Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 13

Info in Lead
I've removed this recently added content from the lead. The reference to her severance has been discussed above and the consensus was against inclusion in the lead. In addition, I don't believe the lead to a BLP is an appropriate place for subjective commentary.CFredkin (talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fascinating. On one hand Fiorina is notable as a business woman, but her track record as reported by reliable sources can't be included in the lead? Fiorina has never held public office, and if we don't report on her accomplishments or lack thereof, what will the lead look like? Like a completely whitewashed lead. Great job! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you mind linking the discussion where consensus was reached to omit the severance information from the lead? I can't seem to find it.- MrX 18:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Like MrX, I didn't see any consensus one way or the other about Fiorina's severance package, but then the signal-to-noise ratio on this talkpage is pretty atrocious so I'll assume it's up there somewhere. I'm more bothered by the contention that "subjective commentary" must be excluded from the lead. That idea doesn't seem to have any basis in policy or practice. Many biographical leads summarize the (subjective) reception of the article subject by reliable sources. For instance, virtually every recent Presidential biography has, in its lead, a reference to that President's "ranking" among historians. Likewise, in this case, I don't see how one can dismiss the idea of providing in the lead a summary of Fiorina's business career, which is the centerpiece of her biography. The wording can be tweaked (although frankly, if you're being honest, I think you'd agree that "mixed to negative" is a very charitable summary of Fiorina's reception as HP CEO), but I'm not going to bother unless we can find common ground that some sort of summary of this sort belongs in the lead. MastCell Talk 18:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure. The severance discussion is here.  It looks like MrX agreed with removal there.CFredkin (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agreed that we should remove
 * You just removed
 * See the difference? Also, I still not seeing any consensus about anything in that discussion.- MrX 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The main difference I see is that they reference different severance amounts. Also, you weren't the only editor who objected to inclusion of the severance there.CFredkin (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See the difference? Also, I still not seeing any consensus about anything in that discussion.- MrX 18:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The main difference I see is that they reference different severance amounts. Also, you weren't the only editor who objected to inclusion of the severance there.CFredkin (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, since the subject of other articles has been raised here, I'll point out that subjective commentary on Hillary's record as Secretary of State doesn't appear in the lead to her bio. In fact it doesn't appear in her article.... period.  Here's an example from a reliable source:

CFredkin (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You can do whatever you like with Hillary Clinton's bio&mdash;ideally at Talk:Hillary Clinton&mdash;although I would encourage you to summarize a wide range of reliable sources, as I did here. I'm simply saying that we routinely include subjective assessments in the lead. They are not universal, but neither are they somehow outside the scope of policy or practice as you implied in your revert and comment. If that's the basis for your revert, then I don't think it's well-supported. MastCell Talk 18:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually I can't "do whatever I like" with Clinton's bio. That sort of information has been systematically blocked by the editors who maintain control there.  What you're advocating is different standards for Republican bios vs. Democrat bios.  I don't think that's reasonable.  Also, I'm not the only editor here who has pointed this out.CFredkin (talk) 18:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a problem with the editing environment at Hillary Clinton, then you need to address it there, not exploit it to block edits here. I'm discussing a specific change to this specific page&mdash;which is what this venue is for. If you have a genuine, policy-based concern, then please articulate it. If you're upset about the Hillary Clinton article, then take it elsewhere. You haven't actually addressed the substance of the edit at all; instead, you're arguing against it by invoking other articles as part of an ideological battlefield. MastCell Talk 19:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am of the same opinion that 3rd party commentary is not appropriate in the lede.Eeyoresdream (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm arguing that subjective commentary is not appropriate in the lead. The lead can (and in my opinion does) reflect the facts (as determined by Talk consensus) regarding Carly's record at HP. I believe you were the one who raised the issue of practice in other articles.CFredkin (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

