Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 5

No longer any semblance of neutrality
We're citing critics, by name, in the lede here in an attempt to unduly "balance" her once being widely named the "most powerful woman in business." We've gone off the deep end of original research and synthesis by asserting that her "public persona has notably changed over the years" and that her "image still shadows her reputation," without an inkling of reliable sourcing to back up those editorial opinions drafted here on Wikipedia. And the wp:point "no need for Fiorina's words here" (at her biography) on arguably the most important event in her life says a lot about the hatred dripping from some editors for this lady.

She's led an interesting life. I believe we can try to document her life with facts from reliable sources, rather than making up facts or using sources like blogs that call her an "asshole." Unfortunately, the small number of editors who are willing to revert any changes they consider even remotely "favourable" towards Fiorina made removing such that source a multi-month affair.

I've tagged the article as non-neutral given its current state. The opinion recently stated by another editor at wp:blpn about a key part of the lede sums it up best: this article has gotten to a point where it is "contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy." Justen (talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with on this matter and personally, I dislike Fiorina as a political figure. But I want a NPOV biography of her here on Wikipedia. The lead is now written in a decidedly non-neutral fashion. Let's use the highest quality reliable sources and not give undue weight to highly negative assessments, especially in the lead. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  00:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have elaborated on some specific NPOV issues below, in the next section.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that there's WP:NPOV issues in this article; but, I'm also cautious of putting too much stigma on that. The editors are recognizing the many problems and the article is actually improving.  There is a balance to balance itself.  If we go too far with a reactionary and counter-reactionary posture, it will result in a false balance and just compound the issue further.  My suggestion to everyone here — quite sincerely — is to take a step back and take a breather now and then.  Then come back.  I'm the only one here that has publicly applauded ALL of us.  Despite disputes, it's all working towards our advantage.  The article has improved tremendously just over the last month, if not weeks. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Frankly, I'm alarmed by your idea that there could be "too much stigma" associated with the fact that a wp:blp has been significantly slanted towards non-wp:npov. Let me quote that policy here for a refresher for everyone...  "We must get the article right. [...] Contentious material about living persons [...] that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."  Within the very recent period of time, we've invented theories about her "public persona," asserted that a merger she pushed caused the company to lose half its value, and synthesized a theory that she laid people off despite the merger being a success.  (Nevermind that those last two basically contradict each other.  That's what happens when editors with a point-of-view to push go far off into wp:or land.)  All of that without reliable sourcing, it's worth pointing out.  I'm not "applaud[ing]" any of the editing that's gone on here.  It's wildly below Wikipedia's standards.  Justen (talk) 03:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am by no means applauding POV editing. Your misreading of what I'm saying is terrible.  You are taking this word "stigmatized" that I use and giving it action to the wrong object.  And this implies that you really don't seem to get my point about fine line between NPOV and False Balance.  Do you not comprehend, not understand it, not agree, or have questions with that?T here is indeed a serious problem with POV.   But to say that it's any one person's fault, or even a group of people,  is also ridiculous. I have also pointed that out, saying that this article is on a slippery slope of reactionary and counter-reactionary editing, a kind of stilted practice of taking what's been accumulated over several edits and trying to balance it all out.  This is now an inherited problem, rooted in the article. I've repeatedly acknowledged that.  I've also acknowledge and supported most of your points.  Including the idea of synthesized theory.  But, such problems are not my own work, nor necessarily that of any one person or group.   Its a successive and culminating result of sorts, from series of edits and restructuring.  We're all working on that, but it takes time, as I've said, despite the need of urgency.  If you are not careful, you can go in the other direction of stigmatizing the article itself, and the improvements that editors are tying to make. We all need to get beyond blame and have a shared ethic. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Notes to Article Lead (intro paragraphs), considerations; re. WP:LEAD
•In the very fist paragraph of the lead section, is it better to describe Fiorina thus: "Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent, before being chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005." Or is it better to state that she "was an executive" and achieved such status at AT&T/Lucent; i.e., before jumping to HP? It seems minor, but… one stresses her achievement and attained position, while the other emphasizes her significant climb and drive to prominence. Should it be stated that "...Fiorina rose through the ranks AND was an executive…"? This question posed to an edit made by Anythingyouwant. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

•In regards to Fiorina's "changing persona": User:Justen said above in One of the worst tech CEOs that "...the "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" assertion in the lede is pretty blatantly wp:or (presumably by way of wp:synthesis…"  Ca.papavero acknowledged those points and made further suggestions. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

