Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 18

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Carly Fiorina. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/10/07/what-is-carly-fiorinas-position-on-abortion/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed age on pictures
Fiorina's pictures on this page listed her age at the time they were taken. I removed the ages since they don't seem relevant and it seems like something that wouldn't be included on a male CEO's photos. And I am anything but a Fiorina fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.121.90 (talk) 16:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2016
Carly Fiorina was chosen as a VP for Presidential candidate Ted Cruz. This is a major, pivotal, point in her political career

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/04/27/carly_fiorina_sings_lullaby_at_cruz_ticket_announcement.html

Boruchy (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This fact has been added to the article. I'm sure there will be more information added as the campaign continues. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

New RfC opened: Should current and recent candidates for US President be called "politicians"?
Should current and recent candidates in the 2016 US Presidential election include politician among their notable occupations in the lead of their biographical articles, even if the candidate eschews the term? Please participate in a new Request for Comment on this question.  General Ization  Talk   12:30, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Lead
We may have to consider 'semi-protection', as a mobile editor keeps trying to insert her non-profit organization role after her role as Cruz's running mate. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

IP editors continue to insert / re-insert a line about Fiorina charing a group named Good360, without citing a reference. Even if this were notable enough to warrant inclusion in the article lede, I found a reference, which I inserted later in the article, saying that she stepped down when she announced her presidential run. It doesn't belong in the lede, especially without a reference. Brianga (talk) 22:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It should be deleted from the lead, then. Again, this article will likely need semi-protection, as the mobile editor seems determined. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that Cruz has ended his bid for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. We may as well not bother mentioning Fiorina's vice presidential candidacy, in the lead. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

List of political positions duplicated
The section entitled "Political positions" is redundant with Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016. They should be consolidated.--130.65.109.103 (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and to that other article. Her primary notability, and the story of her life, is still as a businessperson so it looks a little out of place to give so much weight to campaign strategy points that mattered only for the brief time when she was one of the top primary candidates. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources for infobox religion?
I am going through the entire list of all forty candidates for US President in 2016 (many now withdrawn) and trying to make sure that the religion entry in the infobox of each page meets Wikipedia's requirements.

Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

The forty candidates are:

Source of list: United States presidential election, 2016
 * Name: Farley Anderson: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jeb Bush: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism Religion name mentioned in Body? Yes, but all links cited are dead. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ben Carson: Infobox Religion: Seventh-day Adventist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Darrell Castle: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lincoln Chafee: Infobox Religion: Episcopalian. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Darryl Cherney: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Chris Christie: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Catholic. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Hillary Clinton: Infobox Religion: Methodist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Methodist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Ted Cruz: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Southern Baptist. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Sedinam Curry: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Carly Fiorina: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Jim Gilmore: Infobox Religion: Methodism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Lindsey Graham: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation fails direct speech requiement. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: James Hedges: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Tom Hoefling: No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mike Huckabee: Infobox Religion: Southern Baptist. Clearly meets all requirements for inclusion, nothing to do.
 * Name: Bobby Jindal: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "Evangelical Catholic."
 * Name: Gary Johnson: Infobox Religion: Lutheranism. Religion name mentioned in body, but citation is a dead link. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: John Kasich: Infobox Religion: Anglicanism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as Christian but citation doesn't have him specifying anglicism in direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Chris Keniston: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: William Kreml: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Gloria La Riva: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Lawrence Lessig: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: John McAfee: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Kent Mesplay: Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Martin O'Malley: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, comes really close to self-identifying but I would be more comforable if we could find a citation with unambigious direct speech. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: George Pataki: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rand Paul: Infobox Religion: Presbyterianism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Rick Perry: Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Perry now attends Lake Hills Church more frequently than he attends Tarrytown, he said, in part because it's closer to his home" and assigned him as being a member of Lake Hills Church based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Austin Petersen: No Wikipedia page, nothing to do.
 * Name: Marco Rubio: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body, but this page is a classic case of what happens when you don't follow the self-identification rule. Someone took a reference that says "Rubio... attends Catholic churches as well as a Southern Baptist megachurch." and assigned him as being Roman Catholic based on that slim evidence. Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Bernie Sanders: Infobox Religion: Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Bernie Sanders/Archive 13.
 * Name: Rick Santorum: Infobox Religion: Roman Catholicism. Religion name mentioned in body. Many citations about him being catholic, but I couldn't find a place where he self-identifioes using direct speech. Religion name mentioned in body,
 * Name: Rod Silva (businessman) No Infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Mimi Soltysik Infobox Religion: No religion entry in infobox, nothing to do.
 * Name: Jill Stein Infobox Religion: Reform Judaism. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed.
 * Name: Donald Trump Infobox Religion:Presbyterian. Infobox religion already decided by RfC. See Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 1
 * Name: Scott Walker Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Evangelicalism. Religion name mentioned in body, self-identifies as "born-again Christian". Discuss on article talk page.
 * Name: Jim Webb Infobox Religion: Nondenominational Christianity. Religion name not mentioned in body; religion entry in infobox should be removed. Note: Citation in infobox fails self-identification requirement.