To edit this article, one must understand policies and consensus of how those policies are generally interpreted. One does that, by seeing how those policies are applied at other articles. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Boy that is true about the Clinton bio. And as I read through this there is no question this article is written with a slant. The trouble with things in the lead is it often gets into a pissing contest of opposing subjective matter. X did this which worked fine in the long haul. X did this which sucked. Both sourcable. It's often better to simply say "X did this" and nothing else. Plop in the two sources and let readers filter through and decide for themselves. But we run on consensus here which works pretty well most of the time, but not so well on matters of the heart like current politics. That's just the way it is. Newsprint and tv info is the same way... if they report on a house fire they all sound the same. If they report on on a politician you can't help but wonder if they saw the same event. That's life and I don't think you'll change wikipedia any more than you could change MSNBC or FOX. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did exactly what you suggest: I described both positive and negative aspects of Fiorina's reception, appropriately weighted, so that readers could decide. But I think I have a good enough idea of what's going on here to know that I'm wasting my breath. For the record, though, subjective 3rd-party commentary clearly does appear in the lead of many political biographies, so simply repeating that it is "not appropriate" isn't much of an argument. My text did reflect facts: the fact that Fiorina's tenure has received mixed to negative reviews, the fact that she is often named among the "worst CEOs", the fact that mitigating factors are also cited. These facts are really no less subjective than, say, the list of reasons she was fired, or the number of layoffs attributed to her. But it's not really about that; I get it. It's about defending a conservative biography since you haven't been able to get negative material into a liberal biography. Happy election season. MastCell Talk 19:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * You say "you" but I haven't done that. I'm mostly just reading and observing the facts. I can see when there is a double standard, and I can point out that there is not a lot that can be done about it. The so-called facts of her firing are usually from the press. The internal mechanism and those who sat in the chairs have been foggy about it since it happened. We don't really know those "facts." There are plenty of hindsight opinions today that argue she wrecked the company and those that say HP would be gone if she hadn't been at the helm, though the cost was high. Every time I've been involved with or read about two companies merging, a mess of people lose their jobs in the overlap. It's what happens. If it happens when there is an economic downturn, and in this case a massive tech collapse, even more people lose their jobs. That's business. People who were in those jobs have a right to be upset. But reviews overall are unsure of her long-term impact on HP. That's not the feeling I get when reading this article. And it is certainly not written the same way as the Clinton article. As I said, that's life at wikipedia... and things are not always fair in life. I just deal with it. You are correct that subjective 3rd party commentary is put in the lead in biographies, not just political bios. There is nothing against it that I've seen at wikipedia. It is not used evenly in those bios mind you, but it is used regularly. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Serious Neutrality Issues
Hey all,

Yes, I am a rather new user, but really became tired of being anon and wanted to actually have some sort of credentials attached to what I do here on Wikipedia and in the future.

I was reading over Ms. Fiorina's article here and was mildly shocked to not see a black lock in the corner and even more shocked to see that this page was almost written as an attack page vs. other, more neutral sources that could be found around the web.

I am one to believe that *some* of the sources being pulled from USA Today and Fortune are more opinionated compared to some other sources used on this page.

The way the page is worded, especially around her business record at HP is not worded in a way that sounds... neutral. Also, taking a look at the talk page, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how this page should be worded and what should and should not be included.

I put a neutrality box at the top of the page and hopefully this can be resolved within the near-future.

And... yes, I do know Wikipedia's editors have a more progressive ideology, but surely this cannot override the goal of neutrality on all articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGiantDragon (talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Neutrality (you can click on the link) does not mean neutrality toward the subject but ensuring that the article is reflective of what is written in reliable sources. Can you point out how this article is more negative than say CNN coverage?  TFD (talk) 06:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Would you give some specific examples of what you regard as "serious neutrality issues" with explanations of how the content is not proportionally representative of the reliable sources. Also, what are the " more neutral sources that could be found around the web". Please provide links. Thanks. - MrX 14:02, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Education section
Re this removal of content in the "Education" section relating to the shift in Fiorina's views on education policy between 2010 and 2015: I've restored this content, for several reasons: (1) The material is well-sourced, to two different references; (2) the content is stated objectively and is directly supported by the source (it's a quote, in fact); (3) the content is straightforwardly factual and carry no value judgment (it does not use a contentious label, such as flip-flop); and (4) the material is a necessary transition sentence to the reader's understanding; it is jarring to the reader to read "Fiorina praised X" and then "Fiorina criticized X" without some clear bridge between the two. Neutralitytalk 22:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm editing to make it more concise and clearer.  I'm also paraphrasing the quote which should otherwise be attributed to BuzzFeed.  I do think the term "complete reversal" does carry a value judgment relative to "reversal".  Also a second source (Education Week) has already been provided, which doesn't characterize it as a "complete reversal".  Finally, I don't think praising programs for setting high standards while criticizing them for being heavy-handed and bureaucratic is completely contradictory.CFredkin (talk) 05:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks decent. Thanks. Hopefully additional sources will be available soon as well. Neutralitytalk 02:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Did Mrs. Fiorina lay off 30,000 people during her 5½ years at HP, or did she lay off 30,000 people as a result of HP's merger with Compaq?
This edit in which I removed "during the merger" has been challenged by. I've looked at each of the sources from my list of eight, and only PolitiFact (Tampa Bay Times), states that Fiorina laid of 30,000 employees as a result of the merger. This is what they say: "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek.". (emphasis added) Most sources seem to say that Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP.
 * Boston Globe: "As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina oversaw 30,000 job cuts from 1999 to 2005,..."
 * Washington Post: "As the first woman to head a Fortune 50 company, she led HP through a controversial merger with Compaq as a recession hit Silicon Valley, ''then' oversaw pay cuts and laid off nearly 30,000 people." (emphasis added)
 * The Guardian: "In her five-and-a-half years in the top job, the company’s stock price almost halved and she fired 30,000 US workers."
 * CNBC: "Responses, that is, to the questions of what happened during her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, where she was forced out in 2005 after overseeing 30,000 layoffs during her six-year reign."
 * New York Times: "She is already being pressed about the 30,000 layoffs at HP under her watch."
 * International Business Times: "Over the course of her tenure, Fiorina axed about 30,000 jobs. In January 2005, HP’s board gave the GOP hopeful her walking papers."
 * San Jose Mercury News: "Yet she presided over the layoffs of 30,000 HP employees, and she was fired by the board of directors in 2005 as the company's stock plummeted."

