Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 7

Stock price in lead
The lead says that HP stock price fell 65% during her tenure. That seems to be out of context and imbalanced in terms of WP:NPOV. Here is what the Des Moines Register says:

H-P’s stock fell 52 percent from her first day on July 19, 1999, to her firing on Feb. 8, 2005, using prices adjusted for dividends. (It’s even worse — down 65 percent — if actual prices are used.)....The tech-heavy NASDAQ index fared much better than H-P stock, falling 26 percent over Fiorina’s six-year tenure. So the actual facts in context are still bad for Fiorina, but not nearly as bad as we now indicate in the lead. Note that this info is from an editorial, but there are lots of straight news stories that confirm this. Some sources peg the stock drop at less than 50%.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a good analysis here that could be used. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  22:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * According to that source Under Carly Fiorina's watch, HP's stock price (adjusted for dividends, etc. to today's price) went from $39.75 in 1999 to $23.32 the day she was fired in 2005. Per WP:CALC that is a 58.66% drop. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting also is the market reaction, when the stock jumped almost 7% on the news of Fiorina's ousting. This from CNN Money on that day . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * (39.75-23.32)/39.75=.41.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops... -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected to 41.3%. I think that the confusion lies on how it is presented, as on the day she was fired the stock won back 7%: “The stock price dropped by 50% only to rally 10% on the announcement of her firing." -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This from CBS MarketWatch : And H-P shares lost more than half their value during Fiorina's tenure, underperforming Dell's by a wide margin and also lagging IBM's stock performance.  - I'd say we use "more than half of its value". What do you think? -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot depends on whether dividends are considered. I'd say to stick with the sources that offer the most detail to demonstrate that they're not just winging it or repeating what someone else said.  As a baseline, can we mention the corresponding NASDAQ drop in the lead.  It's kind of like criticizing the CEO of ITT Corporation whose share price went from $150 to $17.5 within a year.  The year was 1929.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I used the CBS Marketwatch source, per WP:BOLD. Feel free to correct or add. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I combined your edit with mine, hope it works for you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Thanks for collaboration on this. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  01:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Okie doke, thanks Cwobeel.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The 41% claim is a total fiction... HP's historical stock prices are verifiable facts.  HP's closing price was $57.00 on the business day before Carly took the position of CEO (July 16, 1999) and it closed at $20.14 on February 8, 2005 (the day before she was fired). That is a reduction of 64.7%.  You can verify for yourself here or anywhere else that lists stock prices:
 * If you convert both to 2015 dollars (e.g., here: http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl), that's a reduction from ~$80.31 to ~$24.21, or 69.9%. If you want to adjust for dividends, here you go: HP consistently offered $0.08 dividends per quarter over this period . 23 dividends were issued by HP during Fiorina's tenure, so that's a value of $1.84 (= ~$2.61 in 2015 dollars). So, at best, if you bought stock the day before Fiorina took over (purchased at ~$80.31 2015 USD), you made ~$2.61 2015 USD in dividends while she was CEO, and when she was canned you had only ~$24.21 2015 USD worth of stock left over.  That's a reduction from ~$80.31 to ~$26.82 or 66.6%.
 * Those are the numbers. I'm not asking that these be included in the article because they are 'original research', but it certainly belies the nonsense "41%" claim in the lead.  The "adjusted" numbers in the bizjournals.com reference (i.e., claiming a $39.75 stock price for HP when Fiorina took office) used to support this claim are WAY, WAY off the actual HP stock prices and since the adjustments are not explained, they are not reproducible.  41% is complete fiction, and that's a verifiable fact.  Merely saying a reduction of "more than half" as opposed to "two thirds" is concession enough.  Bueller 007 (talk) 08:11, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As best I can tell, she was appointed CEO on 19 July 1999. On that date, the adjusted stock price was $36.54.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You should use the closing price for the day before she was appointed (Jul. 16th), not the day she was appointed (and doing so works in her favour in this case because the stock price increased the day she got the job). If you want to use adjusted stock prices from Yahoo, the Jul 16, 1999 price was $35.83.  The adjusted Feb. 8, 2005 price was $17.48.  That's a reduction of 52%, not accounting for inflation.  If you do account for inflation, it goes from $50.48 to $21.01, or a reduction of 58%.  Both are substantially higher than the claimed 41% and again "more than half" suits the bill better.  Bueller 007 (talk) 08:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to edit war with you about it.. I disagree with scrubbing reliable sources because you happen to think they're wrong. American City Business Journals is a reliable source, and this particular article has been relied upon by other reliable sources such as Politifact.  At the very least, your scrubbing of the lead ought to await conclusion of this talk page discussion.  