time now. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record: regarding the inclusion of the "Worst CEO" commentary in this page, Stormwatch (talk), /Blaxthos ( t / c ), Jgm (talk), and Rvcx (talk) all argued that the information was well-sourced, easily verifiable, and directly relevant. Only user:J aka justen (talk) doesn't want it included, calling it "controversial" on the grounds that it is embarrassing to Fiorina. This is not the only topic on which most editors supported the inclusion of material unflattering to Fiorina, only to have it vetoed by user:J aka justen (talk). The prevailing opinion of most editors seems to be that this article had stopped being objective and become a biased publicity piece for Fiorina. Rvcx (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Other editors, here and at wp:blp, agreed that the content was poorly sourced. But wp:blp is not about a vote. Nobody has been able to address the fact that the content was poorly sourced and not notable. However, wp:blp is clear: you do not reinsert the material until there is a current consensus for its inclusion. Which you do not have. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If there was a discussion on another notice board, please point at it. If anyone else endorses the view that the current sources are insufficient (for the fact that Fiorina was included in the list, not a bare assertion that she really is among the "worst CEOs of all time"), please point to their comments. Waving WP:BLP as an excuse to delete anything you don't like is an obvious misinterpretation of the policy. Rvcx (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider this a WP:3O. You're both at 3RR. I'll report you both for edit warring, so knock it off. I found this mess from AN/I, and looking at this diff, I'm with J right down to the line 166/168 schism, where I favor rvck' version. Incorporate any parts from above the 166/168 which bolster the lousy job rating she received from Conde Nast into the J side of that material, put in the material BELOW the 166/168 as written by RVCX, and call it closer to balanced. We need more about the declining value of shares during her tenure, however, otherwise the Conde Nast piece looks like it has less foundation. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a reckless, guns-a-blazing, one minute review of an issue that goes back months was exactly what we all needed... Geez. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that WP:NPA is a policy here. Refactor your cheap shot above, or strike it through entirely. ThuranX (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking you, I was expressing my disappointment with your initial comment here, which I stand by. When an edit warrior with two blocks in his recent history returns to edit warring on an article, the idea should generally not be to attack the one person who has stood by the article for years. Just my thoughts. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be more productive if user:J aka justen (talk) would not resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone, including me. This comment is not the first of his comments on this page to ignore the substance of the disagreement and focus instead on assumptions of bad faith. I freely admit that I've been dragged into an edit war with him (and him with me); I am frustrated that there has been little success engaging in productive discussion here. Rvcx (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You did make a Personal Attack at me. You can either revert it, strike it through, or I can bring it to the AN/I as evidence that you're acting even more irrationally now, and ask for a block against you, since you are demonstrating a lack of the capacity to work towards resolution on this talk page, and an escalation of the edit warring behaviors you modeled which got this page locked down. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment was on your post, not you as a person. You may want to review wp:npa if you're still unclear as to why that is not a personal attack. My edit history speaks for itself. I have never engaged in edit warring, although I have gone to great lengths to protect this and other wp:blp articles, and I make no apologies for doing so. That being said, I care very much about constructive editing, and I found it very disappointing that you, barely a day after being blocked for edit warring, came to the defense of another edit warrior editor with a recent history of edit warring also fresh off a 48h block by accusing me of edit warring... I welcome your contributions here, but I encourage you to more thoroughly review the history of the article and this talk page more before coming to a talk page warning that you'll be asking for blocks of editors who have gone to great lengths to encourage constructive editing. It simply was not cautious, and I stand by my statement that it was not constructive. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond your absurd claim that you "never engage in edit warring" (what other editor was warring with me?), I ask you to strike or delete your repeated name-calling. Labeling other editors "edit warriors" is a clear violation of WP:NPA and you have done it twice in two messages. Rvcx (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the term is pejorative and I have corrected it to reflect my comment is about the behaviour, not the person. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're an obvious part of an edit war, User:J, and every time you persist in these cheap shot personal attacks, I will take them to AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've had a chance by now to review the responses to your first three "reports" to wp:an/i, and you can see that there is no corroboration of your view that you have been personally attacked. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it just wasn't and is not the case. In any event, can we please get back to constructive work, rather than this metadrama? Thanks. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And since you asked for an even more critical review, I would point out that in the above diff, line 83 should favor the RVCX edit, since that decision also shows up later on in the article. Including it in the timeline properly provides greater context. Otherwise, I stand by my earlier assertion. J's writing, one the left in the diff, is generally better than what's o nthe right. However, the version on the right at line 83 provides more context to later statements, and at line 168 provides a well sourced negative critique of the woman's tenure with the company, and both are needed for a stronger article. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing at this point is to work on improving segments of the article in a sandbox and posting them here for review and {{editprotected}} with consensus. I will, however, work on an {{editprotected}} request for the wp:blp issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of substance, what's the rationale for restoring the "Fiorina set us up for success in the future" press release from HP? It obviously doesn't provide any factual content, and it's meaningless as commentary, since every company says the exact same thing when they fire the CEO---claiming that you haven't been "set up for success in the future" is begging for a major stock decline. It's like bolstering the argument that someone is a nice by including a quote from their mother (that is, a quote with no supportive anecdote). Rvcx (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was the only jointly-issued statement on her resignation. Did both issue it to save face? Probably. But that doesn't undermine the fact that it's reliable and that it says something about what both parties were saying at the time. For what it's worth, I always included that statement as a hook for the potential inclusion of reliably sourced commentary that speculates that she was "fired," something along the lines of:

Fiorina stepped down from Hewlett-Packard in 2005, with the company stating that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." Nevertheless, her departure was widely characterized as "sudden" and came about due to "disagreement[s] on how to best execute the company's strategy."

What do you think? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no controversy at all that she was asked to leave; her own quote in the very same press release ("I respect their decision") confirms it. Using the "stepped down" euphemism in the lede is a way of avoiding the subtleties of executive personnel changes (where nobody ever really gets "fired") in that part of the article. Framing the situation as though there is any dispute over the circumstances of her departure is inaccurate. Rvcx (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you make your viewpoint into a proposal? I didn't develop the "subtleties of executive personnel changes," but it was considerably more widely reported (here versus here) that she "resigned" rather than that she was "fired." Including the statement, from the company, of what the company believed her accomplishments to be during her tenure is important, however. I was simply trying to work in more of what I guess you'd prefer; if I'm off the mark, please help with a proposal of your own for that segment and we can go from there. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your own links there betray you. For all incidents FOLLOWING her firing, the use of Fired occurs more, it only looks like more if you pay attention to those tallies in years before her firing. This means that the reality of the situation, a firing, be it through requested or pressured resignation, is what has outlasted Recentism problems. She was fired, she did not voluntarily choose to resign.ThuranX (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX's point, but use of the term "fired" is technically inaccurate. While it's used informally in the business press to mean "asked to leave", it seems safer to avoid the term and either explicitly spell out that she was asked to leave, or leave it at the "stepped down" euphemism. Rvcx (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell has frozen over, and I concur. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Euphemisms are not good encyclopedic writing. We don't write that Eric Rudolph protested the American Government with a poorly constructed fireworks display, we don't write that Timothy McVeigh engaged in unsolicited redecoration of the OKC Federal Building, we don't write in euphemisms because it's cheap and condescending. She was fired. She may well have been fired by being 'asked to tender a resignation', but we can include that only if it's cited. There seems no contention here that she left in a thoroughly voluntary manner; she was told it's over, and that was that. Saying she 'Stepped down' leaves it wide open to the idea she did so of her own, uninfluenced volition, to pursue other things; that's not the case. She was shown the door, and given a choice of wlaking out it, or being thrown out it. We report the truth, not pallatives. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Legally, she resigned. That's not a euphemism. "Fired" would mean her employment was formally terminated, which was not the case according to every reliable source I've seen. There's a distinction, and it's an important one. I should further clarify that a number of reliable sources have reported, based on "insider information," that she had the option to remain as chief executive officer but to give up some level of operations control prior to her being asked to resign; she refused, and it has been speculated that this led to her ouster. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest "was forced to resign" as compromise wording here. "Was fired" is perhaps too informal and not reflective of the way things work at the executive level; "was asked to resign" implies that she had a choice, and "resigned" implies she initiated the change. "Was forced to" is accurate, encyclopedic, and backed by the citations given. Jgm (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with the statement from the press release cited above. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe "asked to resign" is more accurate. HP could not "force" her to resign (their only recourse if she had refused would have been to terminate her, I don't believe it's arguable that they had any legal right to compel, à la "force," her to resign). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Forced to Resign" is acceptable, as that's far less euphemistic than the whitewash proposed before. ThuranX (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, based on some of the recommendations above:

Fiorina was asked to resign as chairman and chief executive officer from Hewlett-Packard in early 2005, with the company stating that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." Her departure was widely characterized as "sudden" and came about due to "disagreement[s] on how to best execute the company's strategy."

Suggestions? user:J aka justen (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go back to the 'Forced to resign' proposed by Rvcx that you agreed to above, and further agreed to by me. ThuranX (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute over "stepped down" has no bearing on my view that including a positive statement from a press release is nothing but an attempt to inject positive commentary into an otherwise objective description of the events. Nothing after "...in early 2005" adds anything to the article, and is a silly distraction in the lede. Rvcx (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What you call "positive" content isn't against any Wikipedia policy, if it can be reliably sourced and is notable and relevant. That joint statement between the company and Carly Fiorina is reliably sourced, it is notable, and it is relevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a position on excluding any and every piece of reliably sourced content that can be claimed to be "positive" (or "negative," for that matter). I think this particular reliably sourced content helps ensure that paragraph, and the lede as a whole, are not wp:undue. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:UNDUE, which I suggest you review. This material contributes no new facts; only commentary. And not even forthright commentary, at that---every indication is that the company didn't really believe what they said. I can't see any reason to include this material other than to push a particular POV. Rvcx (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rvcx. In light of the fact that she was forced to resign, a polite letter that she was forced to resign despite her great contributions sounds hypocritical, and will confuse the reader. Since it's stated somewhere in the morass above that every company does it, then it's fairly hollow and useless here. ThuranX (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The company issued a statement saying she had developed a strategy that they were going to follow. That's not commentary, that's fact, straight from the horse's mouth. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The company did not say that she had developed a strategy they agree with. They did not say that they were going to continue with the direction she has set. What they said was that whatever the hell she had been doing during her tenure, at the time the press release was issued HP had "the capabilities to compete and win." In other words, she hasn't screwed things up so badly we need to shut down the company and return the stockholders' money. Rvcx (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the source? "Carly Fiorina [...] had a strategic vision and put in place a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." They, indeed, did say that she developed a strategy they agree with, and that they were going to execute on it. If you disagree with that interpretation based on an actual reading of the source itself, that's really a gap I can't bridge. The source says what it says. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just going in circles. She had a vision. She put in place a plan. There is no commitment to either of those. The result of them, however, is a company that retains the ability to compete and win. Not necessarily by executing on the vision. Not necessarily by implementing the plan. Maybe the vision and plan were brilliant, but only useful for the duration of her tenure. Maybe they were lousy; if so, they weren't lousy enough to completely sabotage the company's future ability to compete and win. This is completely boilerplate corporate PR-speak for "nothing to see here; the company's doing fine." Rvcx (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. That's your opinion. It's not, at all, what the source itself says word for word. The source says, once again: "[She] had a strategic vision and put in place a plan that has given [the company] the capabilities to compete and win." If you don't recognize the primacy of what the source says over your interpretation of what the source meant to say, then we really are going to get nowhere. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Just prior to the article being locked, a small blurb of controversial content was reinserted to the article, in the last paragraph of the Hewlett-Packard section. The segment is not a statement of fact, is contentious, and is poorly sourced, and needs to be removed (and it has been removed repeatedly in the past by administrators and other editors alike). This is the text:

In April of 2009, however, the business magazine web site Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.

