| Revision as of 16:05, 22 August 2009 edit422f2931915f677 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users814 edits →Mess← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 06:29, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,674,029 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 9 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: Computing and information technology.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Not a forum|Carly Fiorina, her tenure at Hewlett-Packard, her political positions, nor her campaign for the junior United States Senate seat for California}} |
|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=B|priority=|listas=Fiorina, Carly}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|class=B|vital=yes|listas=Fiorina, Carly|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography}} |
|
{{archive box| |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Mid}} |
|
]<br /> |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=Yes|American-importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|Austin=Yes|Austin-importance=Low|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women writers|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=high}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Image requested|business and economics people|of=Carly Fiorina during her run for the Senate}} |
|
|
{{pp-move}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap|style=long}} |
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Top 25 Report|Aug 2 2015 (22nd)|Sep 13 2015 (2nd)|Sep 20 2015 (17th)}} |
|
== missing links == |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 75K |
|
|
|counter = 18 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 2 |
|
|
|algo = old(21d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Archive box|auto=long |search=yes |age=3 |units=months |index=/Archive index}} |
|
2003:<br /> |
|
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn |
|
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/67/carly.html<br /> |
|
|
|
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |
|
How Carly arrived at HP<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
2005:<br /> |
|
|
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=141506<br /> |
|
|
An Engineer's View of Carly Fiorina's Leadership<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
2005:<br /> |
|
|
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/02/07/8250437/index.htm<br /> |
|
|
Why Carly's Big Bet is Failing<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
2005:<br /> |
|
|
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=138854<br /> |
|
|
HP CEO Carly Fiorina to Step Down<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
2006:<br /> |
|
|
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?threshold=5&mode=nested&commentsort=0&op=Change&sid=190623<br /> |
|
|
Forbes Now Thinks Carly Saved HP<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/fortune/0709/gallery.MPW_100_years.fortune/14.html<br /> |
|
|
summary<br /> |
|
|
|
|
|
<small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
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 <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: 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. ] (]) 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 ] if you need clarification. ]] 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." -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 04:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Weasel words aren't sources. The article doesn't cite any. ] (]) 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 Misplaced Pages's, they're the words of those reliable sources. Stop removing sourced content from the article. ]] 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.] (]) 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.] (]) 18:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::] 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. ]] 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.] (]) 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 ] with your reverts. <s> I see that he's just reverted himself</s> in accordance with consensus, so let's just let it drop, shall we? Cheers, --] ] ] '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' 19:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ok, so he only half-reverted himself. I've restored the prior language based on the consensus here.--] ] ] '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' 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. ] (]) 19:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:]. 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.--] ] ] '''''<font color="green">]</font>''''' 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 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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? --] 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. /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 18:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah, thats because I am a republican (sarcaism) You agenda pushing is really getting tiresome. --] 18:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::A blog, which references a blog, which cites unnamed sources. Nice work. Real quality. --] 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." /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. --] 22:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::You seem to equate "blog" to a ]. Check out ], ], an ]. 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. /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ] (]) 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 ] again. Cheers. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 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 ] 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. ] (]) 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 11:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
There seems to be some confusion between a "blog" and a ]. Something isn't prohibited simply because the word "blog" is used. "Blogs" of organizations that already qualify as a ] also are considered reliable. /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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? :) ]] 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. |
|
|
<ref>{{cite web |
|
|
| title = Fiorina's comment called 'Biden-like' |
|
|
| last = King |
|
|
| first = John |
|
|
| publisher = CNN.com Political Ticker |
|
|
| url = http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/fiorinas-comment-called-biden-like/ |
|
|
| date = 2008-09-16 |
|
|
| accessdate = 2008-09-16}}</ref> |
|
|
::{{reflist}} |
|
|
|
|
|
::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 ] for ]. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ]s the best references of all? ] (]) 01:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===CNN ref redux=== |
|
|
|
|
|
The "reliable sources" section of ] 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". ] (]) 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. --] 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. ] (]) 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. --] 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? ] (]) 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, --] 15:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
