Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 16

Health Care for Dependents
This edit has been restored twice despite the fact that the source doesn't mention Fiorina and doesn't even support the inserted content. Since when do we include content in BLP's from sources that don't even mention the subject of the bio? And adding content that's not supported by the source provided is absolutely against policy.CFredkin (talk) 03:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This has since been changed with an in-line reference and a link to the specific section of the ACA page. More broadly, however, I don't see anything wrong with using a source to write a short sentence explaining something that the object of the page (Fiorina) discusses. (i.e. we say that there is scientific consensus that global warming exists when someone says something about global warming) TheMagicMarker (talk) 05:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And the information was supported by the source... TheMagicMarker (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no we don't. If it's a global warming article sure you talk about it. If a candidate believes or does not believe in anthropogenic global warming, or they believe in something in-between, you state that fact. Then you add a ref for the way they believe. You link the term "global warming" so that readers who don't know about it can find out for themselves. You may reference it also. You don't start explaining global warming using your own words on that candidate's article. That's not what we do here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In this very article we inserted the phrase "scientific consensus." If that doesn't explain the issue than I don't know what does?
 * User:TheMagicMarker If that's the case, please paste the supporting content from the source here. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 05:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's what you added:CFredkin (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"The provision is intended to increase the options of young adults and protect them against the high cost of medical bills after serious accidents or illness."

How does any of the content below support this statement?CFredkin (talk) 05:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because I lifted only pertinent information, which is why I offered to directly quote if you felt that I had done so poorly.
 * Also, this is a moot point seeing as that sentence is no longer in the article.
 * In their quest to land a job, any job, many young adults will sacrifice what used to be called "fringe benefits" to gain a foot in the door. But many entry-level jobs either offer no health care benefits, or the employee's cost share is prohibitive for someone barely making minimum wage. Add to the equation that most twenty-somethings are in good health and rarely visit the doctor and it's easy to see why many will forego health insurance in favor of paying other bills.

But that's a dangerous choice. One serious accident or illness can rack up tens of thousands of dollars in bills. In fact, more than half of all personal bankruptcies result from unpaid medical bills. Plus, there's a tax penalty for going uninsured.

Fortunately, since the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), young adults now have more health insurance options than before. In addition to buying coverage through their employer (if offered), people under age 26 may also choose to enroll in their parent's plan, even if they're married or no longer a dependent, or to buy an individual plan through the health insurance marketplace.

If you're currently without coverage or want to explore better options, this is the perfect time to start researching what's available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker (talk • contribs) 05:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But there's also a flipside. My coverage doubled in cost and I get about 2/3 of what I did in the past. For me and my friends it is a nightmare. For others like all my musician friends, it's been great. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

User:TheMagicMarker There's no indication in the content you posted above regarding the intention in creating the provision. Please read WP:OR; original research is not allowed here.CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What I put in the article (which I am not trying to restore, I like it how it is now) was a logical corollary to the information in the source. I could also have just quoted directly and left the reader to make the inference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Your logical corollary is original research. I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt because you appear to be a new editor.  But if you continue to ignore policy, you won't be given the benefit of the doubt in the future.CFredkin (talk) 19:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am indeed new-ish here. (I've edited several articles on Switzerland but never with an account or engaging in discussion.) To what extent can we summarize pertinent information from a source while formatting it to flow with existing text in the article? Where do we draw the line at OR, because there is definitely a lack of clarity on that. TheMagicMarker (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't use an article which states that ACA provides some benefits to make a claim regarding the intentions of a specific provision, especially when the benefits mentioned in the source don't match the intentions stated.CFredkin (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you not agree that it is a perfectly reasonable inference given that the author of the article writes about the specific benefits of the provision and provides before-and-after information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMagicMarker (talk • contribs) 20:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * An inference is original research. I'm done arguing on this subject.CFredkin (talk) 20:12, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, as I'm said I'm not trying to re-add it. I'll post on talk the next time I make an inference from a source. TheMagicMarker (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Failed Compaq merger
Per the sources, it is pretty clear that the majority of sources consider the Compaq merger a failure, and they also source directly the fact that most observers consider the merger a failure. It nearly sank the company, cost tens of billions of dollars and half its stock value, created an upheaval in corporate culture and morale, and when all is said and done even if it succeeded in a technical tactical sense in leaving the company as the undisputed leader in PC sales (which is what most of the sources claiming success seem to say), it was a strategic blunder because the field of computer hardware sales was rapidly disappearing, and the company sold off the entire division a decade later. It is considered a case study in how not to do corporate mergers. That the merger is described as a success, sourced mainly to a several-sentence description of the Fiorina underling at HP who supervised it, is a neutrality problem and just plain wrong. I added a section to try to correct this, sourced among others to the New York Times, Fortune, and the Economist, but that was quickly reverted per BRD.. Accordingly, I am presenting it here. Can anyone justify why we are quoting an involved party rather than the weight of the sources on this? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Carly's Big Bet is Failing", "This was a big bet that didn’t pay off", "a huge failure", "a lemon" (Fortune, 2005 and 2011).
 * a "disaster", "has long been considered one of the worst mergers in the history" (Silicon Valley Business Journal, 2012).
 * "horrid performance" of merged companies (The Economist, 2005).
 * "considered one of the more questionable deals of the time" (New York Times, 2011).