•The lead section has become crammed, not briefly summarized.  Verbose, descriptive and over nuanced words and phrases have been added. Qualifiers and explanations are teased into sentences. Additional modifiers, like adverbs and adjectives are added when not necessary. Full-on quotations are highlighted in the lead, although it may not be necessary and it can make too much weight and impact (such as by reader's considerations thereof). The lead paragraphs even includes parenthetical remarks! It anecdotes the subjects life, when such nuance should be the job of the body of the article. This introduction names other persons, other than the subject, some of them esoteric, as well as those of who are merely critics of the article's subject. Even if these other persons are notable or scholarly themselves, they typically have no direct association to the person who is the primary concern. Links and allusions to other Wikipedia articles, such as by name of persons, events, organizations, etc., should not be cluttered through the lead, therein leading to tangents from the actual subject. This article includes several additional citations and points crammed into a lead sentence or its paragraphs, whereas they should instead be placed at their appropriate section in the below body. Some sentences have two to three citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. But, if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably doesn't belong in the lead section in the first place. In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. Finally, the ending sentence of a lead section should not repeat the point that's made by the first sentence. That also suggests the need to better condense. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You said below, "I agree that there's WP:NPOV issues in this article; but, I'm also cautious of putting too much stigma on that." Well, the NPOV issues have now been fixed in the lead, and I hope we put a stigma on reintroducing POV into the lead.  The lead is by no means crammed now.  For crammed, see the lead of Hillary Rodham Clinton.  The present lead is of typical length.  Maybe if you would specify the single thing you dislike most about the lead we can focus on that.  I do not want to quibble about whether two footnotes at the end of a sentence would be better than three, unless that is your main complaint.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for acknowledging my points and understanding. That's a start, but I'd like to go much, much further.  I think editors have become way too carried away the idea that "The lead is the first part of the article most people read, and many only read the lead," as said in the Wikipedia Manual of Style, WP:LEAD.  So, they are cramming it in.  Indeed, the rest of that paragraph in the manual reads: "Consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, but the lead should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at content that follows. Instead, the lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view; it should ideally contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate."   Just before that, it says "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."  So, I also think that the writing in the lead should be inspired by a slightly different style than the rest of the body of the article.  All of the writing here should be encyclopedic in its voice, but the lead should be much less wordy, streamlined, make use of basic sentences and read something akin to a news or legal brief, if not business writing.  See 3x3 in Business writing process prewriting for example; as I believe this is not literally how we need to tackle the project, but it gives you a hint.  Also see Brief (law) and consider how things like ballots or legal summaries are written with bare facts.  Don't get me wrong, as I'm not suggesting using those techniques wholesale; but, I'm trying to make examples of streamlined writing, without whitewashing or burying significant points. This must remain a hard lead and presentation of facts.  Yet, if you've ever been in courtroom, business presentation, military debriefing or newsroom environments, then you know that interjections of anecdotal information and complicated language is not tolerated when trying to encapsulate a situation.  The very definition of encapsulation: "express the essential features of (someone or something) succinctly."  And by the way, I wouldn't worry about those other articles; because if we do this right, maybe they will follow our "lead" established at this article. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