Anyway, I will dig into the numbers to see if your argument is plausible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The wish to follow reliable sources is a good motive. The 41.3% number was not in any of those sources. Here are what the sources say: USA Today Money – 65%, Yahoo Finance – "some 50%", Independent Journal Review – "57.32% drop", Wall Street Journal – "down around 50%", CBS San Francisco – "more than 50 percent", San Jose Mercury News – 52 percent, Market Watch – "more than half", Forbes – "During Fiorina’s tenure HP’s stock price collapsed from $36.58 to $18.68". So we can try and summarize these numbers with a vague approximation or we can tell the reader all the numbers that appear to be reliably published. Binksternet (talk) 23:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this reliable?Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "more than half of its value" is the correct presentation of the preponderant sources. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The August 2011 bizjournal article certainly says 41.3%, but a Google search which is limited to the time span 2005–11 finds nobody else saying 41.3% – not Reuters, not Associated Press, not anybody other than this op-ed. I don't like that number because the publication went off in its own unique direction, without showing in depth how they arrived at their figures. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not going to make a big stink about it, but the biz journals piece explicitly says it's an "article" as opposed to opinion, and Politifact explicitly relies upon and links to that article, and moreover that article gives explicit starting and ending prices for the HPQ shares which is a lot more detail than most sources provide. I never suggested we should say 41.3% is the correct number, but at the same time I don't think we should rule it out.  Additionally, we know for certain that there is no single correct figure, because it depends whether dividends are factored in, and how the bounce is treated on the day she resigned, etc, etc.  I don't expect to have anything more to say about it for the time being.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead opening sentence
The fact that Fiorina is seeking the nomination is not a primary feature of her bio and should not be on the first sentence. All other nominees have a mention of their running in the lead, but not on the first sentence, and for good reason. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems apt for the first paragraph, per Hillary Clinton.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

WHOIS
WHOIS is a primary source, so if this material is notable for inclusion we need secondary sources to attest for that notability. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Please do not include trivial information unless it is notable and reported in secondary sources. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

you may need to learn the basics of WP:BRD. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

See also WP:WPNOTRS. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Ditto about this one. Utterly useless trivia in a biography. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Original research and synthesis. Needs a secondary source that grants some sort of weight and importance to that. Otherwise it should be kept off. § FreeRangeFrog croak 20:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop condescending, this is not original research. The appropriate place to look is WP:RS where it says, "Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." It does not say — absolutely — that primary sources cannot be used.  It does not define a Whois as primary, either.  These are indeed legal regards, just like a birth or death record, or business registrations. They are official documents, not subjective.  The article is simply taking "specific facts" from the record, not interpreting it.  There is no claim, synthetic claim or analysis being made.  By the way, if you look at the section about Fiorina Foundation and Enterprises, it's mentioning an article that sources official business records, then interviews Fiorina's office for a comment.  This Wikipedia article doesn't go there, but simply states the facts of the record.  It establishes when the organization was formed and licensed.  There's nothing subjective about that.  There's nothing more accurate on that matter than the official government record itself.  Why would you quote another source about when a person was born, or a business licensed, when you can quote the official record?  That does not make sense.  Take for example controversies about Obama's birth record.  Do we quote a another source, or do we go with the official record from Hawaii? Ca.papavero (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please stop commenting on editors, and keep your comments to the argument at hand. You have two editors, me and FreeRangeFrog telling you that you that this material needs to be covered by secondary sources, to attest for notability, otherwise is fails NOR. I have posted a request at WP:RS/N so that other editors can weigh in as well. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am trying to understand your point, but I fail to see how this material is even useful for a biography. Who really cares that a website is registered as private or the name of the registrant? It is useless trivia IMO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but you quote all these things without following them yourself, so I really don't know why you keep tossing them at me.  Do you really adhere to WP:BRD yourself?  I've noted these things laboriously over and over again, to which you have continually ignored.  I even noted it on your own Talk Page, which you sarcastically replied that its long winded.  And yet you come in and automatically remove and edit without discussion as if you OWN this article.  That's not only rude, but arrogant.  Why would you cite these things, and yet not even respect the discussion I've created in the above.  I have even gone at length to copying things to this talk page, which I have removed from the article, so as to invite further discussion.  But, yourself… its delete, delete, delete… No discussion.  No record of changes.  Just cryptic and brief notes… sometimes nothing whatsoever.  Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you actually read and comb though those paragraphs, then you will realize that the Whois is just factual, official records that SUPPORT and EVIDENCE the information and other citations in that paragraph. So, I really don't understand your questions about something that's official record, as if that's less reliable?! Ca.papavero (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * This is irrelevant information sourced to a primary source. It is not notable, usable, or otherwise informative and should not be included unless you can produce secondary sources that attest to the significance of that material. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. I have asked other editors to weigh in, which is the correct way to resolve content disputed. Patience. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not irrelevant information. You keep deleting information, over and over again, acting as if you own this article, which is not fair.  You give no good faith to other editors, namely myself, and just go ahead and wipe out their contributions, instead of giving them and others the opportunity to discuss or expand on their ideas,  So, essentially, you have already set this peer review up for failure… because you are taking ownership and framing it.  How can I possibly continue to show its relevance, when you keep wiping the information and burying it in cryptic notations.  I've actually questioned you on that time and again, to which you also ignore.  Ca.papavero (talk) 20:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, comment on the edits and not on the editor. I am not sure what is the rush for a peer review or GA. There is no deadline. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As if the edits are not being done by you, the editor. And I am talking about your edits.  And you still are insensitive enough not to acknowledge what I'm saying.  You are changing the subject.  Ca.papavero (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please stop? We are having a discussion here about the appropriateness of including material sourced to WHOIS only, but you keep attacking me with accusations and other nonsense. Drop it already and be patient until others weigh in. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (←) Unless there is some reliable sourcing for the WHOIS "investigations," they should be removed without further discussion per wp:blp. Wikipedia isn't the place for editors to advance their original research and to synthesize political theories.  Justen (talk) 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to concur with others here: Whois is not a reliable source for the identity of who registered a domain. When you register a domain, you can put it just about any name and address for the relevant contacts. "29 per cent of domains are registered with patently false or suspicious information". And whatever name is on there does not look to be significant information anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all ridiculous. I also question how many of you have reviewed the matter. I'm not sure how you do that, when  User:Cwobeel and others keeps wiping paragraph after paragraph, without fair and proper notation, making it an incredible burden, if not nearly impossible for anyone to trace. Then, to have the audacity to claim that I'm doing the attack to User:Cwobeel?!    Please show how the source is unreliable.  Show how its not "official."  Show how this is "original research" when it's simply citing public record.  How is citing a Whois for a website a "political theory?"  Please show that.  That seems a bit farfetched and far reaching.  And please explain, if a Whois is not reliable, then why is it a law common of all nations around the world to register a domain and supply this basic information?  Are you the question the government itself as a "reliable source?" How about corporate records.. are they not reliable, either?  Birth and death records.  I guess if someone changes their name… it makes it totally unreliable… This is absolutely laughable.  What's even more ironic, is that I'm sitting here talking to a aback of anonymous editors about what's legitimate.  Almost every editor here is warring and citing one wikipedia rule or guide after another  (WP Synth, POV, OR, DEADLINE, etc.).  Its become like a proverbial "read of the riot act." And most of you think that it gives you more credibility, authority and even righteousness over another editor… a sense of primacy.  As if all you have to do is incite some rule or guideline and keep pounding on it again and again.  Frankly I'm starting to laugh it all off.  It's gotten to point that guidelines are cited so liberally that they've become meaningless and used as political devices… and its disgusting.    Ca.papavero (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * It may be ridiculous, laughable and the rest to you, but not to all others that have commented here, who had made it very clear that this material is not to be included. That is the way that Wikipedia works. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As someone independent of this article, I concur - utterly trivial material and based on a primary (and known to be wildly inaccurate) source. It should not be in the article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Biased article
This article is hard to read since it is, in my opinion, carefully worded and choosey about how it portrays the subject in such a way as to bias the reader to think negatively about the subject. I am adding a tag for the neutrality to be checked. Please do not remove the tag until this matter is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You will need to be more specific. I read the article and found it well sourced and neutral.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Wow you read the entire article in the whole 2 minutes between my edit and your revert? Fast reading skills. I am sure you found it to be very well structured but unfortunately I was looking for an unbias peer review not someone like you that has a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith (I could say the same about you). If you can tell us what you see as wrong with the article, we can attempt to fix it. But a blanket condemnation of the article by means of a tag, will do nothing. If you don't engage in discussions, the tag will be gone. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lede and significant portions of the article are, indeed, structured in a way that greatly strains any semblance of neutrality. Much of this talk page and its recent history raise unresolved instances of synthesis and weasel wording that have introduced a clear slant against the subject. A recent thread at BLPN also recognized some of these issues. I've changed the tag to reflect that there is a POV issue. Justen (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Justen you may be correct, but still Cwobeel does seem to perhaps have a not-completely-unreasonable point. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags like this NPOV tag, anyone who sees the tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Certainly, while this discussion is ongoing in good faith, "anyone" who sees the tag cannot simply remove it — that would be, in a word, disruptive. There are a number of unresolved concerns that a number of editors have raised over the past several weeks on this page.  Just tackling the lede for the moment, a few places where we could (re)start the conversation would involve addressing the weasel wording saying that she "pushed through" the merger, the synthesis saying HP became the largest computer maker and then "subsequently" laid off tens of thousands of "American workers," and we could stop trying to turn the "worst ever" clickbait into a biographical fact by ramming it into the lede as though it was somehow just as important as her being named the most important woman in business.  (I actually think "pushed through" might actually be weaselly both for or against her depending on the editor or reader, which is why we should really stick to the fact that she "advocated for and completed a contentious merger" or something along those lines.)  Justen (talk) 04:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just changed "pushed through" to "accomplished".Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe that the current lead section of the article approximates the neutral point of view, although it is written in a choppy "tit for tat" style. A well written lead section should summarize the entire article in smoothly written prose, and should not need references, since all claims will be fully referenced within the body of the article. I am not recommending removing the references from the lead at this time, because the article is potentially controversial and in flux. I encourage editors of all political persuasions to edit the article, and especially the lead section, with neutrality, fairness and our policies regarding biographies of living people in mind. Do not edit as an advocate, but rather as an encyclopedist. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

If anything, the article deserves a POV tag because it does not give enough detail about Fiorina's biggest disaster: her decisive role at HP to rid the company of its innovative qualities. She wanted to make the company huge, but its products were to be uninspiring commodities, sold for the lowest price. Before Fiorina, HP was a little bit like Apple in that it performed a lot of R&D to come up with very interesting products. Fiorina cut that stuff out. She also forced a top-down management system, rewarding unquestioning adherence to assigned tasks. Before Fiorina, HP's management system, called the "HP Way", was much more democratic and free-form, allowing cooperation between distant departments, supporting decision-making at the ground level, and fostering inventive teamwork solutions. Fiorina purposely shut down the HP Way. See Business Insider "Everything At Hewlett-Packard Started To Go Wrong When Cost-Cutting Replaced Innovation", and the Chicago Tribune "Carly Fiorina's disastrous paper trail". There's also "Carly Fiorina wrong for HP, wrong for California", "Misleading Claims", "Fiorina, Hurd: no practitioners of 'The HP Way'?", "Losing the HP way", "Carly Fiorina's HP legacy looms over her 2016 ambitions", "The rise and fall of the HP Way", and "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". I'm not going to fight the POV tag because the article fails to give enough detailed description of Fiorina's disastrous leadership of HP. Binksternet (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree. Her tenure at HP was her single most notable aspect of this person. All other early and late endeavors pale in comparison. The HP sections should be the longest one, and more details about what happened at HP during her tenure. The lede should reflect that as well -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I pretty much agree with User:Cullen328. The lead is basically NPOV.  Two of its four paragraphs are about HP, and they present all sides with due weight.  I plan to remove the NPOV tag from the top, since the consensus seems to be that the lead is not slanted against the article subject.  If people would like to put an NPOV tag in a particular section then we can address it at that time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The "tit-for-tat" that Cullen notices, I think diminishes the other argument that the lede "approximates" NPOV. That's the mistake that editors have made here: if I allow something "good" about Fiorina, I have to balance it with something bad — or vice versa.  That formula is the epitome of a non-NPOV article, and it is quite apparent at this one.  Justen (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got four editors who have replied that it's not slanted against the subject, but even so your primary specific objection was addressed by changing to the word "accomplished". If you'd like to suggest a specific further change then maybe that would help.  I don't mind keeping the tag up for awhile longer, but you might want to consider that the tag itself does not exactly improve the subject's image at Wikipedia.  Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is in no way biased against Fiorina; the facts are biased against her. If anything, too much effort has been put in to adding false balance from the handful of people who don't think she destroyed the company. (And even they can't deny that shareholders lost about half of their wealth under her.)  If you want to start adding good Carly material that could potentially be seen as biasing the article, how about adding the fact that employees in Boise handed out Hostess Ding Dongs after she was fired.  (Because "Ding, dong. The witch is dead.")  