 * It's original research to make the claim that "the majority of sources consider the Compaq merger a failure". The sources provided speak for themselves and not a majority of anything.CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources say that the Compaq merger was a failure and is widely considered so. Pointing out that this represents the weight of a majority of reliable sources is talk page discussion, not original research. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CFredkin, the sources themselves, including those quoted above (!) directly say that this was widely considered a failure: has long been considered one of the worst mergers in the history and considered one of the more questionable deals of the time. Representing the sources means also representing their conclusions. Neutralitytalk 18:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point is something different. In order to say something like, "most analysts consider X" we need a secondary source which has credibly reviewed the population of analysts who expressed an opinion and the secondary source needs to have concluded that most of them believe X.  Otherwise it is OR for us to conclude that most sources believe X.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that is what sources say — about the business community broadly, which is probably a more relevant community than analysts. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link to a secondary reference which says that the business community broadly considers it a failure? That would be helpful.  SPECIFICO  talk  22:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Two, above: New York Times and Silicon Valley Business Journal. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:26, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right. I think the Silicon Valley Business Journal is RS for the article to state simply that the CPQ deal was one of the worst deals in the history of the US technology industry. Thanks.   SPECIFICO  talk  00:57, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue is that a significant minority of sources say otherwise. The sources evaluating the merger's success and advisability come over time: at first, very skeptical (say, 2001-2002). Next, proclaiming likely and apparent disaster (2003-2004). Third, Fiorina apologists and defenders, or people saying that it looks like HP pulled it off (2005-2007). Fourth, saying that whether or not the merger left the company standing atop the field of PC makers, it was a bad field to be in (2008-2014). And finally, comments made in light of political elections (2015, and earlier with respect to her California race). The source that is now in there, though self-interested and dated (from period 3), is probably the most important of the apologists / promoters. Because the sources reach different conclusions, I don't think we can state the majority opinion as fact in Wikipedia's voice. We could cover the different views chronologically within the space of about a paragraph, but if we don't take some liberty by adding some explanatory and connective comments, it will look like a collection of disjointed factoids: it needs some introduction or connective wording. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that mergers and management are business issues and should be described as such. Therefore I believe that dissenting opinions which relate strictly to the management issues can be represented, but not opinions which are later revisionist statements by political analysts or apologists.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Worst merger in history?
The following is not appropriate for inclusion in this article:
 * A Silicon Valley Business Journal article said it was a "disaster" that "has long been considered one of the worst mergers in the history of the technology industry." (Silicon Valley Business Journal, 2012).

What's the objective basis for the claim that it's "one of the worst"? It's just a hyperbolic statement of opinion. A more objective measure of an acquisition's failure is how much of the purchase price is ultimately written off. Here are some of the top tech write-offs based on this article:


 * AOL - TimeWarner (Writeoff: $100 billion, Aquisition: $106 billion)
 * JDS Uniphase - "a handful of acquisitions" (Writeoff: $38.7 billion, Acquisition: $38.7 billion)
 * Quest - US West (Writeoff: $30 billion)
 * Sprint - Nextel (Writeoff: $30+ billion, Acquisition: $35 billion)
 * HP - Autonomy (Writeoff: $9 billion, Aquisition: $11 billion)
 * HP - EDS (Writeoff: $8 billion, Acquisition: $14 billion)
 * HP - Palm ($1.2 billion)
 * HP - Compaq (Writeoff: $1.2 billion, Acquisition: $24.2 billion)

And I don't even think the above list is necessarily comprehensive, since I also happen to be aware of the following writeoffs:
 * MSFT - aQuantive (Writeoff: $6.2 billion, Acquisition: $6.3 billion)
 * Plus the expectation is that MSFT will soon writeoff $5.5 billion from its Nokia acquisition.