From "most powerful woman in American business" to "worst tech CEO of all time"
This header is in the article, and it's too long. It also does not reflect the substantial support since 2002 for her performance as a business person (see sources cited in the lead). So, I would recommend sonething like "Appraisals over the years" or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's why I simply had it as "Most powerful woman" versus "worst CEO." Then it was suggested that the word versus should not be used, to which I agree.  But, then it changed again with these other modifiers and wordiness.  That's not necessary.  And its interpreting, because the rankings were primarily done by sources like Forbes, Fortune, Time, USA Today and CBS (not sure if I'm forgetting any sources).  At that, I've already vetted many of these and noted their seeming methodology and so on (if you see my other notes and citation verifications.)  So, there's no one particular way to phrase it, especially as it gets carried through the media.  I would simply call it Most Powerful Woman and Worst CEO or something simple like that.  We don't even want to say From Most powerful to Worst CEO" because it suggests a starting and ending point, or development. It also suggests a continuum; as if its a finished debate, when its not.  It's a suggestion… don't overthink it.Ca.papavero (talk) 21:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that we are over-thinking it. What we have now is quite OK. Let's move on. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:49, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the heading above is not okay. It's very unusual to have quotes within article headers, and this one implies that she started very powerful and ended up doing an incredibly lousy job.  That may (or may not) be true, but we shouldn't be implying it in an article header.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, the titles are quoted, because the claims "worst" and "best" are actually branded concepts that became accepted by the rest of the media, as well as the general public. So, to have them out of quotes would actually be less appropriate, in my view.  Also, you can't really get around this, without watering it down.  You have to acknowledge its impact, because it's colored everything in terms of discussion about Fiorina herself.  See my notes elsewhere. Then,  think about this more.   This originates from a ranking system, similar to branded concepts that rank so-called best colleges, safest cities, top corporations, etc.  Such rankings are controversial, but they've been around for years now. In this case, it seem as though the ranking has received much backing from rest of the press, as well as from the public itself.  So, like I've said, it's not going away.  Others here have realized its significant impact, whether or not they realize its seeming origination.  At this point, it's not exclusive to those original brands, either.  I can explain this further; or hopefully you can comprehend what I'm saying, if not look it up yourself.  See my previous comments at One of the worst tech CEOs, as a response to User:Justen; as well as my notes at Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. with reference to "The section of the article under AT&T and Lucent."  In any case, these concepts are indeed mainstream and hard to ignore, if if you recognize them as such.  See my comments on the article for America's Safest and Most Dangerous Cities; but, then also read the article for College and university rankings to further see how I'm conceptualizing my points.  Ca.papavero (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Footnote glitch
There are 164 footnotes, but the last twenty or so do not seem to show up in the footnote section. Anyone know why?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem has been fixed by John of Reading, upon a request submitted to WP:Village pump (technical). Thanks again, John.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * LOL! I'm just going to laugh at this one.  And be happy its fixed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 10:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether Compaq merger was good or bad
Here's a piece in the Huffington Post from 2011 that says: "Today, the merger is nearly six years old. And, surprise, surprise -- it's turned out to be a sensational combination, whether measured by market share, market leadership or increased shareholder value." I would imagine that other sources like this might be available too. Here's an interesting and well-balanced set of opinions from an article this month in Bloomberg. The Bloomberg piece includes the following opinions from 2011:
 * "You look back now, and Carly was right—there was a lot of synergy between the two companies. The merger worked out well in retrospect." —Tommy Wald, CEO of White Glove Technologies


 * "In retrospect, yes, it was a good move for HP and for the partner community. I was wrong, and I'm glad they proved me wrong." —Don Richie, CEO of Sequel Data Systems


 * "I think it was a fantastic move. I thought it was a fantastic move at the time, too. HP would definitely not be where it is today without Compaq." —Geoffrey Lilien, president of Lilien Systems

I agree that this Wikipedia article seems to take a non-neutral negative view of the merger.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "The merger turned out to be a good thing ... There were some administrative headaches, of course, but overall they did a very good job with the integration." —Jane Cage, COO of Heartland Technology Solutions


 * Her tenure at HP and the merger was a disaster according to a preponderance of sources, so we can't argue for a false balance. It was what it was and we report on the significant opinions about her performance as CEO. Before she was a candidate, no one complained about the lede.... What has changed? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  01:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What has changed,, which should be crystal clear to all editors, is that she has announced a presidential campaign. That raises the visibility of an article that I hadn't looked at since she got trounced by Barabara Boxer in the 2010 Senate race. More eyes on the article is what has changed. I want an NPOV biography of this woman, not an activist hit job. Personally, I oppose her in my private life off-Wipedia, and want to recommend that people read a good article instead of a cheap smear. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:34, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for a smear, . I am asking for an NPOV article same as you. But this is no time to whitewash her article either, jst because she is running for the Republican nomination. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article lead currently has more "smear" language than "whitewash" language, in my opinion. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:03, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can indicate that some experts think it worked well. As Wikipedia articles get more attention, they often are brought into better conformity with policy.  And sometimes not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * if you can find some expert opinions lauding Fiorina for her performance as a CEO at HP, by all means. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't I do that above?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What about the rest from that Bloomberg article? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And BTW, what is mentioned there was not about her performance, but the performance of her successor that made the merger successful at the end:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So, we should exclude every last word by every last expert who says the merger was a good decision?Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The merger was not the downfall of Fiorina. It was her handling of it. The eventual success of the merger was only related to Fiorina by virtue of her not being CEO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Whether 30,000 people were laid off
The lead says she laid off 30,000 workers at Hewlett Packard. Here is the cited source. And here is what the cited source says:

"In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people," she said. "That's why I understand where the anger came from." But Fiorina has also been quick to point out, as she did in a 2010 interview with NPR, that, overall, jobs were created during her tenure as HP's CEO. "Companies go through tough times ... but net-net we created jobs," she said.