I would also note that, even in large companies, mergers don't take five-and-a-half years to happen.- MrX 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the Politifact claim, given it is a minority viewpoint. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 15,000 jobs were axed due to the merger. The rest were fired later during her tenure.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, if the layoffs during her tenure at HP occurred in conjunction with the merger, then Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP. There's nothing inconsistent about any of these sources. Please read over the section in this Wikipedia article on layoffs and look at the cited sources. No source whatsoever seems to be claiming that there were substantial layoffs in the years following the merger. You people seem to be inventing the notion (inadvertently or not) that Politifact is making a minority claim, out of thin air.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Seriously? I suggest you learn more about the subject, because it seems you have no idea. See for example where it is clearly laid out. And by the way,  five months after Fiorina was fired, HP cut an additional 15,200 jobs. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Anythingyouwant: Please point out the sources that support your assertion, as I did above.- MrX 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The layoffs did follow the merger and it seems unlikely she would have laid off 30,000 employees if the merger had not occurred (given HP's size prior to the merger).CFredkin (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Original research is against our content policies.- MrX 15:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

MrX, the sources I am relying upon are those that were cited until today in the pertinent section of the Wikipedia article. All of the sources that you cite are consistent with here having fired 30,000 people in the span of one minute:

Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Boston Globe: "As CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Fiorina oversaw 30,000 job cuts from 1999 to 2005,..." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * Washington Post: "As the first woman to head a Fortune 50 company, she led HP through a controversial merger with Compaq as a recession hit Silicon Valley, ''then' oversaw pay cuts and laid off nearly 30,000 people." (emphasis added) NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * The Guardian: "In her five-and-a-half years in the top job, the company’s stock price almost halved and she fired 30,000 US workers." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * CNBC: "Responses, that is, to the questions of what happened during her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard, where she was forced out in 2005 after overseeing 30,000 layoffs during her six-year reign." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * New York Times: "She is already being pressed about the 30,000 layoffs at HP under her watch." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * International Business Times: "Over the course of her tenure, Fiorina axed about 30,000 jobs. In January 2005, HP’s board gave the GOP hopeful her walking papers." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * San Jose Mercury News: "Yet she presided over the layoffs of 30,000 HP employees, and she was fired by the board of directors in 2005 as the company's stock plummeted." NO HINT ABOUT WHEN DURING THOSE YEARS THE CUTS OCCURRED
 * So let me make sure I understand: You want to tell readers that she laid off 30,000 workers due to the merger with Compaq, because sources don't give specific dates for the layoffs? I am at loss for words.- MrX 15:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking to see if you misunderstand. You do.  According to the link I provided to you in my comment at 15:19, Politifact has said that "those 30,000 layoffs were 'as a result of the merger with Compaq....'"  Likewise, according to CNN Money, all of the layoffs seem to be clustered around the merger: 7500 in 2001, 8600 in 2002, and 9,000 in 2003.  All I am saying is that the sources you cited above say absolutely nothing about when, during her tenure, the layoffs occurred.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Dates are provided here: -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (if anyone is interested in an excellent analysis of the Compaq merger, read this ) -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It obviously doesn't support the claim that she laid off 30,000 people because of the merger with Compaq.- MrX 11:40 am, Today (UTC−4)
 * absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This source does not mention the layoffs at all. Therefore it does not contradict the sources that do. Likewise, the sources listed above do not contradict the sources that do put the layoffs at the feet of the merger. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It would be a little strange if we used a tiny minority of sources to add information to the lead that is plainly omitted by the large majority of other sources. The notion that 30,000 people were laid-off because of the Compaq merger is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint, at best.- MrX 16:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * cnn money "she oversaw the disastrous 2002 Compaq merger, leading to some 30,000 layoffs at Hewlett-Packard"
 * contemporary reports (by fiorina in 2002)- "HP continues to believe cutting 15,000 positions is the “appropriate” reduction needed following its acquisition of Compaq Computer Corp., Fiorina said."
 * contemporary reports premerger  "HP and Compaq previously disclosed that 15,000 jobs will be eliminated."
 * boston globe (quoting fiorina) "Fiorina, in an interview with the Globe, said that layoffs were needed to keep the company competitive and reduce redundancies after a merger with Compaq"