Based on this information, I wouldn't say the Compaq deal was "one of the worst", especially since there are also reliable sources that call the deal a success. In fact by this measure, it's not even close to being the "worst" HP acquisition.CFredkin (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * We can only say that with full attribution, and not in Wikipedia's voice. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:05, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that the disputed statement, in addition to being merely a statement of opinion, is contradicted by the source I provided above from CNN Money (which is based on an objective review of historical tech writeoffs). (In fact, based on the source, the Compaq deal isn't even close to be the "worst" HP deal.) So I don't believe we should be saying anything in this regard.CFredkin (talk) 21:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Write-offs are not the measure of a merger's success, although they are one negative factor. I would argue that nearly (or more than) all of the $24.2 billion acquisition price was lost, just not accounted for in a single post-merger writeoff. We have plenty of sources that call the merger terrible, a disaster, a blunder, a bad decision, unsuccessful, and indeed, one of the worst. I don't think there are many sources at all that call the merger a success. This particular source is not making that claim exactly, it is saying that the merger is considered, meaning it is summarizing the opinions of others. That is useful because it cuts to the chase. Without that we have a bunch of sources and would have to choose and list them mechanically with or without some connecting discussion. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding the existence of positive sources you have to look at the timeline, which is presented in the article and discussed above. At first most everybody was skeptical. Shortly after the merger the prevailing opinion was that it was a dud and wasn't going to work out at all. Some time after that several sources arose that called the merger a success — what they were saying, and their lens here is that the two companies managed to integrate without a massive shut-down or writing off the entire acquisition, and leave HP at the top of the industry. If you look closely, many of the sources from that era were not exactly opining that the merger was a success, they were reporting on the studies and opinions voiced by the two groups mentioned in the article claiming success. That was news because it surprised people who generally thought of the merger as a failure. Several years later, when the whole PC industry predictably lost its relevance, the consensus emerged that whether the integration was successful or not it was a lousy idea. That takes us to the period immediately before Fiorina's Presidential campaign, at which time this and everything else in her life became subject to political spin. While she has always had apologists, supporters, and detractors, being a presidential candidate takes that to a new level. Anyway, as far as I can tell the consensus of sources and opinions within the business community today (as supported by sources) is that it was an unwise, unsuccessful merger. That is a summary of opinions. Regarding the facts, I forget which source but one points out that the only thing left of Compaq now is the X at the end of HP's ticker, and some minor computer brands sold in overseas markets. Beyond that HP has nothing to show for having bought Compaq. For the article to say otherwise would be a neutrality and credibility issue, and a disservice to the reader. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Based on the statements below, which are already included in the article, I believe the arc of opinion that you describe above is depicted in the article:


 * From 2005 from the Fortune source listed in the section above: "The February 7, 2005 issue of Fortune described her merger plan as 'failing' and the prognosis as 'doubtful'." (and from what I can tell, there is no reference to "a huge failure" in the source.)
 * From 2007: "Business professor Robert Burgelman and former HP executive vice president, Webb McKinney, who led HP's post-merger integration team, analyzed the merger and concluded that it was ultimately successful."
 * From 2011 from the NYT source listed in the section above: "Looking back, a 2011 New York Times article described it as 'one of the more questionable deals of the time'."

The SV Business Journal statement in dispute is from 2012 and from roughly the same timeframe as the NYT source above. In fact, here's an article from the Mercury News also from 2012 calling the deal a "success". I think the NYT quote that is already included reasonably captures the prevailing opinion for that timeframe.