(←) I ] the history of that statement at ] 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 ] 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 ], even if CNN is). ]] 16:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::Actually, the burden is that the statement is ] via ]. I don't think you'll find anyone on Misplaced Pages who will support your claim that the ] is not a reliable source, nor do I think that there is any doubt about the verifiability of the claim. Beyond that, ] have already covered the story as well in broadcast as well as print, and ] specifically covers all of this. I don't see how any of your objections are sustainable upon rigorous inspection. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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 ], then please share, and we can be done with this issue. ]] 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". ] (]) 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 ] 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. ]] 22:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, the term "blog" implies ], 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 ] by using the misleading "blogged" in the article. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ]] 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 00:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Has this "material" been reported by other sources? Is it noteworthy? --] 00:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Indeed, it has (see article history for at least 3 examples). //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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? ]] 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::How closely did you ? /] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ]] 02:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
] is unquestionably a ], and ] is generally accepted and frequently used as a reliable source all over Misplaced Pages. Not satisfied? How about Jimmy Orr with the ] ('''') (which specifically uses the phrase "CNN is reporting", not "blogging")? ] reports the quote from its own source, independent of CNN entirely (''''). CNN, MSNBC, CSM, and AOL News have '''all''' published the quote, which means multiple, independent sourcing. There is no question of ] 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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 ]). 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. ]] 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''' ]) 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ] (]) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:"Transparently" ]? Misplaced Pages 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 ] 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. ]] 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. ] (]) 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 ]. ]] 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. ] (]) 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 ], for which Misplaced Pages has particular policies that differ from how we would treat an article on a theory or a place, for example. The policies against ] and that we are ] 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. ]] 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 ] concern there. ]] 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. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 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 Misplaced Pages to grind an axe? For full disclosure, I was a C-Level Executive with ] 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ]] 22:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Fair enough; it's not implausible (perhaps even probable) that this article may be the target of ]. I would caution Iterator12n against ] accusing editors of such behavior. Regarding sourced material, see the thread above regarding a multitude of reliable sources currently available. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. ] (]) 03:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I'm afraid the request may not have been entirely in line with ], 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: ], ], ], ], 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 ] 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). ]] 04:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Let's try three sentences: Several sources have reported an undenied statement from the McCain campaign that states: |
|
|
{{divbox|blue|Text and sources|3=<tt>"Carly will now disappear. The Senator was furious."</tt><ref>{{cite web |
|
|
| title = Fiorina's comment called 'Biden-like' |
|
|
| last = King |
|
|
| first = John |
|
|
| publisher = ] |
|
|
| url = http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/16/fiorinas-comment-called-biden-like/ |
|
|
| date = 2008-09-16 |
|
|
| accessdate = 2008-09-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Will Carly Fiorina 'Disappear' Like Gramm?|publisher=]|url=http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/09/18/will-carly-fiorina-disappear-like-gramm/|date=2008-09-16|accessdate = 2008-09-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Is Fiorina finished? Two big mistakes get Carly in trouble|publisher=]|url=http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/09/16/is-fiorina-finished-two-big-mistakes-get-carly-in-trouble/|date=2008-09-16|accessdate=2008-09-16}}</ref><ref>{{cite episode |
|
|
| title = |
|
|
| episodelink = |
|
|
| series = Countdown with Keith Olbermann |
|
|
| serieslink = Countdown with Keith Olbermann |
|
|
| airdate = 2008-09-17 |
|
|
| season = |
|
|
| number = }}</ref></blockquote> |
|
|
<div class="references-small" {{#if: | style="-moz-column-width:{{{colwidth}}}; column-width:{{{colwidth}}};" | {{#if: | style="-moz-column-count:{{{1}}}; column-count:{{{1}}};" }} }}> |
|
|
{{#tag:references||group=}}</div> |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
:::There are multiple, verifiable sources that have reported this statement, '''none''' of which are ] and are specifically allowed in ]. Given multiple sources (including broadcast) and the direct coverage with a "political activities" section in the article, the comment is ] and should be included in the article. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 04:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
::::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. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)<br> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__FORCETOC__ |
|
::::Blaxthos, can you speak to how ] and ] affect the inclusion (or curtailment or exclusion) of this material? How do ''you'' view it? ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 22:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
Jclemens: Getting back to your questions of ] and ]... 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 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 ] 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 Misplaced Pages would be severely derelict if we didn't properly cover the issue thoroughly. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 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. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
::You're confusing her role in the ] with her role in the ]. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 02:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC) |