Obviously, this item in the lead is very much non-neutral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a self-serving statement. Let's find some sources that attest to that supposed net gain in jobs at HP. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:10, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, and in the mean time how about removing this source, and the cherry-picked info from this source, out of the lead?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source that sums it up quite well, published just after Fiorina was ousted by the HP board:

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "30,000" figure in the lead is unbalanced. It takes Fiorina's own words, and deletes the parts that make her look good. "By October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger."Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 30,000 layoffs can be attributed to other sources. In any case, I am not advocating to keep that figure, but there were thousands of layoffs as per the sources offered. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This entire subject, both in the lead and in the separate section of the article (with sub-header) needs to be cross-examined and fleshed out. We should do more research on it. This is indeed one of the hotter issues concerning her tenure. Both sides of the arguement needs to be included, as well as perhaps deeper relevance or significance to readers. She acknowledges lay-offs or termination, but then she talks about what resulted at the end with the merger… which is not necessarily one and the same for some people. This needs to go beyond the simple claim that 30,000 people were terminated (if true), but explain with the 5 Ws: who what, when, where, why… even how. And differentiate those 5Ws at HP from Compaq, if necessary. Merger and acquisitions are not all that clean-cut… they are a process, concerning time and stages, wherein that can be highlighted how she and the other CEO (at Compaq) negotiated the deal, and what employees had to say about it. I've already read some of this stuff, but haven't included it. It is interesting to note, how it all "came down" and "worked out." That hasn't been mentioned, even briefly, if we want to go there or touch on that. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead
I went ahead and made some edits to the lead, which seems compliant with WP:NPOV now. So, if someone would like to remove the tag at the top, or perhaps move it lower in the article, that would be fine with me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Good effort, but the lead is still a mess, with a false balance slant. Leads, per WP:LEDE, should be a summary of the article's content, and currently it is not. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  14:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a change to the third paragraph - as described in the the edit summary, this paragraph is about other people's assessments of her, not her own "public persona". I've also taken out the names of specific critics/defenders as these are noted in the citations as well as later in the article. Melcous (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your edit is going in the right direction, as it provides the necessary context without introducing a false balance. Great example of NPOV editing. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks It possibly helps to be an "outsider" to the US in this case - I have very little context for a POV here :) Melcous (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aussies rock! thanks!! Can you please take a look at the Fluctuating appraisals section. That section has long quotes from some and paraphrases from others. It is also a mess and not balanced. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

During, after, and more recently is accurate and provides the necessary context. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's try to speak so that others can understand what we are talking about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The lead presently says (emphasis added, refs omitted):

After her resignation, she was described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time. More recently, others have defended her leadership decisions and business reputation.