Regardless, neither the SV Business Journal article nor the Mercury News article provide provide any information at all to substantiate their stated opinions. So it's not clear to me why either should be included in this bio.CFredkin (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Point taken about presenting the arc. Regarding factual support, AFAIK there is no content policy that reliable sources, to be credible, need to present a reliable source behind their own statement. The SVBJ source is not unreliable and doesn't deserve removal simply because it presents an unflattering account. They are not presenting opinions here, BTW, but rather presenting a claim about opinions held by other people. But it may give this summary undue prominence to highlight it in this way. As long as we present the fact that the judgment in the 2006-2013 timeframe that the merger, however effective, failed to add value to HP, I think we're on the right track. I think that the arc of the judgment of the merger over time is important and useful to the reader. Cheers and thanks for working this through, - Wikidemon (talk) 06:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Should I take that to mean that you're comfortable with removing the SV Business Journal quotes?CFredkin (talk) 06:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really. I presented that as a worse alternative — laying out a bunch of sources saying that it was a bad merger, then writing that most of the sources we found concluded that. Here is a source as good as any that says specifically that this is what most people concluded. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep it off the page until we have a consensus, my opinion is that we keep it as the concluding sentence but also include another sentence of the later-on success of the merger under new management. TheMagicMarker (talk) 17:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I sure wish editors would leave this alone instead of a slow motion edit war before this talk thread can arrive at some consensus. It's well sourced and there's no policy-based reason to keep removing it.  SPECIFICO  talk  00:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Should we just request comments and try to wrap this up quickly? TheMagicMarker (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be great if you could respond to the points I raised above first.CFredkin (talk) 17:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Here's a quick summary for your benefit:


 * 1) The arc of public opinion regarding the deal is already represented in the article.  Therefore adding another opinion would be WP:undue.
 * 2) The SV Business Journal article being sourced for the claim provides absolutely no information to justify it.
 * 3) Objective data exists which actually refutes the claim.
 * 4) If we're going to accept claims that provide no information to back them up, then another (arguably more) reliable source published at roughly the same time as the SV Business Journal article also refutes it.CFredkin (talk) 20:26, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, I'm not sure that it makes sense to have three RfC's in progress at the same time here.CFredkin (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Steven Levy on Backchannel
CFredkin: re the piece by Steven Levy that you cut: this piece wasn't from the self-publishing/blogging platform side of Medium that anyone can publish on.

Rather, it's from Backchannel, which is owned by Medium, but is separate. If you look at About Backchannel, you'll see that it has an editor in chief, an executive editor, other editors, staff writers, and contributing writers - i.e., editorial control. It's a newsblog (permissible under the guidelines) and not a personal blog. It's comparable to The Intercept. See also here: bio of Levy stating that "Steven Levy is the founder and Editor in Chief of Backchannel, a tech-based publication owned and operated by Medium. "

All this makes sense, as (1) Levy is a tech journalist and literally wrote the book on the iPod (The Perfect Thing) and (2) other news organizations have picked up on Levy's feature (e.g.,, Politico). Neutralitytalk 21:40, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, "Medium" is a blogging platform and "BackChannel" is a tech oriented blogging channel on Medium.CFredkin (talk) 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's a blog - it's a news blog with editorial control, which is permissible. As I wrote above, this is a well-established journalist and author who writes for a publication with editorial control. Neutralitytalk 22:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it would be reasonable to submit it as a topic of discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard in order to obtain some input outside the confines of concerned editors of this article.CFredkin (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That is a perfectly good idea and I have no objection to that, although perhaps we might take a half-day to get other input from other editors on this talk page before going to RSN. Neutralitytalk 22:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Any comments on this?, et al.? Neutralitytalk
 * Backchannel is a reliable source for the content in question. Levy is a journalist, not some kid with a blog. He also seems to have some expertise in the subject matter, having written some books. Levy's work on Backchannel has been cited by Christian Science Monitor, Wired, Forbes, Venture Beat and Al Jazeera America, which strongly suggests it's a reliable source per WP:USEBYOTHERS.- MrX 03:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and posted this on the Reliable Sources noticeboard to get some further comment. I agree with MrX's comment right above; for the reasons you mentioned, I don't think this is even a close call. Neutralitytalk 05:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * , do you want to weigh in here? Neutralitytalk 22:42, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I see no issue with this source whatsoever. Backchannel, is a news blog with editorial control, and one focused on tech, which makes it an excellent source for the subject. The fact that is published on the Medium platform is inconsequential. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:46, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm going to restore the material, as a consensus has emerged over the last two weeks here (and on the the reliable sources noticeboard that the piece is reliable. Neutralitytalk 23:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh, it looks like someone else did it already. Cool! Neutralitytalk 23:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Neutrality Also, can you please post here the specific text from the Harvard Business School article that is listed as a source for the following content in this article:
 * ".... a "highly symbolic decision" that was well-received as a return to innovation by HP."