Bueller 007 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "Undertook" is fine. In any large organization, there's always going to be a number of people who cheer a change of leadership.  We can honestly say in every BLP of a U.S. President that their exit from office was greeted by cheers in some quarters.  We don't, because it would be undue weight.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * One of several issues with the lede has been addressed. It's, admittedly, a great start.  But that certainly wasn't the only issue I raised, and it's not unreasonable to expect the editor who started this thread may have additional issues to raise.  And, four editors out of six over a little more than a Friday night do not a consensus make.  It would actually be very helpful for editors who have not recently been involved with this article — or who don't have as strong a set of feelings about the subject as do you, perhaps — to take a fresh look over the next several days.  Justen (talk) 01:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Stock performance is not disputed
The stock performance is not disputed, so I see no reason to omit that graph. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not say stock performance, it says how the ceo's fared, as if that is the only metric for measuring performance. Jadeslair (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Stock performance was one of the reasons for her being fired, was it not? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe so.(firing) My opinion is that it is NPOV because of the way the text is presented. Jadeslair (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Cwobeel. The graph has to go. It is original research.  The Wikipedia editor, just like you and me, took data and then draws a conclusion from it. That is original research, which is a no no AND it draws a conclusion that other people could find to be incorrect.  You are making the false argument that the graph only provides facts. Horse hockey.  It provides facts and then draws a conclusion.  I removed it from the article again.  Please provide a reliable source to support the graph and its conclusions then it can be re-added.  You have not provided a reliable source to support the conclusion that the graph present.  It is original research AND it is POV laden document that MUST be supported by a reliable source.  Just to remind you:  you are not a reliable source.  Also, you admit that the "facts" of the graph have already been presented in other places in the article, so it is redundant.  So to sum up, graph is no go because: (1) original research, (2) redundant, and (3) has no reliable source to support it.--ML (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, Cwobeel claims that the "stock performance is not disputed" which is a wild misrepresentation of the chart and the discussion. I dispute it.  The chart does NOT indicate what the stock performance was with the CEO BEFORE Fiorina.  And the stock chart is outdated.  HPQ is trading today at about $32 a share, which means that the stock chart section which claims to provide the Wikipedia reader insight on the various HP CEO (including Meg Whitman) is flat out wrong.  The chart flat out says that while Whitman was CEO the stock price has gone down 25.2%, which is lie.  It is a baldfaced lie.  The chart is a piece of crap.  During Whiteman tenure the stock price is up 28%.  It is NOT down 25.2%.  Cwobeel just flat out stated, without any proof that the "stock performance is not disputed" which is wrong.  And Cwobeel did not discuss his flat out incorrect conclusion before he reverted my edit.  He just reverted me and stuck it back in with a his short little (incorrect) claim that the "stock performance is not disputed."  Also, in July 1999 when Fiorina took office the stock price was NOT $52 as the lying, bogus chart that Cwobeel keeps putting back in the article states.  On her first day of work as CEO (July 19, 1999) the stock price was about $36 a share, not the $52 a share as the BS chart states.  That stock chart is piece of propaganda and and Cwobeel should not re-insert it until the lies in it are fixed and it is supported by a reliable source.  Right now it is an original piece of work by an editor named Peter L. Salmon who has NO track record on Wikipedia at all.  And has only provided this ONE item to WikiMedia.  Cwobeel did not vet this POS at all.  He just jammed it back in the article and falsely stated the "stock performance is not in dispute" or some such nonsense.  The lying chart, which was made by a phantom editor, states that HP's stock price fell 60.4% during her time at HP.  However, the San Jose Mercury News (A RELIABLE SOURCE AND NOT A PHANTOM EDITOR) states that the HP stock price fell 52%, not 60.4%. See: Zapler, Mike. Analysts: Carly Fiorina long on vision, fell short on execution at HP, San Jose Mercury News, April 20, 2010.  Don't put the chart back in the article.  It is biased, lying POS propaganda that should have never been in the article in the first place.--ML (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Infobox Mention
It is simply without precedent or purpose that the inclusion of 'Republican Candidate for President' is included in her infobox as though it were an office. She is not, and has never been an officeholder. Wendell Willkie was the Republican Nominee in 1940; like Fiorina, Willkie was a businessman who never held public office, and his article doesn't have an officebox mentioning him as the Nominee in '40, although that is a far more prestigious position than a declared candidate (I like Fiorina, but she doesn't even qualify for debates as of now). This same isn't done for Ben Carson or Donald Trump, or for any other business executive who has run for office. An infobox, for a politician, lists one's offices held; being a nominee isn't an office, and certainly being a candidate with no formal national party endorsement certainly doesn't qualify. You can read in the lead that she is a candidate, but being a candidate is not an office nor an official function which is due for the infobox.  Spartan 7W  §  17:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede says she "is" a politician