|
|
:See . From that website: ''McCain-Palin Victory 2008 is a joint fundraising committee by the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund '''', Republican National Committee, and Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and Pennsylvania Republican Parties.'' And note again "with the McCain campaign." No confusion here. -- ] <font color="Blue"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;"><sup>] </sup></span></font> 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." |
|
|
|
|
|
==Hometown== |
|
|
Associated Press (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i1kDc35TIy2-ITakDUW0fjjciQlQD96MP2UG0) says that she lives in Los Altos Hills, not Palo Alto. --] (]) 06:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Condé Nast == |
|
|
|
|
|
19th worst CEO ever, according to business magazine '']''. 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. -- ] (]) 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 for statements of fact" (both from ]). And then there's ], which has an entire section dismissing exactly that sort of source material. ]] 12:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
::Same list was worth a mention in the ] article. Also, as explained , they consulted a panel of experts to determine these ranks. So it's not a single writer's opinion. -- ] (]) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No ] please, in either direction. If it's already being used as a ] 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)... //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(←) I don't know about our "cherry picking" policy, but I do know that ], and the argument(s) above don't give the Condé Nast "list" a leg to stand on here. (To clarify, while ] is a deletion discussion "]," 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 ] doesn't advance your argument, it just highlights an issue with ''another'' article.) If I had the ] 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 ]. ]] 17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I made and make no other assertions beyond the point that one can't ] award a qualification of ] 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. //] <small>( ] / ] )</small> 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
:::The issue is that we cannot assume, especially when it comes to a ], 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 ] article. Moreover, the presentation in that article was factually inaccurate and ]. In any event, I've removed it over there and explained why on that talk page. ]] 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. ] 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). ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ]. Please take a look at that to get a better sense of how to address your concerns. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. ] (]) 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Condé Nast Rehash== |
|
|
|
|
|
''Copying from ]:'' |
|
|
|
|
|
The article was just semi-protected by ]. Unfortunately, ] decided to 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 ] 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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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 ]), 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Maybe you should look at ] 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." ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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 (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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. ] (]) 16:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please discuss the edits, not the people making them. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Removing content per ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
] I have removed material from {{#if:|]|this article}} that does not comply with our ]. Biographical material must always be referenced from ], ''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 ]. Please review ] before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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 ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
*"Is it important to the article, and has it been published by third-party reliable source''s''? If not, ''leave it out'', or ''stick to the facts''." (per ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
*"''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 ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
*"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 ]) |
|
|
|
|
|
'''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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. ] (]) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:It wasn't reliably sourced. It was a photo caption. Please see ] for the definition of ''why'' there's a higher standard for sourcing content for biographies of living people. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. ] (]) 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. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:The possible names of her siblings are mentioned ; no idea if he's related in some other way. ] ] 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. ] (]) 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 ] 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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Concerns with edit descriptions == |
|
:: 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). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am concerned that a specific editor reverts edits and does so without regarding the information provided. The language used to describe some edits is less than professional. If people are editing, they should conduct themselves as editors even if they are only editors on a voluntary basis. I wanted to note that it continues to happen and I hope other editors will be on the look-out.] (]) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
:: 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You're obviosly talking about my reverts and , with "fishing for eyeballs" as the edit summary. |
|
:: 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. ] (]) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:What makes you think I was reverting "without regarding the information provided"? I certainly looked at the information provided, and I found it lacking. |
|
|
:The language I used is flippant but not inaccurate. If you are asking for other editors to "be on the look-out" for slang words like "eyeballs" then you've stepped into a position of suppressing free expression, to achieve a ]. I don't intend to be restricted in that manner. ] (]) 18:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You can say what you would like, but it is indeed flippant and I maintain grossly inaccurate. We all have free expression, but we should act in a professional manner when approaching other people. There is still a such thing as being respectful. Saying things flippantly is not very flattering on a person. I disagree with your reasoning, but I chose to take this route instead of back and forth. Please see Misplaced Pages:Civility for conduct. ] (]) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC) |
|