Likewise for each of the following statements with offline sources (including the specific reference to Fiorina in each):
 * "Two days before Fiorina announced the HP+iPod, Jobs announced a new product, the iPod mini, catching Fiorina off guard."
 * "Chains such as Circuit City and Best Buy also sold the device."
 * "As a result, at the peak of the program, iPod+HP sales represented a small portion of total iPod sales."CFredkin (talk) 22:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure:
 * Page 107 of Morgan et al., Executing Your Strategy:
 * ''Within days of taking office, Hurd made a highly symbolic decision, in recognition of the HP Invent tradition that had been so badly bruised by Fiorina, to terminate sales of the HP-branded Apple iPod. From informal conversations with many HP employees, we have learned that this inconsequential (in term of revenue) but important action earned Hurd huge reservoirs of support in the ranks of HP's engineers.
 * At the same time, Hurd made several key changes to the sales and product divisions to reinforce the desired cultural change. The result was a slow but steady reorientation of the culture...
 * Page 107 of Arthur, Digital Wars
 * Having signed Fiorina, Jobs caught her unawares. Two days before she announced the iPod reselling deal at the Consumer Electronics Show, he unveiled a completely new form of iPod - the iPod mini.
 * Page 99-100 of Levy, The Perfect Thing
 * Fiorina has assumed that HP would be able to do what Apple could not: distribute the iPod widely, through its relationship with 10,000 retail outlets, including Radio Shack stores. But as the iPod became more popular, the big electronics chains like Circuit City and Best Buy needed Pods for coolness cred, so they dealt with Apply directly. At its peak the hPod accounted for only about 10 percent of iPod sales. In early 2005, Fiorina was gone, and later that year HP announced the end of its iPod deal.
 * --Neutralitytalk 22:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've removed a blanket statement of opinion. The reason's for Levy's opinion are more fully developed later in the section (and properly attributed).CFredkin (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I also think this portion of the quote from Levy is unnecessary and gratuitous. It says more about Jobs than Fiorina:  "And he lost nothing, except the few minutes it took him to call Carly Fiorina and say he was sorry she got canned."CFredkin (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is snarky, perhaps because Fiorina has bragged many times about Jobs calling her the day she was fired, and has often compared herself to Jobs. Levy is hardly alone in believing Jobs duped her, and that her name-dropping him is somewhat ironic. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'd be willing to drop the most of the sentence. (The part starting at "except the few minutes..." But the first four words ("And he lost nothing") are important to the story. If we drop those, then we lose half the meaning: the point is not just that the deal was a great one for Apple, but correspondingly a bad one for HP. Neutralitytalk 23:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

"Net worth" ?
I'm having a hard time understanding why an encyclopedia should report an estimate of an individual's "net worth". It seems to me there's some kind of implied value judgment here, otherwise we could report her hat size and other such data. Not only is these Forbes estimates subjective and weakly documented, but they're contingent on so many unspecified factors that it's impossible to know what information or statement is actually to be inferred from them. SPECIFICO talk  22:59, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Net worth is what it is. If you or other readers want to make a value judgement on what that means, that is up to you or them. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Net worth is clearly relevant, which is why it's reported in the mainstream press. Additionally, the net-worth figures in this article are derived from Fiorina's public financial-disclosure filings (not just Forbes or somesuch). Neutralitytalk 03:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS
Fiorina's poll numbers are at an abysmal 4% now. There is no point in following the news cycle and report all bumps or drops. WP:NOTNEWS is there for a reason. But if editors want to keep that material, then it has to be kept updated. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Poll numbers are notoriously difficult to keep current, relevant, etc. Somebody should write an essay about this. Eventually, if somebody cares to clean up articles post-election, they would eliminate most of the week-to-week reporting of polls and the purported reasons behind them. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Political positions, spinoff article