yeah, that seems totally fringe to me. About as fringe as the weather report this morning saying the sun rises in the east. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Could someone explain to me why it matters whether she fired 30,000 people immediately after her merger, or over 5.5 years? I mean, you guys are fighting hard over it, so clearly it matters to you, but I don't understand why it's worth spending a lot of time parsing out. MastCell Talk 16:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to see us be as accurate as possible. There's a difference between RIFing people as a result of a merger and RIFing some people because of the merger, and some people for other business reasons, at other times. It matters.- MrX 16:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gaijin42: 15,000 is not 30,000. Let's not move the goalposts.- MrX 16:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The numbers changed once the rubber hit the road. oh. my. how. ever. could. that. be. explained. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For me its more of a microcosm of the trend of smash all negative things into conservatives leads, bury all negatives elsewhere for liberals (if included all). It should be included, but it should be included in context and slipping it into the lead without that context is a BLP issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, but how is it more negative to say that she laid off 30,000 people as a result of a disastrous merger that she championed, rather than saying that she laid off 30,000 people during her 5.5-year tenure? To me, they seem to have equivalently negative valence. MastCell Talk 16:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a significant difference. Several sources say that by the end of her tenure she had also hired tens of thousand of people.  See, for example, Goldman, David. "Behind Carly Fiorina's 30,000 HP layoffs", CNN Money (September 21, 2015): "She has also noted -- correctly -- that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired."  If we (falsely) say that she was busy firing people for her whole tenure, then that sets up a contradiction with the sources that say the firing was for a limited time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, we're not trying to make it sound more negative. Like most things in real life, it's complex. There were several layoffs at various times, there was voluntary furloughing, and there were various reasons for the layoffs, the largest of which was the Compaq merger. Obviously we can't include all that detail in the lead, so it would seem to make the most sense to follow what the majority of our sources say which is that 30,000 people were laid-off during Fiorina's tenure. Is there any reason why we should favor the wording given by a minority of sources?- MrX 16:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are conflating what a minority of sources say, with a minority position. No sources contradict that she ultimately hired more people than she fired.  Yes, most sources do not say that, but they do not say the opposite either.  If we take your position to its logical conclusion, each and every source at Wikipedia should be discarded, because its contents are only contained in a minority of the sources that Wikipedia uses.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not discussing whether she hired more people than she fired. That's a subject of an RfC up there ↑ . This section is for determining if Mrs. Fiorina laid-off 30,000 people during her 5½ years at HP, or did she lay off 30,000 people as a result of HP's merger with Compaq.- MrX 17:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing whatsoever contradictory about those two statements. They are both true: she laid-off 30,000 people during her 5½ years at HP, and laid off 30,000 people as a result of HP's merger with Compaq.  The main difference between those two statements is that the former is less specific, and is also misleading because it suggests that she did not hire more people than she fired.  Got it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

those two statements don't contradict each other. Dell acquired my company 3 years ago. My entire team was laid off last month directly because of the acquisition and redundancy created. in giant companies getting everything transitioned in order to be able to do the layoffs generally takes quite a bit of time. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However, I would say that the 5.5 years thing while completely true is also misleading/ambiguous. If all of the layoffs had happened on one day (her first, or her last), or had been spread out evenly on each and every day during those 5 years is covered by that same statement. I believe it is not the case that they were signfiicantly spread out, and were in fact clustered after the merger, so the loss of precision is an issue. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that the two statements are contradictory. I'm saying that most of our sources don't attribute the layoffs to the Compaq merger. I worked in senior management for a company of comparable size to HP (in fact, HP was a customer of my employer). I do understand how layoffs work, having laid-off people myself and having been laid-off. In my experience, it takes months of planning and a lot of meetings with HR. - MrX 17:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We should remove that Politifact quote, as it is the outlier. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"However", per BLP
There have been some deletions from the Abortion section since this version, and a dispute over the inclusion of the word "however" has occurred in the editing (not on this page):


 * "However, according to the website..."


 * vs


 * "According to the website..."

The second is totally neutral, but lacks the context provided by the first. A sin of omission is still wrong.

In that edit, I restored the word "however" by undoing the deletion by User:Professor JR, with this edit summary: "Not editorializing, but a transition term required in good English writing. The statement is a rebuttal response to Fiorina's statement." When the sources justify such terms, we are allowed to use them, and in fact are required to use them. That's not "editorializing". When one statement is a direct rebuttal or clarification to a previous comment, such a word is needed. Leaving it out is just shoddy and inaccurate writing.

NOTE, my use of the word "rebuttal" in my edit summary isn't entirely the right word to use. What follows is a clarification-rebuttal, because it clarifies that what she actually saw is not what she thought it was. She described what she was misled to believe. What she describes is not in the original video, but only in the doctored video she saw. It is not our job to improperly defend Fiorina, but it is a defense, because it places the blame on CMP, not on her. They doctored the videos and she was duped by their doctored editing and bears no blame for that, other than her exaggerating. Bottom line: She actually did "see" what she claims she saw. She's not lying.

Professor Jr later removed it again. He just doesn't understand.