My goal is to determine whether Wikipedia's requirements are met for the above forty pages, and to insure that we have citations to reliable sources that meet the requirements.

You are encouraged to look at and comment on the other pages, not just this one.

Please provide any citations that you believe establish a direct tie to the person's notability, self-identification in the person's own words, etc. Merely posting an opinion is not particularly helpful unless you have sources to back up your claims. I would ask everyone to please avoid responding to any comment that doesn't discuss a source or one of the requirements listed above. You can. of course, discuss anything you want in a separate section, but right now we are focusing on finding and verifying sources that meet Wikipedia's requirements. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Removing religion from infobox
Previously, I asked for citations showing that this page meets Wikipedia's requirements for listing religion in the infobox and in the list of categories. I also did my own search. There do not appear to be sources establishing compliance with the rules for inclusion, so I have removed the religion entry and categories. It appears that this page does not meet Wikipedia's requirements, so I am removing religion from the infobox and categories. Editors are encouraged to add properly sourced religion information to the body of the article, subject to WP:V and WP:WEIGHT.

As a reminder Here are the requirements for listing a religion in the infobox and categories (religion in the body of the article has different rules):


 * Per Village pump (policy)/Archive 126: "the 'religion=' parameter and the associated 'denomination=' parameter should be removed from all pages that use Template:Infobox person. Inclusion is permitted in individual articles' infoboxes as a custom parameter only if directly tied to the person's notability. Inclusion is permitted in derived, more specific infoboxes that genuinely need it for all cases, such as one for religious leaders." Please note that if nobody has bothered to mention religion in the body of the article, that is strong evidence that the subject's beliefs are not relevant to their public life or notability.


 * Per WP:BLPCAT: "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources" ... "These principles apply equally to lists, navigation templates, and Infobox statements". In the context of politicians and political candidates, there is a strong consensus in discussion after discussion that The "relevant to their public life or notability" clause should be interpreted as follows: Would this individual be notable for his/her religion if he/she were not notable for running for US president? Are we talking about someone who is notable for being religious, of someone who is notable who also happens to be religious?


 * Per WP:CAT/R: "Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in question (see WP:BLPCAT), either through direct speech or through actions like serving in an official clerical position for the religion." In other words, if someone running for US president has never publicly stated on the record that they belong to a religion, we don't take the word of even reliable sources on what their religion is.


 * Per WP:CATDEF: "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define in prose, as opposed to a tabular or list form the subject as having -- such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. (Emphasis is in original)


 * Per WP:DEFINING: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality [and] the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right [...] a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun..." or "Subject, an adjective noun,...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining. [...] Often, users can become confused between the standards of notability, verifiability, and "definingness". Notability is the test that is used to determine if a topic should have its own article. This test, combined with the test of verifiability, is used to determine if particular information should be included in an article about a topic. Definingness is the test that is used to determine if a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic.


 * Per WP:LOCALCON, a local consensus on an article talk page can not override the overwhelming (75% to 25%) consensus at Template talk:Infobox that nonreligions cannot be listed in the religion entry of any infobox. That RfC has a handy list of religions and nonreligions to avoid the inevitable arguments about what is and what is not a religion. Everyone who !voted on the RfC saw that list and had ample opportunity to dispute it if they disagreed with it.

Note: this page has not been singled out. I asked for citations on all forty candidates (some now withdrawn) for the 2016 US presidential election. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

New lead image
Can this image:

be the new lead image. It has a better focus on Fiorina and it's from the 2017 CPAC. I've seen other conservative figures had their lead images updated to the recent 2017 CPAC. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

This one looks more like her and it's at the same event: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carly_Fiorina_CPAC_2017.jpg#file


 * Either of these is fine, from the 2017 CPAC. Binksternet (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring from Seattle IPs
Somebody using IP6 addresses from Seattle has been edit-warring in the lead section. The three issues that this person is concerned with are described below, with my text in green, IP6 text in red. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

CEO of HP versus chair of Good360

 * ...known primarily for her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP). She subsequently served as Chair of the philanthropic organization Good360.
 * ...known primarily for her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard (HP) and as Chair of the philanthropic organization Good360.

The problem is of course that Fiorina is not "known primarily" for being the chair of Good360, in an equal role as being CEO of HP. She is far more widely known for being the CEO of HP. We must not set a false equivalence between these two roles. We cannot say she was known primarily for A and B when A is much greater. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Representation of political races

 * Fiorina ran unsuccessfully for the United States Senate in 2010 and the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.
 * Fiorina ran for the United States Senate in 2010 and the Republican presidential nomination in 2016.