 * Note: This section has been archived twice, but we are not finished yet, so I have returned it to this page to reactivate work on this. Please help to get this done. Just take a section and summarize it on the work page. --  04:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we have reached the point in which it may be a good idea to create Political positions of Carly Fiorina, moving the bulk of that content there and writing a concise summary here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. This is a no-brainer. The situation fits the exact reason for creating WP:Spinout (spinout is a better shortcut) subarticles. All that content creates undue weight here. We can then use the lead in the new subarticle as the content in a section here, along with a "main" link. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Can we get more input here? If not, then we should move forward with this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 13:53, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not opposed but I worry this will trigger some fights over the proper wording of the summary. If someone might be willing to volunteer to take on that task... Neutralitytalk 22:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Neutrality, I totally understand your concern because it can be a real problem. The way I have solved this on other articles where I have split off content (and it seems to work well), is to do as I suggested above: use the lead from the sub-article as the content. Take a look at the section Bill Cosby. Then look at the sub-article I created for that subject matter at Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations. (It has been developed a lot since then. The latest addition is a great "Complete list of accusers" near the bottom.) Then look at the hidden instructions at Bill Cosby. (Just hit the edit tab.) That explains how it works. As long as editors respect that, there are no problems, because a lead is the best summary one can get. Cwobeel, what do you think about this method? -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that there's enough content in this section yet to warrant a spin off at this point. Regardless, I would suggest that wording regarding any summary be hashed out in Talk before inserting in this article.CFredkin (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should start with the summary here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That would work. Neutralitytalk 02:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It's important that other editors help with this work. To ensure that there are no questions, I propose this procedure: When the work is basically done, I believe it would be best to copy the new lead to this section, where everyone can look at it. If it is approved, then we can proceed with creating the subarticle and using the approved lead. A copy of that lead would also be left in this article, together with a "main" hatnote link to the subarticle. That's the way it's usually done. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Summary sandbox
Since this summary is intended to become the lead in a future subarticle, I have some suggestions in my essay How to create and manage a good lead section. Since there are so many subjects, here's a table to aid the work. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * To avoid constant edit conflicts, the content in the subsection below is transcluded from a subpage.
 * To edit that content, go to Talk:Carly Fiorina/Summary sandbox. We'll discuss it here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Large sections can be summarized in 2-4 sentences, while short sections should be summarized in 1-2 sentences. In the end we should end up with 3-4 paragraphs.


 * I have finished the abortion content. Feel free to tweak as necessary. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Climate change and Drugs sections summarized. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this. As an alternative, we might take the approach used at Jeb Bush, which consists of 3 sections: Domestic issues, Economic issues, and International relations and security.  This might result in something more streamlined....CFredkin (talk) 00:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Great job in getting this organized. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * CFredkin and Cwobeel, you're very welcome! I just felt the need to get started. I'm totally open to other ways of doing this, so please keep those good suggestions coming, and come on over to the sandbox and help there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Transcluded content