I'm restoring that "however". Per BRD and BLP, please discuss here until we get a consensus to change it. Doing otherwise is edit warring. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:EDITORIAL, "however" implies a relationship between the two statements where there really is none, as Fiorina never claimed that the video was filmed at a Parenthood clinic. Also, you can't just make a change and order others not to undo it; that's not how it works. People are free to revert an edit if they fill it's wrong, edit warring it out multiple times without discussion is bad, but that's not what is happening. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you this is a BLP issue. This is the first discussion, and per BRD your edit was indeed the first shot in an edit war. Even though BRD is not policy, it is widely accepted as a method to prevent edit wars, and admins use it to determine who started the edit war, and thus whom to block first. Think about it.
 * Now discuss, rather than edit warring. I'm restoring the status quo version until we figure this out. If a consensus determines that she should be left looking more guilty than she is, so be it. This is a BLP matter, so be very careful with hitting that deletion button. We can discuss this until a consensus appears. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The last part of that section from PolitiFact makes it clear. Maybe we should put that statement immediately after Fiorina's statement. Would such rearrangement be a better solution? -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree that leaving out the "however" in the paragraph makes her "look more guilty than she is". It's only presenting an analysis by PolitiFact of the controversy surrounding the aborted fetus video. We can't put it immediately after, because that would make the paragraph too long, which is why it's split into two paragraphs currently. We should just leave the "however" out, as it's clear that she saw the edited video, but never claimed it was filmed at a Planned Parenthood clinic. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that this would not be an issue, and would not have been commented on by so many RS, if she had not bought the implication by CMP that the video did show an actual event at a PP clinic: "Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." There isn't."

The natural flow of events, with RS explanation, goes something like this:


 * 1) Fiorina made an attack on PP during the GOP debate.
 * 2) She made a claim about graphic images based on what she saw in an edited video. (She DID see it! That's true) Only the edited video has that content.
 * 3) The press reacted strongly, with many accusing her of lying, making up the claim, and that the content on the edited video was not from PP, or that no such content is found on the unedited video. (A version of this last sentence about the press's reactions needs to be included, with some examples. This may provide the needed context and solve our little problem here. It's a missing link in our coverage.)
 * 4) This is where the "however" comes into the picture.
 * 5) "However" she had seen a doctored version with content which did not come from PP.
 * 6) That explains why she mistakenly implied that the graphic images were from PP, when they were actually stock footage. She was obviously deceived by CMP's creative editing.
 * 7) She "appears to have exaggerated their contents."

Does that sound about right? AFAIK, it's factual, and our content should document this. In this connection, if we do it right, we might be able to drop the "however", or keep it, as it will be more obvious why it's needed. It all depends. We must not add our own editorializing which implies something not found in RS, or perform synthesis which creates an impression not found in RS. Right now we have a gap in our coverage. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood - and following the sources
This was already discussed above, although the conversation got sidetracked: Under the "Abortion" section SuperCarnivore591 removed the sentence (directly after "Fiorina supports eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood") that says which says "The use of federal funds for abortions is mostly banned under current law." SC591 wrote that this text is "unnecessary" and that "Fiorina supports defunding, that's all the reader needs to know."

That's not a policy-based reason to delete this well-sourced material. Wikipedia doesn't just include the "necessary" (bare minimum) content - it includes content referred to by the (reliable, third-party) sources to lend a full understanding.

There is a very important policy-based reasons why we need to keep the text, which are:


 * The original source - Sarah McCammon, Feeling Momentum, Carly Fiorina Visits The Iowa State Fair, NPR (August 18, 2015) - includes the information (and does so directly after giving the "defunding" view), specifically saying: "On domestic issues, Fiorina lined up with other GOP candidates who have opposed federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The organization receives public funds to provide health screenings for low-income women. The use of federal funding for abortions is mostly banned." We have to follow the source.
 * If we omit this text, then the reader will be misled. Consider that all this text is under the "abortion" section. If we omit the second sentence, that the clear implication to the less-informed reader is that "Planned Parenthood uses federal funds for abortions"&mdash;which is not true. (If the defunding question was under "health care" - which there is an argument for - this would be less of a problem, but that's not how we've contextualized it). Presumably, this is the very reason why NPR included the text it did: to avoid misleading the reader. We should follow suit.

--Neutralitytalk 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * One word: fungibility. While the money Planned Parenthood receives doesn't directly go towards its abortion procedures, Planned Parenthood still performs abortions, and since money is fungible, with the taxpayer-funded government money that Planned Parenthood receives, they can use its other funds to finance abortion. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:40, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, that's a common argument, and the Hyde Amendment article should reflect the debate over it (X argues this, Y responds that, etc.). But that's no argument for ignoring the NPR source and its recognition of the Hyde Amendment here on this page. We need not attribute a particular degree of significance to the fact, but we have to mention it, as NPR does. Neutralitytalk 01:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Neutrality. I have added another source which connects these two factors in the same source. The latest source does it in the same sentence(!), writing "even though none...." It can't get clearer than that, and that content is now fixed. I deleted the Hyde Amendment mention since it's not in any of the sources used there, unless I didn't notice it. It would be nice to restore it, if a source can be found which connects Fiorina, abortion, and Federal funding.
 * BTW, SuperCarnivore591's argument is a common conservative argument, but it's not a policy-based argument against including what RS say. To use that argument as a reason for not including it is OR, POV-motivated editorial censorship, a huge NPOV violation. Now our sources justify its inclusion even more than before. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank for your edit - looks good. Neutralitytalk 04:31, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperCarnivore591, I'm not sure what you think you're doing with this edit, but you may have done more than you intended. You removed properly sourced information (that's known as vandalism), including an exact quote, which you called "undo". Well, it's not "undue". It's the exact quote which ties the first and last parts of ONE sentence together, and it was in quotes to make sure it was clear that it was from the RS. When you see that kind of thing, you should know better than to touch it without discussion.