I don't think someone is a politician unless that person holds, previously held public office (elected or appointed), or is or was a member of a political party's power structure like Reince Preibus beinh held of the RNC. To my knowledge, Carly only hopes to become a politician. Therefore I believe the technically correct term is an aspirant for public office or wants to be a politician. She could be a hopeful politician or wants to become a politician but not yet one. Please have some editors discuss because the Lede is wrong 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.61.76 (talk)

For example see the lWede for Ben Carson who like Carly is also running for POTUS yet has no yet held public office. Yet his Lede is retire surgeon not a politician. Likewise carly is a retire bunisse excceotive NOT a polytician 74.67.61.76 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * She's announced she's running for president, therefore, she is a politician. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So look at the line for Ben Carson. 72.45.133.92 (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What other articles "say" is means little. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For the time being, she is a politician. The best example, Wendell Willkie, Republican nominee in 1940, was a businessman just like Carly Fiorina. He lost to FDR. In teh year 1940, he was a politician for all intents and purposes, but because he lost and never subsequently held office, he reverts to 'businessman'. If Carly loses the nomination, the election, doesn't get picked as VP, or never becomes a cabinet officer, she will revert to businesswoman only.  Spartan 7W  §  18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

dispute
this article is in dispute because it reads like a one sided hit piece to make Fiorina look like a terrible person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * In wikipedia we follow the sources. if there are specific concerns, please present them here so that they can be discussed and addressed. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  02:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no neutrality here. You dominate editing.  Then dominate the discussion.  You even edit other people's comments.  And you gang up on other editors and take ownership of the article, while quoting ENDLESSLY the wikipedia rules and manuals, while NEVER practicing them yourself.  To which, you then blame others of making personal attacks, as if that's not what you're doing!  76.102.18.252 (talk) 04:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you want to offer some information about what can be improved in the article, please do so. Ranting about me or other editors, does not help and does not improve the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Those are suggestions.  It has to do with your politics and parading around like you're not biased, creating the illusion of objectivity.  And until that's resolved, everything else is a waste of time.  And I think you know that in no uncertain terms.  Your game is to keep everyone else off the article that doesn't agree with you and your gang.   It's an inherent problem with you and your clique of editors, as well as with the culture of Wikipedia, not being able to weed it out.   It's like editing by gang rule.  At that, it's very childish and unbecoming.  So, don't talk to me about "ranting," as if I'm the first to make this kind of statement, to which you continue to ignore. 2601:9:7E80:1AE7:1572:EDCC:33BB:FBF7 (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC) Ca.papavero (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, all these rants, personal attacks, nonsensical accusations, and lack of WP:AGF will take you nowhere. If you have specific concerns, raise them here. Otherwise they will not be resolved. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  20:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Precious. Like an invitation to walk through a haunted house and into back alleys.  As if everything noted above in this talk page isn't "specific."  As if it's not spelled out for you.  As if you have no idea.  As if (laugh out loud), it will be resolved.  Like I said, it means nothing.  Keep quoting rules pretentiously, as you always do, like Orwellian doublespeak, etc.  You make it all meaningless Ca.papavero (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the article is pretty good according to wiki standards. I just made an edit, it was reverted. I made a mistake. The item in question was in the article but not in the order presented. You don't see me throwing a fit. If you have something you want to discuss post it here and we can reach a consensus. Jadeslair (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pollyannaish nonsense, probably because you don't realize that most of the stuff you are reading is my own work, but since altered. Many people here haven't done real work. In a reactionary stance, they just edit other people's.  And then they think of it as their own.  Or they toss lots of redundant citations without expanding on them, creating lots of clutter and bias. At one time I defended the article, but that was when the politics between editors was still manageable. I guess you haven't read all those comments above. Ca.papavero (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the nuances of collaborative editing in a wiki. It is messy, but it works at the end given enough eyeballs. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am here to help keep it neutral. Good job on the edits. Hitting ctrl f I can see that you have been on the talk page a while. I am not taking over the page or anything. I just want it to be Neutral., so I am using the talk page. Jadeslair (talk) 18:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am no longer on this page editing and writing, because I'm tired of the backstabbing and the the Orwellian babble from Cwobeel. Take note how every problem is replied with some Wikipedia rule or some other organizational maxim, never with direct, personal responsibility and sensitivity.  It's like there's no human element, just systematic talking points and empty rhetorric.  Got an issue?  It may not be your own, but that of someone's else, making an issue with you, personally and politically (i.e., absence of good faith).  Cowbeel automatically reads off some Wikipedia policy or maxim, as if it's always the logical solution.  