Per wp:blp, the assertion is poorly sourced, contentious opinion. You can see above for past discussion on the issue, the fact that it has long been controversial, and the fact that the repeated attempts to include it previously led to the article being locked for over a month (a situation the article again finds itself in). In summary, the listing was not notable and received no reliable coverage itself. Under wp:blp, contentious material that doesn't stick to the facts should be removed, and a defunct publication calling someone one of the "worst chief executive officers" ever is not a fact. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Fiorina was included on this list is well-sourced and uncontentious. At least four editors have explicitly supported the inclusion of the content, as have two additional editors on the AN/I noticeboard. There have been repeated requests for user:J to point to comments from any editor other than himself who does not support this material; those requests remain unanswered. The article is quite clear that the placement of Fiorina on the list is just one opinion, and it is placed alongside a differing (and, frankly, much more minority) opinion that she did a good job as a CEO. The attempt to exclude any content critical of Fiorina is clear POV-pushing. Rvcx (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some very reliable sources I'm not seeing, it is nowhere near "well sourced" or notable. Further, wp:blp is not up to a vote. Each of the four editors who have supported including the content have acknowledged having a critical viewpoint of Carly Fiorina, which I am afraid appears to cloud their judgment in the appropriateness of this in terms of wp:blp. It needs to be removed, immediately. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the links which is supposed to support this claim is not working now, so I'd be inclined to remove this sentence until better sources can be found. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because the publication that published this photo caption went out of business. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

CNBC seems to have migrated all the Portfolio content over to its site: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=3 I support updating the first source; the second source currently in the article is another site's summary of the Portfolio list. Yet another republishing is here. Her appearance on this list is verifiable from multiple sources. Her reputation as one of the worst CEOs of all time (independently appearing in another such list here) is one of the main sources of her notability in business circles. Rvcx (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm trying to not be incredulous here, but the indifference towards or ignorance of WP:BLP is astounding. Two blogs are nowhere near the quality of sourcing you need to support one poorly sourced photo caption opinion that she's one of the worst executives ever. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A mirror of the photo caption doesn't cut it. To explicitly quote wp:blp:

• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
• Contentious material about living persons that is [...] poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
• The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons.
• Criticism [...] needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. (A bit impossible when a defunct publication non-notably calls you one of "the worst American CEOs ever.")
• The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. (Again, a single publication publishing a non-notable list does not a majority opinion make.)
• Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.
• Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons.

• If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

And, to further quote the Foundation Resolution on the matter:

• People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. (Note: I think it is also possible to make those sorts of edits unintentionally, simply with disregard for an objective viewpoint, for whatever reason.)
• This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent.

I hope this helps. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Blogs are not normally considered good reliable sources. As this is a BLP, if there are criticisms to be made, then they need to be backed by solid WP:RS. Be cautious of WP:UNDUE when looking to add critical information - just to have "critical information". POV goes both way, stick to the solid sourcing. — Ched :  ?  04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Suppose a blog of marginal (or even questionable?) notability puts out a list of crappiest CEO's. Well, that in-and-of itself certainly wouldn't qualify for inclusion. Now, suppose several reliable sources in the mainstream media cite this list and highlight some of the CEO's listed. Doesn't the sourcing then become the reliable sources that covered the list? Even if the list itself is from a blog (or otherwise unreliable/non-notable source), doesn't it become notable because it got significant coverage in reliable sources? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Being covered by multiple media sources might make it notable, but not reliable. It might then be possible to say "NBC mentioned the blog in a special report", but we still couldn't cite the blog itself as a source for facts in one of our articles. Doc Tropics 05:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This theoretical conversation has nothing to do with the case under discussion. Conde Nast Portfolio is/was not a blog---it was a respected mainstream publication. And we are not even using it as a source a fact in the article; we are citing the opinion as a piece of commentary. Rvcx (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The same issues come into play, in that a single source calling someone "the worst" anything in a photo caption is not a "high quality" source sufficient for a WP:BLP. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the section per WP:BLP. Upon procurement of a suitable reliable source for this negative information, it can be re-added. Tan | 39 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another whitewash. Conde Nast got bought, its content absorbed. There's no problem with the sourcing. This is yet another 'No BLP shall ever criticize anyone, ever' campaign, no different than what's happening over at Glenn Beck. When famous people do stupid things, and the media covers it, we can report it here. That's how it works. It's not a BLP violation if they did it, and a reliable source publishes coverage. If Conde nast no longer qualifies as a WP:RS, then that needs to be stated at WP:RS, until then, that material should absolutely be reincluded.