The inclusion of that information prevents readers from being misled into believing that PP uses federal funds for abortions. It doesn't, and two RS we use there note that fact, and so should we. We want to get this right, not tell a POV one-sided story.

Your addition of other information about "largest provider" could have been done without deletion of properly sourced content, but, as noted by Cwobeel, it's unnecessary anyway (the wikilink works fine), so don't edit war. (Also your ref wasn't even placed next to the content it supports.) If you still feel the content is improper, then continue this discussion and convince us.

I'm going to restore the proper version:


 * Fiorina supports shutting down the government to defund Planned Parenthood, "even though none of the organization's federal funding pays for abortion."

BullRangifer (talk) 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The quote you presented is WP:UNDUE, especially with the use of the words "even though", which is why I removed it. She supports eliminating government funding for Planned Parenthood, which is the nation's largest abortion provider, which is in the new text I had. There is proper context on why she supports removing the funding, and my revert does not constitute "vandalism" either. The reason I removed the other content is that even though it was sourced, it was unnecessary. I'm well aware of what vandalism is, and what I did did not constitute vandalism, and it wasn't a mistake, I intentionally removed the unnecessary info. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 04:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your arguments are not policy-based. You're misusing UNDUE. Neither Neutrality, Cwobeel, nor I agree with your reasoning. The inclusion of "even though" (part of a longer quote) shows the connection between the first and last parts of the sentence, without engaging in SYNTH or OR. This is all proper. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * SuperCarnivore591, editing while discussing can still be edit warring, and that is clearly the case now. You KNEW we were discussing and that there was a difference of opinion, yet you dared to edit war. That's not collaborative editing. Please self-revert until we have a consensus. Right now it's against your position. -- BullRangifer (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Bio fact check
New research about Fiorina's career that includes data not currently covered in the article. We ought to mine that article to improve the bio.

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That would be the Washington Post blog where they give Pinocchio heads for perceived errors by candidates. The trouble is there are other blogs that give differing opinions on candidate truthfulness. I'm also wondering, is this a blog that you endorse for wiki wholeheartedly? I ask because in the Washington Post blog totals they have articles with 11 Pinocchios for Carly Fiorina but they also have articles with 12 Pinocchios for Hillary Clinton and 14 Pinocchios for Bernie Sanders. We all know that statements by all politicians (and lawyers) are as slippery as a greased pig, but are you making sure and pushing for the Sanders and Clinton articles to include the same exact negatives from the Washington Post Blogs or is this viable only for the Republican candidates and specifically the Fiorina article? Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about "errors". The article contains biographical information currently not presented in the article, so I am arguing for mining the article and use to to improve the biographical aspects. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No objection in principle, but as its BLP content that is not the "thrust" of the article, we would probably need to evaluate on a case by case basis if the source is sufficiently reliable for that element. Do you have any specific mined items you were thinking of? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New content in the lead: hiring tens of thousands of people
As stated in my edit summary in this edit, I dispute that we should add "... while hiring tens of thousands of people..." to the lead. It's content not already in the body of the article, it appears to be original research, and it's vague. I would want to see at least three reputable sources that say "hiring (or hired) tens of thousands of people" before even considering it. - MrX 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You previously agreed that she fired 30,000 people while hiring more than she fired --- but now you disagree that she hired tens of thousands. What more can I say?  Amazing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I "agreed"past tense. However, has since raised concerns about the accuracy of CNN's claim that HP hired more than it fired during Fiorina's tenure. It should be a simple matter of looking at some sources and determining what most of them say. I object to cherry picking one source (especially CNN), to inappropriately promote Fiorina. - MrX 14:10, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And what sources did Cwobeel rely upon, User:MrX? He relied upon sources that say HP had more employees when she resigned than the total combined employees of HP and Compaq when she started.  And Cwobeel points out that during that time HP also acquired 8,000 employees through acquiring other companies.  So, is it your wish to disregard both CNN as well as the LA Times, WaPo, et cetera that Cwobeel thinks discredit CNN?  In other words, you want to ignore the common ground of all these sources?  An adynaton makes better sense.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * while hiring tens of thousands of people and hiring more than firing have been proven to be not only false, but extraordinarily misleading. Acquiring companies such as Compaq and an bunch of others brings in their employees, but that is not "hiring". No matter how you look at it, your assessment is completely off. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly have implored us to do the math, Cwobeel. She fired 30,000.  She ended up with more employees than the initial number at HP and Compaq combined.  That would imply she hired more than 30,000.  Except for the 8,000 employees gained from other acquisitions.  So mustn't she have hired around 22,000?  If doing this math is unacceptable to you, then you have no argument against CNN, which says she hired more than she fired.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We have litigate the math already in a thread above. See comments from Gaijin and my responses. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The only accurate conclusion is one that HP ended up having more or less the same number of employees post merger and when Fiorina was fired.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:30, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you said above "30k were laid off, but 23k were hired afterwards, so why are we saying in the lede that under Fiorina HP hired more than fired?" In what far-off universe is 23k not tens of thousands???Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG, are you serious? If you fire 30,000 and then hire 23,000, how can you say that you hired more than fired? (confused). -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:35, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I proposed the following language: "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring tens of thousands of people as well, including employees outside the United States." This is supported both by CNN as well as all the other sources that you say contradict CNN.  And yet you and User:MrX reject this proposal.  I'll say it again: amazing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It reads like a campaign talking point attempting to diminish the havoc Fiorina brought to HP US employees. Sorry man, that text does not work for me at all. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  14:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You have just unilaterally changed the lead to say this: "During Fiorina's five-and-a-half years tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, but the total number of employees globally did not substantially change." You removed a POV tag atop the article that you yourself insisted should not be removed until there is consensus at this talk page.  There is no consensus here.  I emphatically disagree with your edit, which is extremely misleading, and others have also disagreed with your misleading approach.  The number of HP employees changed drastically during her tenure due to acquisitions and hires.  I have already said this before.  Moreover, your revised lead gives readers no clue that she hired tens of thousands of people, which you've already acknowledged she did in fact do, according to CNN, WaPo, the LA Times, et cetera.
 * I am going outside now to paint a fence, and then have lots of other things to do today. I urge you to think about WP:NPOV.  This article is not the place to wage a political campaign against the BLP subject.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what CNN Money said:

Almost all of the other sources say that she laid off 30,000 people. Some mention that the headcound remained roughly the same, or increased slightly, but I still have not seen a source that says she actually hired x people during her tenure. Best case: The CNN Money article is an example of sloppy journalism.- MrX 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with MrX and Cwobeel.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * CNN is not only the most recent of the sources cited by MrX---it's also the most detailed. CNN says 1300 laid off in 2000, 7500 in 2001, 8600 in 2002, and 9000 in 2003.  That amount of detail doesn't seem sloppy to me.  Add up those numbers, round off to the nearest 10,000 and see what you get.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Compromise Proposal: "By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001."CFredkin (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Omitting the only significant piece of information covered in dozens of sourcesthat she laid off 30,000 employees and shipped their jobs to China and Indiais not a compromise. - MrX 16:09, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not addressing the layoff issue itself. Here's a revised proposal that does so:

"During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees. By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of other companies acquired by HP since 2001."CFredkin (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To me, the core, central point of almost all sources on the subject is that Fiorina has used the numbers in a misleading fashion. Virtually all the sources we're citing agree on this, yet people keep skipping past it to just cite the numbers themselves.  That's WP:UNDUE in the sense that we're highlighting one part of these sources without giving due weight to their overarching conclusion and tone.  What the source should say, therefore, is something like "Fiorina has said XYZ about her job numbers, but numerous sources have called this into question, highlighting the 30,000 employees laid off..." etc, etc, etc.  We shouldn't just pull out numbers without context -- we should rely on the overarching tone of coverage, which makes it clear that the issue isn't just that she laid people off but that she has been trying to massage the numbers to avoid dealing with this fact.  --Aquillion (talk) 17:18, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * "Fiorina herself cited the 30,000-layoff figure in an interview with InformationWeek"Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would support as a sensible compromise, and move on. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  17:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't support this at all. The facts are that more people were hired than fired, as is stated in the source, CNN, a reliable source, and no amount of original research will change this. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that the criticisms of the CNN source are not well-founded, and I support use of the CNN source in the "Layoffs section". Until consensus forms to also use CNN's "more people were hired than fired" in the lead, I agree with CFredkin's compromise.  Using this CNN material in the lead would be preferable because it is simple, straightforward, brief, relevant, and reliable.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe this should not be in the lead, but if it must be there, I can go with CFredkin's Gaijin42 (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