It's become like referencing "Quotations from Chairman Mao Tsetung" (also known as the The Little Red Book").  Although you're suppose to firstly solve your problems here at the article's page, the talk from Cwobeel automatically refers to all these rhetorical Wikipedia constructs and policies, posing itself in a constant passive aggressive stance.  It's not only managerially oppressive and indoctrinating, but sickening and cyborg like. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * ok, well then I may have to be WP:BOLD Jadeslair (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ca.papavero: The fact that you don't seem to like my style of commenting, is unfortunate. Just note that in Wikipedia we ask editors to assume good faith. A modicum of that is required. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  19:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not how I remember it.  You edit first, ignoring the comments and dialog at the Talk Page, not even asking questions or reading notes before you make the edits.  Then you edit again and again.  I've actually talked to you on this, time and again. That's what I call good faith, not your seeming definition of it.   It having an actual discussion, before you edit, that's what I call good faith.  It's also about letting the fellow writers' work stand and rewrite itself, before another editor makes the adjustments.   Not jumping on it automatically and making edits.  Cwobeel, you don't even comment on the page about things, other than to patronize people or to counter their criticism.  You look at your "dialog" as being only that in the "edit summary" describing your changes as you edit.  And at that, its always in cryptic shorthand, as well as as that you making sweeping changes, sentence after sentence, paragraph after paragraph and section after section, ALL in ONE edit, with a brief shorthand summary.  Then, when someone looks for an explanation, you simply give them your Orwellian Wikipedia talk, as if that's explanation.  You hide yourself behind all these so-called rules, deflecting any personal responsibility for your actions.   Ca.papavero (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Go make some edits instead wasting time passing judgements on me. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  14:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Go do some actual work, instead of editing that of others and making your "judgements" that way. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me, this article is not neutral. From the beginning paragraph it highlights how she has failed as a CEO and had many people laid off as a result. Although the facts may not be disputed, the presentation of those facts as the highlight of her career, at the very beginning of the article make it clear the authors of this Wikipedia page do NOT have neutrality in mind, but rather have an agenda. 192.35.35.36 (talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Anonymous

I'm not even conservative or Republican and it's shocking how one-sided this page is. Sad thing is it appears to really be the result of one editor taking control of the page and refusing to allow any neutrality into the picture. Even the introduction is jaw-dropping. Is the introduction really the right place for all of this slanted information? 2601:144:C003:97D:3597:117:A575:9274 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Top pic
Generally speaking, a top pic should not show the subject looking directly away from the article text, and preferably will show the subject looking more forward than to the side. Also, the pic will preferably not be an (idolizing) shot from below, it should be of top quality, and should not be unflattering. So, here are some possibilities below.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If people like Image #2 then I could try to get the microphone removed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * At the recommendation of an editor who works at the Wikipedia Graphics Lab, I will install Image #3 for now. I agree that's it's just as good as, or better than, any of these four images.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , my opinion is that #2 is clearly the best choice. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  19:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

, No consensus was formed to remove the below portrait, and none of the above pictures are in any way superior. I didn't take this picture, so don't think I have a personal attachment to it. All of the above pictures are not very flattering; #'s 1, 3, & 5 are simply not portrait quality, #4 is creepy, and #2 does nothing which the below (and previous infobox portrait) does not provide. #2, which is the current portrait, has a microphone in front of her face, it isn't in full focus, and she isn't looking at the camera, and the coloration isn't completely natural. The below could easily be a formal portrait if she was looking at the camera; it is in focus, well composed, well-lit, and illustrates a natural and flattering expression for Mrs. Fiorina. It is best for a portrait not to have a microphone or other distracting object in the way. I see no reason why the below was removed to begin with.  Spartan 7W  §  17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well there is a consensus now. There is no place on Wikipedia where that cross-eyed photo would be appropriate. It may be well composed and well lit, but it would be a throw-away for 100% of all portrait photographers worldwide. The only reason to suggest using it is out of childish partisan spite. The microphone in the current photo is of zero import and does not harm the photo's usefulness in any way. Until a better license-free image can be located, that's the one we should be using. Eclipsoid (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My view is that that image is very unflattering. I did not remove it, but I concur with the removal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I see your point. I wouldn't classify it as crosseyed, per-say, but I would say it is a tie with #2. I should have checked the talk page earlier, I just found the current picture of no superior quality. I will peruse the interwebs for a superior portrait.  