Beyond that, there's the second issue that an Admin circumvented both page protection and Consensus, and the policy on Reliable Sources, to edit to push his own POV, and ethical violation that should result in a loss of his buttons. ThuranX (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only point of view the administrator (who, as best as I can tell, has never edited this article previously) took was that there was poorly sourced, contentious material in a biography of a living person. Our policy quite clearly says it must be removed immediately, without discussion and regardless of protection. I'm not sure how this at all relates to Glenn Beck or your battles there, so I'll leave it at that. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion regarding this article. I did not circumvent anything; my actions were within policy put in place by WP:PROTECT. Post a reliable source for this material and I will replace it immediately. Consensus (if that actually exists here) does not trump WP:V or WP:BLP. If you want to call for my removal as admin, ThuranX, I suggest you start a thread at AN/I and see where that takes you. Tan | 39 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your sticking your neck out to enforce wp:blp. Controversial biographies of living people are particularly vulnerable to this sort of situation, which is exactly why the policy requires high quality sourcing, as you know (not just a single reliable source). I hope you'll consider taking that into account before reinserting this material, notwithstanding any angry mob with pitchforks and torches. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Rvcx (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask something that I don't understand: Why are you so determined, wp:blp be damned, to get the exact phrase "worst American chief executive officer" into the text of her article? You can reliably source that the stock performed poorly during her tenure, you can reliably source that she laid off oodles of people, you can reliably source that she wasn't generally well liked by folks in Silicon Valley. Yet you persist in trying to magically turn very poor sourcing into reliable sourcing using blogs and so forth. You've canvassed to try to build a consensus to override wp:blp, you've searched out another forum to try to get another opinion on the same links already debunked here by three administrators. I really just don't get it, and I have to tell you, in my gut I'm afraid this sort of editing is exactly why wp:blp exists and needs to exist. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We can also reliably source that there was significant criticism of her tenure specifically. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree (see my response to you over at wp:rs/n). Such prose should be written up, reliably sourced, and proposed for {{editprotected}} inclusion here. There's no doubt there was criticism. Poorly sourced, non-notable opinion and blogs aren't the place to source that fact to, however, especially not for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• comment Like Tan, I have no interest in this particular article save the fact that I noticed it referenced elsewhere. It just seems to me that when you want to say "Worst CEO" with a "one-of" claim which seems to me to be an "WP:UNDUE effort. In other words ...

You are backing up battleship statements with rowboat references. Find better sources. — Ched :  ?  17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that she is the worst CEO of all time; it says that opinions of her as a CEO are mixed. It quotes the title of the feature, as a quote. There is little other way to convey the opinion of the commentators---they don't just think the merger was a failure; they don't just think the stock underperformed. They think it was Fiorina's fault and that she was terrible as a CEO. We cite that as an opinion, not as a fact. Given the number of "she did a great job" and "most powerful woman in the world" commentaries already present, the refusal to include any criticism at all is absurd. Rvcx (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I walked into all this rather late in the game, and I haven't been party to most of the recent discussion here. It is my position that Fiorina has been the subject of significant criticisms for her terms as corporate executives, and has generated significant controversies surrounding same; as such, I believe that an article must cover those aspects as well in order to give a truly encyclopedic coverage of the subject. Furthermore, I believe that we probably should mention the coverage (in reliable sources) of her inclusion on the CN list (note: not referencing the list, but rather the coverage). Please make note of the difference between must and should when considering my input. Also, I am (always) in favor of finding a compromise on a talk page, as J suggested above. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(in response to User:Rvcx) "Given the number of 'she did a great job' and 'most powerful woman in the world' commentaries already present, the refusal to include any criticism at all is absurd." There is not a "refusal to include any criticism at all" from anyone here that I see. The rhetoric doesn't help. Dig up reliable sourcing for criticism and we can work on prose here. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty of refusal on your part, J. Not only are you absolutely 100% unwilling to allow any criticism, including the completely properly sources Conde Nast listing, your are equally insistent that every bit of puffpiece love about Fiorina be included, arguing that it's a matter of BLP policy; BLP in fact does not require that an article be horrifically biased in favor of the subject. Your abject inability to do any amount of work towards consensus, and your efforts to keep everyone running in circles, shows that we will waste decades arguing with you, that that is your plan, and that you intend to win by attrition.YOu are refusing any criticism, it is that simple, and multiple editors here can see it. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a proposal -- any proposal -- that I could "refuse," despite begging for someone, anyone, to write something up. Any of the sources Blaxthos lists below could be used as reliable sources, it just appears as though nobody (thus far) is willing or able to actually put a neutral proposal in writing. If you'd like to propose something, that's really the only way we're ever going to start working towards a consensus for inclusion. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NO, you saw the 'proposal', which by the way, is another vullshitting tactic designed to delay, by making us "propose" Text that you are already aware of. Then you can 'reject' it, based on the sources, we get new soures, you say not good enough ,not neough fo them, we find more, you 'forget' what we're working on, demand proposal, and so on. It's the CIVIL POV PUSH. It's about wasting our time until we give up. It's crap. You know waht we want included. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. USA Today
2. LA times
3. Better USA today
4. Older but better LA times
5. CBS news