 * Note: The section above has been archived twice, but we are not finished yet, so I have returned it to this page to reactivate work on this. Please help to get this done. Just take a section and summarize it on the work page. --  04:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Munger Statement
This statement from Munger is sourced to his book. My concern is not whether Munger's book is a reliable source for his statements, but whether the statement warrants inclusion in this BLP. If it's significant, it will be mentioned by reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, any statement by anyone could arguably be included.CFredkin (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Munger is hardly "anyone" -- in fact your statement is a gratuitous denigration of Mr. Munger, who has been one of the most successful and notable corporate managers, investors, and board members of the past 50 years. This is RS and helps give an important perspective on Ms. Fiorina's career.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Once again, if his statement is notable, it will be mentioned by some reliable secondary source.CFredkin (talk) 16:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a secondary source. If Fiorina said that about herself, that would be a primary source.  Let's move on.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, this standard only applies to Fiorina, and not to others who make statements about her?CFredkin (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please review WP policy as to primary and secondary sources. Thanks.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think you're the one who needs to read WP:PRIMARY: "Whether a source is primary or secondary depends on context. A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but where it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences."
 * Munger's book is a primary source for his own opinions....CFredkin (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, many editors follow this talk page, so I'm sure we will hear from them. You can also test your interpretation at WP:RSN. SPECIFICO  talk  18:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since this is a WP:BLP, the onus is on you to "test your interpretation".CFredkin (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Munger's commentary on Fiorina is a secondary source, but not reliable as such in an encyclopedic sense, as it is a matter of his personal opinion and speculation, even if that opinion is a reasoned analysis. It is a primary source as to the fact that he holds this opinion. It would be includable if he is either a participant to the events at hands (he does not seem to be), or a respected expert in the field. Because of the controversial, contentious issue here, and the fact that it is a BLP, I would hold this to an extra-high standard — not just is he a recognized expert (e.g. Bill Nye opining about science education), but is Munger and his book an undisputed leading authority in his field (e.g. Stephen Hawking opining about black holes, or Miles Davis opining about Jazz). FWIW, there are plenty of secondary sources regarding Munger's opinions about Fiorina — I suggest that if anyone proposes to include this particular opinion they find at least one of those sources about this opinion, and argue why it is relevant. I get the point, how did somebody so apparently ill prepared to run a big public company get chosen for her role at AT&T and then HP? That's a curious question, but not one that we can answer in a BLP without strong sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Wikidemon on this one. I think that the source in question says this: Because man is likely to be overinfluenced by face-to-face impressions that by definition involve his active participation, a job candidate who is a marvelous “presenter” often causes great danger under modern executive-search practice. In my opinion, Hewlett-Packard faced just such a danger when it interviewed the articulate, dynamic Carly Fiorina in its search for a new CEO. And I believe that Hewlett-Packard made a bad decision when it chose Ms. Fiorina and that this bad decision would not have been made if Hewlett-Packard had taken the methodological precautions it would have taken if it knew more psychology. That's the extent of it, and the author does not provide any further explanation, detail, or analysis, so it's hard to tell from this what the basis is for the opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Given that Munger supported Fiorina in her attempt in California, and also gave $100,000 to her SuperPAC  his opinion on the HP hiring is highly relevant. He is no partisan... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, wrong Charlie Munger. The one referred to in your sources is a physicist and the son of the one we're talking about here.CFredkin (talk) 20:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would trust the opinion of a physicist over a lawyer any day. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's nothing to be gained from revert warring this. Munger's a notable expert on corporate management and governance.  Read his article.  SPECIFICO  talk  20:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy
Just so everyone is clear about the rules that are supposed to prevail here, per WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.In the present case, I don't think that we should give disproportionate space to a particular viewpoint that Munger barely spends three sentences expressing (I quoted it above), and that he characterizes as his opinion, without explaining why he has the opinion.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, as unfortunately is to be expected with these political figures, we seem to have a moving target here. First the "problem" was that it was a primary source.  For sure.  Well, that didn't work.  Now it's a BLP violation to cite an expert opinion of a notable authority on corporate management?  Arbcom has recently made it clear that BLP policy is not to be used as an excuse for POV edits, particularly in the context of political figures and topics.  It's unfortunate to think that might still be happening.  I don't think there's wide agreement that there's a BLP violation with the Munger bit, which was an observation about the nature of corporate staffing, governance, and management as it relates to Ms. Fiorina.  I'd be surprised to see a swarm of editors agreeing with this suggestion of a BLP violation.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not mention whether it's a primary source or not. WP:BLP says: "Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints" and I think that the Munger stuff fails that test.  The space that Munger himself devoted to discussing Fiorina is miniscule, to such an extent that one cannot even see why he thought hiring Fiorina was a mistake.  He just says it was a mistake.  And he calls that his "opinion" instead of providing any discussion of the matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is entirely unresponsive. Munger's life and work and the topics covered in his book are many and diverse.  This article is solely about Fiorina.  Of course the word count is not proportional. If there is a valid substantive objection, we can expect somebody to state it here.  Otherwise we're going to need to restore the deleted text.  SPECIFICO  talk  18:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if any businessman or economist or financial expert says "I think HP should not have hired Fiorina" then we have to include that statement here in this encyclopedia article even if the person did not bother to say why? Again, I really do think that including such material is disproportional, because we already include lots of detailed assertions that explain why various people don't think she did well at HP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK that's yet another new rationale. It's undue?  It's also not helpful to raise straw man arguments. Let's give other editors a chance to share their views. SPECIFICO  talk  19:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Non-free image content
In order for this article to improve to GA or FA status, the use of Non-free images might best be avoided. I don't see much value from this image File:Carly Fiorina RNC 2008.jpg. The rationale given for use is that "Fiorina's address to the RNC in 2008 was broadcast on national television." That can be stated with words and this screen shot image is superfluous. There are ample free images available of the topic of this biography, so a non-free image is not needed. --Gaff (talk) 21:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * According to the good article criteria, "valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content". That's what's done here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Mo image