Spartan 7W  §  17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the photo Spartan re-added makes her look cross-eyed. Photo #2 is bright, has an aesthetically pleasing background, and facially is much more flattering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Any photo with the American flag in the background is a misrepresentation of Fiorina who has never been elected to political office in the US. The black background shot by Gage Skidmore is perfectly good – I don't see the "cross-eyed" thing that some here are complaining about. She's looking at something in front of her and a little to right; nothing wrong with that. Binksternet (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * First, the notion that a flag in the background is a misrepresentation is just silly, and I've never heard of such a thing. She's an American citizen, running for an American political office.  The idea that she's lying every time she stands near a flag to be photographed is just not reasonable.  As for the pic that was inserted, I agree it makes her look cross eyed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Binksternet's argument is baffling. Every political candidate (successful or unsuccessful) since the earliest days of the republic has used American flag imagery in their campaigns.  Seems to me like a flimsy pretext for the sophomoric re-insertion of an unflattering image.  This is Wikipedia, folks; not middle school. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC about whether presidential candidacy belongs in lead paragraph
Talk:Rick_PerryAnythingyouwant (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Heritage institute Comment
Ed Eduljee. "HP Hewlett Packard's Corporate Governance Woes Part 1". heritageinstitute.com. is listed as a source. The domain is privacy protected so we don't know who it is. The bottom of the webpages lists a non-notable person maybe he is the author it looks like a WP:QUESTIONABLE and self published source WP:USERGENERATED. No editorial policy listed among other concerns. Jadeslair (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke
The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke. To quote the woman from Bloomberg, this section of the Carly Fiorina article is a "trainwreck" and a "disaster". It could be eliminated entirely, but more reasonably it could be cut down to a couple of sentences. Their no reason to ever have a sentence that just says this, "Katie Benner of Bloomberg View described Fiorina's leadership at HP as a "train wreck" and a "disaster"." The number of problems with that one sentence are too numerous to mention, but it is typical of many of the sentence. This sentence is a hit and run. (1) Who is Katie Benner? Who cares? She is obviously a writer, but she doesn't even have an article about her in Wikipedia; therefore, at this point in time, Wikipedia does not even see her as notable. She has been cited in Wikipedia many times, with many different organizations, so she is a freelancer, which means she doesn't hold down a full-time stable gig. I don't see why her opinion is even relevant. Has she run a Fortune 20 company? No. (2) The sentence doesn't even provide the reader what her reasoning is. It just grabs the two insults and wraps them in scare quotes. It is just one of many BS sentences in the whole section. The whole section is a coatrack to list every conceivable complaint about Fiorina. It makes the whole article unfair and biased. It is a joke. I'm going to trim it down. Please feel free to work with me as I trim it down and end its existence as a place to dump on Fiorina, under the false claim that this is an encyclopedia article--especially since it has the name "praise" in the name but ZERO praise in the section.--ML (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The Criticism section should not exist, the fact that it is mixed with the word praise just stinks that a biased section is coming. There should not be a Criticism section, Those items should be incorporated into the article if appropriate. It should be written in an Impartial tone. Jadeslair (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The section should be removed entirely. Besides being an obvious COATRACK, it is also a thinly disguised WP:CSECTION. Eclipsoid (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:COATRACK doesn't apply and the criticism and praise section does belong. Her firing and the criticism/praise that followed are very much a part of her resume and professional experience, especially now with her candidacy for POTUS.  It's going to be discussed everywhere she goes (and already is if you watched the debate the other night).  Her name and time at HP evokes both strong hatred and admiration from two totally different camps.  And it's all notably and easily referenced through reliable sources.  The only potential problem with the section is the tendency toward imbalance.  I've started to remedy that.  As a side note: the edit warring over the coatrack notice is very pointy and disruptive and it needs to stop.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In general a criticism page should not exist, items should be incorporated into the article. I know that I cited an essay but it coincides with the NPOV policy which is a core policy that is "This policy is non-negotiable". Jadeslair (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We can easily rename that section. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:27, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a good start Jadeslair (talk) 00:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's better. Fiorina is a person, not a book or a movie or TV show.  "Reception" means, what, exactly, in relation to an individual person?  How she's received at events?  It makes no sense in relation to a BLP.  Why not just leave it as "Criticism" since criticism can be both negative and positive?  Or, it could be Assessment: public and professional; or Critique: public and professional.  But "Reception" just isn't on the mark, sorry.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  01:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant renaming was a good start, I did not see that it was already renamed. The title certainly is not appropriate as it stands, it still does not fit in under the heading of the section either. I thought we were trying to write encyclopedic content. I may be wrong.