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reset

Let's all, including myself, drop the rhetoric and hostility and work towards a solid consensus here. Here is the sentence in question:

In April of 2009, however, the business magazine web site Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.

What we need here is solid sourcing and a balanced statement. I have no problem with negative information, but it needs to be right. One now-defunct company calling someone "The worst [insert position] of all time" does not necessarily mean it is valid to place it in the article. From WP:UNDUE, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." That all said, and given Blaxthos's references above, let's discuss this civilly and with good faith. Tan | 39 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then will you strike the EDS puffery, because the notion that Fiorina did a good job is a minority view? Rvcx (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but can you please try to discuss this in a mature manner? Your baiting, snipes and sarcastic questions are not helping. Tan | 39 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no question of the EDS sourcing: it's The New York Times. It's not a "minority view" and it's notable to her career at HP. You've expressed here time and time again that you will not rest until anything you deem positive from the article is removed, and you've been blocked once for it already. I just don't get it. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Damnit, J, did you not read Tan's statement about civility and good faith? As far as I can tell, you're both guilty of blindly serving polar opposite viewpoints and only are continuing unproductive accusations against the other. Now, for the meat of the discussion... all the sources I've found doing a historical (read: encyclopedic) assessment have all given Fiorina a poor review for performance during her tenure there. I'm not saying that's truth, nor am I saying there aren't other viewpoints. However, to assess proper voice and weight why don't we gather references with both viewpoints, preferably those with a "looking back" perspective rather than sources covering then-contemporary events. Once we've got a good list, we can start to hammer out appropriate verbiage. Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressing incredulousness at User:Rvcx's continued attempts to remove anything he deems supportive from the article is about the best anybody should be able to manage at this point. That being said, there are a number of sources, including in the article and since removed by User:Rvcx, cited to the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Bloomberg, that clearly report on widespread opinion that time has shown Fiorina did the right things. Prose supporting that "analysts" (or whomever) were negative at the time, combined with some of the current viewpoints, is fine. Feel free to propose. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

J, Until you can make a reply that doesn't contain a jab at other editor, I will not engage in discussion with you. Stop with your analysis, stop with your insults, stop with your cries foul. The next step is to provide some sources. Concrete sources. No more generic statements without supporting references. In fact, no more statements at all -- gather some sources. Post them here. THEN discuss. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is you were working on proposals for prose including "critical" content. As I said, feel free to propose. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no recollection of removing any such references, so I suggest you point at the appropriate deleted references if they exist. The article includes several "most powerful woman" citations as well as the (IMO non-notable) EDS commentary already. My point has always been that if we choose to use an absurdly high standard for commentary, then all of this supportive commentary should be deleted as well. I think the article would be best served, however, by including both viewpoints. Rvcx (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing notability of criticism, the fact that even a tiny blurb from the LA Times about the senate race includes

Fiorina was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a rocky tenure.

suggests that the prevailing opinion in the business community is that her run as CEO did not go well. Rvcx (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

She was asked to resign. I think we all already had some clue it didn't go well. How would you like to see it phrased in the article, however? user:J aka justen (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Horse, then cart... let's get some references, see what they say, and then start talking about how to best present it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I think the sources you compiled in the above section are a reliable place to start. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)