 * What's the deal with the image, and why does it matter? The red dress image is higher resolution but I'm not so sure it's a better image. She looks very stiff here. She seems much more focused and her personality shows through more in the blue dress image, which I think is more attractive as well. I can't say which is technically a better image — focus, lighting, etc. Both of them look oversaturated and perhaps photoshopped somewhat — the blue one contains "retouched" in the title. Anyway, there was an RfC on this that showed perhaps a preference for the blue one, but no consensus. - see Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 15 ..... Wikidemon (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

PHOTO and RfC
Ladies and Gentlemen, please stop citing the RfC as justification for this silly revert war. The RfC was closed no consensus. Any attempt to cite it as justification for a new photo is simply incorrect. I believe that the current version, with the unretouched photo showing her in a relevant recent political context is the last best version. Instead of reinserting that retouched one, which has been criticized on many valid grounds, why not find a new alternative that's better than all the previous versions and propose that one to garner true consensus. We don't count votes. We seek consensus, and there was none at the RfC, per the closing comment. SPECIFICO talk  15:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I fully agree. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, you appear to have reinserted the soft focus retouched image with an edit summary saying that soft focus and retouched is not appropriate?  SPECIFICO  talk  17:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If someone happens to agree with what was said in the RFC close, then there is no reason to be quiet about it. I agree with the RFC close that there was no consensus, but I also agree there has been less support for the red-dress photo.  Additionally, the latter photo has spent much less time atop the article, and is thus less stable.  If editors object to re-touching, then that is easily fixed, and I will do so in the spirit of compromise.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you propose an alternative, in whatever spirit, please establish explicit consensus for it here before inserting it. Otherwise, it's apt to be reverted and we'll be no better off.   SPECIFICO  talk  04:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, please read Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". I would hate to think that your objection against retouching was merely a pretext for jamming back the image that you prefer.  The red-dress image you prefer has less support (as stated in the RFC close), and moreover it is less stable (22 Sept to 30 Oct as opposed to 9 July to 22 Sept).  Generally speaking, I think the red-dress image is grossly inappropriate for a top image, whereas the other image is a much more typical head-shot.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

A recent edit improved the photo-selection greatly. Thanks! It is less to do with the dress and more to do with the person, IMO. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Catastrophic care plan
Prof JR removed a sentence explaining what "catastrophic care" plans are, saying in the edit summary that he considers this to be "gratuitous editorializing."

I cannot understand this, and I have restored this sentence. The sentence was well-sourced and explanatory in nature; "catastrophic care plan" is not an obvious phrase, and the sentence briefly provides a definition. Such a brief explanation is especially valuable because we have no article on catastrophic health insurance plan (or catastrophic health insurance policy), so readers cannot simply follow a blue link. Neutralitytalk 00:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Professor JR, you have again removed this sentence, for the second time, after I posted the above note&mdash;without discussing it here. That's not right. Please knock it off. Neutralitytalk 22:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, third time, Professor JR, you've again removed this sentence - without responding to me here. Not OK, and very poor form; this is the third time you've done it. In your most recent edit summary, you've said, falsely, that it's "not in the source." But, in fact, it is directly supported by the source:


 * Our sentence: ("Catastrophic care" plans have higher deductibles and offer fewer services than more comprehensive plans.
 * The source: a Fiorina campaign spokeswoman said she supports a mandate that would require high-deductible "catastrophic care" insurance plans and use federal dollars to subsidize state-based high-risk pools to provide care for those who otherwise cannot afford it. Fiorina's support for an individual mandate, the spokeswoman said, differs from Obamacare in that the law's mandate demands that every American be covered with plans that include a higher threshold of services.
 * That is pretty clearly direct support for the sentence. Professor JR, you need to knock it off. Neutralitytalk 00:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)