New reporting
-  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ironically, considering the abortion discussion elsehwere about being fungible the actual source for this story says "Ms. Forbes and her colleagues were careful to say their findings did not indicate that any companies violated the law barring use of the money for share repurchases and dividends. “Rather,” they said, the results “reflect the fact that cash is fungible and that a tax policy which reduces the cost of accessing a particular type of capital will have difficulty affecting how that capital is used.”"Gaijin42 (talk) 15:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Which of these two pics is better at top?
These are both from September 2015. I personally think Image A is better, because it's more realistic (less makeup). Also, the attire in Image B seems inferior for a top portrait (e.g. short sleeves). Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * B - It looks more like the candidate, has more accurate skin tones, and has better lighting. Image A kind of looks like Mrs. Fiorina was sucking on a lemon.- MrX 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Remedial course in lemon-sucking appearance. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:47, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * B – It has better quality, better light, so we should use it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * B. Nice shot. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is the copyright status of B?VictoriaGraysonTalk 23:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * B No policy based arguments, but I think its just a better shot. it was taken by GageSkidmore who does lots of CC released politics shots, so its copyright status is good. Gaijin42 (talk) 14:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Smiling politicians? I'd prefer photos with a neutral disposition. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The photo that has been there for months is preferable for the infobox. The one that has replaced it is better suited for being in the article, although, we really don't need too many more in the article, in my opinion.  The previous photo was a closeup of her face, had more of a neutral facial expression, showed her eyes, etc.  I will be replacing it as this discussion is still occurring and a consensus hasn't been reached as to whether either of the photos discussed here are appropriate/preferred.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  15:33, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I brightened up Image A but was reverted. So, I have asked the Wikipedia Graphics Lab if they can do a better job than I did.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:47, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Was there ever a consensus on replacing the photo that was there previously? If so, I don't see it on this talk page. Was there something wrong with the photo that was there? There was consensus for it before it was removed. Therefore, I am going to replace it once again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, the above discussion seems to be a fairly strong consensus for B. 16:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly.- MrX 16:09, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There's a consensus for B over A, but not for B over anything else.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there was previous consensus for the photo that was there for a few months. Like I also said, where was the discussion for replacing the photo that was there for a few months?  The right thing to do would be to ping all editors who were in on the prior consensus.  As it is, the two photos being discussed here are not superior over the previous photo for several reasons.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The people involved with the article now clearly think that image B is the more appropriate image. It's no more complicated than that. - MrX 16:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * With just the two new photos introduced? Sorry, but in all fairness - and because there was prior consensus on a photo not presented with the other two - the previous photo should be part of the discussion.  Especially since the photo previously agreed on was done as consensus.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  16:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with WV.VictoriaGraysonTalk 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI for all who have commented here (,, , , , , : I have started an RfC below regarding the infobox photo and added the previous, consensus photo that was removed without discussion or new consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Fiorina referenced a CMP edited video at the GOP debate, with Grantham content
It seems the video may have been created by her SuperPAC after the Sept. 16 debate. TFD (talk) 19:03, September 27, 2015‎ (UTC)


 * Yes, I've seen that, but it's a conspiracy theory that's contradicted by CMP, the actual creators of both the full and edited versions of the secretly filmed videos. They state that the portion in question was stock footage obtained from the Grantham Collection. Mother Jones is among the many sources which which get it wrong. Many incorrectly accuse Fiorina of totally lying, and that the content doesn't exist at all. That's not true. The content does exist, because it was inserted into the edited version which Fiorina saw. It does not exist in the full video. We have access to more RS and can get it right here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Mother Jones article also says the footage already existed and was obtained from the Grantham Collection. How do we know that Fiorina saw an edited version of the CMP video?  Is there any evidence CMP created the edited version or that it was created before Sept. 16?  Do you have a source that CMP claims to have created the edited version?  TFD (talk) 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

TFD, we are not talking about the video made by her SuperPAC after the debate, although it apparently also contains that Grantham content. Fiorina's claim was about a video released by CMP before the debate. (I also edit the article which documents this stuff: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. You may wish to read it.)

The unedited video from CMP does not contain that content. No one has found it there. By CMP's own admission, it's on the edited version released at the same time, and seen by Fiorina and thousands of others. It's on CMP's website and on CMP's YouTube channel, and is linked in this PolitiFact secondary source we use in the article I just linked above:


 * "Fiorina is likely talking about this 10-minute Aug. 19 video. (Warning: The video contains extremely gruesome footage.) The video shows an interview with a woman talking about a scene similar to the one Fiorina describes; the video’s creators have matched her interview with grisly stock footage of a fetus outside the womb."

CMP admits they added content from Grantham:


 * "To dramatize O’Donnell’s interview, the video cuts to a fetus outside the womb, placed on what appears to be some sort of examination surface, and the fetus’ legs are moving. The Center for Medical Progress says the source of the footage is the Grantham Collection, an organization that hopes to stem abortion by promoting graphic images of the procedure."

That content has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, but Fiorina is one of many politicians and others who have seen the edited video who get the impression that it is footage from a Planned Parenthood clinic. That was CMP's intention. In their book, the ends justify the means.

PolitiFact cuts through the crap and states:


 * "Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." There isn't."

So, CMP's deception fooled Fiorina, she then ran with that story in a strong and exaggerated claim at the GOP debate, and was later chastised for it by the press, and much of that criticism is wrong. She actually did see that content.

BTW, I have added a heading above for this special discussion. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Slate's Dahlia Lithwick has more on this. It's clear that even if we assume good faith about Ms. Fiorina's misstatements during the GOP debate, her own Super-PAC edited the already doctored videos so that Ms. Fiorina could double down on her Planned Parenthood allegations in subsequent interviews. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 10:14, 29 September 2015 (UTC)