Here the edit-warring is about whether to say that Fiorina ran unsuccessfully in two high-profile political races, or juat that she ran in them. Lots of reliable sources comment on Fiorina's "failed Senate bid" and how it worked against her in the 2016 presidential primaries. Lots of sources talk about Fiorina losing big in New Hampshire's presidential primary which is why she dropped out of that race. The two losses left a bad impression on the public which our sources have noted. We should face the facts squarely and tell the reader that these two races are seen as serious losses. Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Shortest VP run

 * Fiorina was... for seven days the vice-presidential running mate of Ted Cruz until he suspended his campaign, setting the record for shortest vice presidential candidacy in modern US history.
 * Fiorina was... the vice-presidential running mate of Ted Cruz until he suspended his campaign.

This disagreement is about whether to tell the reader that Fiorina's VP bid has been observed by reliable sources to be the shortest in US history. The sources commenting on this are:
 * "Carly Fiorina and the shortest vice presidential candidacy in modern history" Washington Post
 * "A Comprehensive Timeline of Carly Fiorina's Historically Short VP Run" The Slot, Jezebel
 * "Carly Fiorina's four most unfortunate campaign moments" The San Diego Union-Tribune
 * "Ex-HP boss Carly Fiorina sacked one week into new job" The Register UK
 * "Fiorina's VP Ambitions Crash With Cruz's GOP Presidential Campaign" eWeek
 * "Carly Fiorina Sets New Political Record… This Is Beyond Embarrassing" Conservative Tribune
 * "Carly Fiorina Sets New Political Record… This Is Beyond Embarrassing" Conservative Tribune

In the article, only the Vox source is cited, but the presence of all these observers (and more) shows how significant this issue is. What do others think? Binksternet (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Obviously an un-lead-worthy factoid which some want to include to poke fun at the woman. Even the sources you've listed don't treat this "record" seriously. An adjunct to the fall of the Ted Cruz Presidential campaign, it is a curiosity, and a strained one at that. Unlike Thomas Eagleton, Fiorina was never the actual vice-presidential "candidate" of a major political party, and unlike Eagleton her "fall" from the "position" had nothing to do with her own behavior. BTW, Since when is conservativetribune.com considered a reliable source for facts. Classic WP:UNDUE. 68.0.204.180 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The above reply represents block evasion by User:Badmintonhist. Binksternet (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It doesn't belong in the lead. As the above IP stated, being someone's running mate in a primary doesn't make you a VP candidate in any official sense. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  18:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If the Seattle IPs had moved this fact from the lead section down into the article body I would have agreed. Removal is wrong, shifting down would be okay. So many reliable sources commented on it that it would be wrong to remove it altogether. Binksternet (talk) 22:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Carly Fiorina. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150505021041/http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/program-components/core-values/notable-alumni/?alumni%2Fnotable.php to http://mitsloan.mit.edu/mba/program-components/core-values/notable-alumni/?alumni%2Fnotable.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121013030234/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/040606-fiorina-joins-board-tsmc.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/040606-fiorina-joins-board-tsmc.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929095830/http://www.weforum.org/pdf/AnnualReport/2005/our_organization.pdf to http://www.weforum.org/pdf/AnnualReport/2005/our_organization.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150601022853/http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/02/21/carly-fiorina-considering-bid-to-oust-barbara-boxer-in-2010/ to http://brighthall.aol.com/2009/02/21/carly-fiorina-considering-bid-to-oust-barbara-boxer-in-2010/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100823131641/http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/05/Fiorina_Opposed_to_Prop_8_Ruling/ to http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/08/05/Fiorina_Opposed_to_Prop_8_Ruling/
 * Added tag to https://up-project.org/index.php
 * Added tag to https://www.up-project.org/mission.html
 * Added tag to https://up-project.org/leadership.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150518090342/https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/03/2016-scouting-report-carly-fiorina to https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/03/2016-scouting-report-carly-fiorina

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2018
Please fix the broken link in External links, Dmoz template. It should be

174.197.11.200 (talk) 12:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2018
Change "She subsequently served as Chair of the philanthropic organization Good360." in the first paragraph to "She currently serves at the Chairman of Unlocking Potential, a 501(c)(3) seeking to develop leaders in nonprofit organizations. Editorali (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The source offered does not suggest the change requested. There is no apparent reason to remove the previous organization and substitute the new organization.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:11, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary Sources – Trump's border crisis
To provide clarity on the use of primary sources. Per guidelines, primary sources may be used, "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." WP:PRIMARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeminarianJohn (talk • contribs)


 * I have been removing this addition by because the primary sources don't show us that this expressed opinion of Fiorina's is important to the topic. The problem here is one of WP:WEIGHT, giving too much credence to Fiorina's supposed influence in the current political landscape, though she has never been elected to office, nor has she declared a new candidacy. To me, it looks like Fiorina is trying to stay in the public eye, and I don't see why Wikipedia needs to support her effort in that direction. Binksternet (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I maintain disagreement, and I believe that editions should be explained appropriately and courteously, not with demeaning content. What her goal is we cannot know. What we do know is that this is an update on her position(s) and she is a public figure with a page that should be kept up to date. Again, I believe the WP:PRIMARY would allow the brief straightforward description and source. I decided to not press with further edits regarding that topic because it does not help the page. So, I added this, but I also feel that some editing comments were disrespectful.SeminarianJohn (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)