I removed "more recently" and Cwobeel improperly reverted. The refs supporting the first sentence are CBS (April 27, 2012) and USA Today (February 16, 2005). The refs supporting the second sentence are Barrett (April 4, 2010), Loren (May 14, 2008), and Bloomberg (May 4, 2015 but including quotes from 2001 thru 2011). It's obvious from these dates that the "more recently" is wrong.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Her forced resignation and criticism was in 2005, so the later are more recent comments, with the benefit of hindsight. Find me a source that was happy with her performance as a business woman at the time of her demise, and I will agree with you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First of all, the lead said after she resigned, not when she resigned, and we are still in the "after" period. Moreover, two sources are cited, one dated 2005 and the other 2012.  Is 2012 when she resigned?  No, it isn't.  Even the 2005 source says this: "The profs are all over the map about Fiorina. Kothari praises her for conviction in pursuing her strategy."   I also note this quote from 2004: "My sense is that they have been able to do a lot of [positive] things, post-merger, in terms of the operational side. It seems they have not had major battles after the merger, which is typically the case with many large transactions. —Harbir Singh of the Wharton School".  And this one from 2007:  "Public opinion about the merger has fluctuated over the years, but people don't talk about it anymore because its initial assumptions have been proven right ... Ultimately, it turned out to be a good move. —Robert Burgelman of Stanford's business school."Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think what we have now at is quite OK, and I could live with it. Hope it is also OK with you and others involved. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  21:13, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's mostly okay, but Fortune rated her the #1 most powerful, not "one of the most powerful". I'd fix, but 3RR and all.  Maybe tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Lumping Citations; Cramming. STOP! (WP:CITEOVERKILL)
WE MUST STOP LUMPING CITATIONS AT THE END OF SENTENCES & PARAGRAPHS. I've said it already, but I'm highlighting it again here: Some sentences have two, three or FOUR citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. And with all the citation verification I've completed here in this article…. I'm really questioning if that's true. See the entire section for Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. on this Talk Page. (I think I'm the only one that's noted therein, so far. And I created that section, so that everyone knows what's been verified and what needs follow-up.  Plus, it keeps a track record, preventing total loss.   Anyways... if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably needs to be fleshed out . In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. The few times I've added two sentences at the end of a statement, for example, is because one is a video and he other text. Otherwise, they probably have a different point of view and statement that should be clarified and differentiated… IF they're the SAME, why do we need the extra reference, after all? That should be common sense. But, if I must be frank, I'm really getting annoyed by these lump citations, placed by other editors (sometimes bare), that are left to readers to reason, if not other editors to verify and do the vetting. That's nonsense… and at this point, it's really become a tremendous burden. It must stop. This article is not a bulletin board in which to cram information. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•:Here's a whopper: "Subsequently, one of her scheduled appearances on behalf of the campaign was canceled, although she continued to chair the party's fundraising committee.[103][112][113][114][115]" That's FIVE citations behind what appears to be a very simple sentence. In fact… despite all these citations, I'm not exactly clear about the entire significance. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One to three citations is rarely a serious problem, and rarely gives undue weight to anything. When there are more than that, please feel free to select the best three.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's the writer and editor's job to expand on those citations, not the reader. And it is a burden, if there's not an explanation.  A reader (or other editor) should not have to question why each and every citation is there.  Otherwise, what's the purpose of your work in the first place… might as well go directly to the citation and bypass this article!  And even worse, any citatation should not just be hanging there like a decoration, so as to impress, but have no real expected use, or namely to imply authority and legitimacy that has not really been proved.  Further, It just creates a pile and cluster of citations and unnecessary considerations.  If we collected EVERY article citation and just crammed and piled them on the back of an article; then, like I said, this might as well be a bulletin board.  Go read from Reddit, Newsvine or some other source… not Wikipedia.  The purpose of good writing — especially here — should be informative and to brief or summarize… not to say "here's a bunch of extra articles for reading."  So, it not only defeats OUR purpose as writer and editors, but it also lowers the ARTICLE's credibility and purpose.  While this is not a dissertation or research paper, academically, this would be considered the poorest of writing and research, resulting in a total failure as a grade.  It would make the work meaningless and not even worth consideration.  When you are researching sourcing, analyzing and interpreting citations, a writer and editor can indeed be objective; that is, such as in the practice of legal (case and ballot briefings), business writing and so on… as I've already said here. Citations are not just "cited" but elucidated. Ca.papavero (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Its stated "On the other hand, former Intel chairman Craig Barrett has spoken in Fiorina's defense.[16][17][18]" But, no explanation of what he actually said, although three citations behind a very simple sentence. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

"Business leadership activities": verify and restore/delete and ignore?
Under the "Media" section of this article, it reads at the end:

"Fiorina has been, and continues to be….

 * ...involved with many business leadership activities including:
 * Leadership summits run by Bill Hybels[85]
 * Business Executives for National Security[86]
 * The Wall Street Journal's D Conference (All Things Digital) in Carlsbad, California[87]
 * Cyberposium[88][89]
 * Lead21[90]
 * Texas Conference for Women[91]
 * Texas Monthly Talks[92]
 * The Women's Conference[93]
 * Willow Creek Association[94]
 * Willow Creek Community Church[95]"

I have a problem with this information in the above. Some of the links have since gone dead, broken… victims of link rot. I was able to re-validate one of the mentions for the "Cyberposium '99"; but, frankly, it almost seems silly. This now occurred many years ago, whereas it was simply a speaking engagement and an appearance. Public personalities do engagements like this quite frequently, but I'm not sure why we need a long list of them here. Is this rather trivial or is it really important? Is it worth re-looking up all these sources and trying to verify them, especially if they appear to be old and less relevant? For example, more than 15 years later, I'm not sure how many people really care about an academic conference at Harvard…. aside from any in the present, for that matter. They could be well outdated and of less significance. (By the way, also notice that I left the dead link #88, while adding the new live #89. I'm not sure what to do about that, either). Ca.papavero (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * REMOVED: The above said mentions were removed by User:Cwobeel as of 30 April 2015. Unless we can substantiate these references, or show that they're really significant, I'd suggest leaving them out of the article. Meanwhile, so noted in the above. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared…"
There as paragraph that needs better citations and relevance:

"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared at many public events. She rang the opening bell of the Wall Street stock market on the official day of the HP-Compaq merger and in 2000 she was the ceremonial host opening the largest EasyInternetcafé at Times Square and the opening of the Epcot ride Mission: SPACE.[74] In 2004, Fiorina was a member of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, which produced a report for George W. Bush. She has appeared many times on TV such as in 2007 on Real Time with Bill Maher." I could not find anything on her ringing the opening bell at Wall Street… but, there's probably questions. Can anyone verify this? Ca.papavero (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Re. Real Time w/ Bill Maher, per Wikipedia's own List of Real Time with Bill Maher episodes, Fiorina has so far appeared a total of three times only: first as of 17 February 2007; second as of 24 January 2014; third as of 9 January 2015. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I am looking at the notes here, as I remember them from a while ago now. I noted the above, then some other editors decided to eliminate it. There seemed to be no objections to that. Now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large. That's since become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable. See this Talk Page, also on that topic. Ca.papavero (talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. Sub-section: Advocate at large
Is this a stray section? There's somewhat interesting information, but what exactly is this section's purpose… I've been wondering about this for a while now, indecisively. How does it differentiate from other sections, or how can it be developed? Ca.papavero (talk) 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it does have some issues, so it seems.  First, I moved out one of the sentences that mentioned her ranking by NewsMax as a GOP figure.  I placed that to the other section about criticism and praise.  But, now there's just these two other sentences.   And they're really just dealing with her public appearances, which we've considered before… in fact, we eliminated them a while ago, if you see prior notes. See this Talk Page, where we mention that prior section once called "Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared…"  Remember that? We questioned the paragraph(s) and their citations and relevance.  Eventually it was eliminated. That's probably becasuse she's not unlike most public figures, that make many, many appearances through their lifetime.  That section has been gone a while now, seemingly without objection.  I'm guessing that's because most of us have agreed that we're not going to cite every appearance a public figure has made.  If its significant or exceptional, surely we can mention it.  But, now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large.  That's since its become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable.  I've actually found she may have appeared at Ripon several times.  But, to play devil's advocate… So what?  Republicans appear at crowds of conservative groups, Democrats before liberal groups, Greens before their own…. and so on.  Therefore, I question how exceptional this should be regarded.  By the way second sentence mentions "National Press Club" as mentioned in the article.  But this Wikipedia article is attributing that to a Press club although it reads as "National Press Club."  It's not particular to National Press Club (United States), which I'm not quick to assume, since the disambiguation the source (named in the citation) ambiguously calls it "the National Press Club."  Again… appearing before THE National Press Club of the U.S. is not all that exceptional.  They invite notable dignitaries all the time… whoever, whatever party… etc.  Again, so what?   I wouldn't be surprised if The Club has invited most of the presidential candidates, if not had some of them speak in prior events, before they became candidates. So, I'm almost at the point of wanting to eliminate this entire section.  Any comments? Ca.papavero (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A video of her address before the National Press Club (United States) (NPC) can be seen here, confirming the event. Finding this, doesn't change my observations above.  As said, I see countless speakers at these luncheons at NPC. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

ELIMINATED and copied below

Copy & Remove "Advocate at large"
Transferred by Ca.papavero (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Update the Infobox
I'm not yet an expert on the area Wikipedia Infobox, but I do realize that Fiorina's should be updated. I also realize it's not as easy as it seems. What exactly should be included there? It has to be comparable, concise, materially relevant and already cited elsewhere in the article. Right now (although I'm busy), I'm thinking of things to prepare us to move in that direction. There' a few vital information bits that have to be added, such as her current (job) positions or titles (all on their way at being verified). And, then, there's that controversial paragraph about Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Foundation… how do treat and "title" that? So… please offer feedback and help on this. I'd like to move forward on it soon. She is a U.S. presidential candidate and this information should be to the standards that are comparable to others. It's a priority, I believe. Another item on the list. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)