:: The main point here is that all critical opinions have been expunged from this article (primarily by ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (])). In that case, supportive opinions must be expunged as well. NPOV requires a consistent standard within an article. ] (]) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not intend to be disrespected, and I will challenge disrespect and refer back to Misplaced Pages:Civility.] (]) 19:08, 14 January 2019 (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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Being flippant certainly does not fall in here. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."] (]) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (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. ] (]) 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:You're taking personally a flippant comment I made about Fiorina's attempt to stay in the public eye. Why? ] (]) 19:30, 14 January 2019 (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 ] if you need clarification on how that process is supposed to work. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020 == |
|
== Appearance in lists == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Carly Fiorina|answered=y}} |
|
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 ] in 2004.<ref>{{cite news |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|author=Sarah H. Wright |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|title=Four earn place in Time |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|date=2005-04-13 |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|publisher=MIT News Office |
|
|
|
|
|
- |
|
|
|url=http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/time100-0413.html |
|
|
|
|
|
}}</ref>), and one by Portfolio (the Conde Nast discussion, above). Clearly, if inclusion of any of these lists is a violation of ] then they all are, so we need to get consensus on whether or not they are appropriate. ] (]) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello! |
|
: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. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hope you and your family is all well. My suggestion is to make that she is a Democrat. She said she will vote for ] in 2020. ] (]) 20:38, 5 July 2020 (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. ] (]) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
:It was clear to me that this IP editor wanted to change Fiorina from Republican to Democrat, which is not supported by any references. Nobody is saying she is now a Democrat. So this request is definitely not going to happen. ] (]) 21:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2020 == |
|
:::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 ], and you've clearly shown you have no regard for ]. I'll wait for an administrator to deal with the situation and go from there. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Carly Fiorina|answered=y}} |
|
::::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. ] (]) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
Hello. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Currently she is a Democrat. She said she would vote for ]. https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/25/politics/carly-fiorina-joe-biden-trump/index.html] (]) 11:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
:::::I'll take that as a compliment. In all actuality, I don't have any "pet admin" at the moment. The last several I adopted weren't tame and I had to release them back into the wild. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> The source you provided reports that she intends to vote for Biden, but not that she is a Democrat. Democrats need not vote for Biden and people who vote for Biden need not be Democrats. ] (]) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove political positions section? == |
|
==Mess== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The "political positions" section is redundant with the one in her 2016 campaign page. I think that this section should be removed.--] (]) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
Between the dozen or so edits by ] 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 ] and ]. In the meantime, if anybody wants to beat me to it, you'd make my day. :) ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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. --] (]) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:I think removal is too much. Greatly pruning the section here is a good idea, though, leaving all the detail at a campaign page. We should tell the reader her positions on major issues, that she is anti-abortion, for instance. ] (]) 23:29, 17 November 2020 (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 ] state it's been free from for quite some time now. ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::OK. I will think about this some more.--] (]) 03:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
For the record: regarding the inclusion of the "Worst CEO" commentary in this page, ] (]), |
|
:::I read it over again and I changed my mind. I am going to leave it as is.--] (]) 04:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC) |
|
/] <small>( ] / ] )</small>, ] (]), and |
|
|
] (]) all argued that the information was well-sourced, easily verifiable, and directly relevant. Only ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]) 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 ''']''' <small>aka justen</small> (]). The prevailing opinion of most editors seems to be that this article had stopped being objective and become a biased publicity piece for Fiorina. ] (]) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
I am concerned that a specific editor reverts edits and does so without regarding the information provided. The language used to describe some edits is less than professional. If people are editing, they should conduct themselves as editors even if they are only editors on a voluntary basis. I wanted to note that it continues to happen and I hope other editors will be on the look-out.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
You can say what you would like, but it is indeed flippant and I maintain grossly inaccurate. We all have free expression, but we should act in a professional manner when approaching other people. There is still a such thing as being respectful. Saying things flippantly is not very flattering on a person. I disagree with your reasoning, but I chose to take this route instead of back and forth. Please see Misplaced Pages:Civility for conduct. SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Being flippant certainly does not fall in here. "Stated simply, editors should always treat each other with consideration and respect. They should focus on improving the encyclopedia while maintaining a pleasant editing environment by behaving politely, calmly and reasonably, even during heated debates."SeminarianJohn (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC) Misplaced Pages:Civility
The "political positions" section is redundant with the one in her 2016 campaign page. I think that this section should be removed.--Sa57arc (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Not done: The source you provided reports that she intends to vote for Biden, but not that she is a Democrat. Democrats need not vote for Biden and people who vote for Biden need not be Democrats. Rummskartoffel (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)