Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 9

Regarding POV and "Carly-bashing"
One premise of the editors who refuse to clean up the article (and by "clean up" I mean tone down the redundant and one-sided bashing of her record as CEO of HP) is that if you review the articles then you will see that her tenure has been declared, without question, a failure. That premise is false and that is why the article is written like a bash Carly essay, instead of an encyclopedia entry. Ten years have gone by and HP is still at the top of IT world and there are many people that looking back on her time and changing their point of view that they had at the time. And just like all historical figures as time goes forward people change their minds about their success or failure and their influence or lack of influence--it does not matter if it Obama, Bush, Lincoln, the Wright Brothers, Edison, and Fiorina. Opinions change. The article is chucked full of articles written in the heat of battle in 2005. This article is full of articles written in 2005 by people that had a clear biased toward Fiorina and some of whom were actually part of the action at HP, at the time. There is reference after reference to the comments of family members of the Hewlett Family and the Packard Family. Why the repetition of their opinions of these particular people? They are inherently biased. They are NOT objective. They did not want change at the company that their grandfather's started. I'm not saying their opinions are worthless, but come on they are were part of the fight at the time. They were not and are not now objective. This article is like if we were to edit the Hillary Clinton article with only comments from Ken Starr or Newt Gingrich. It is ludicrous proposition to edit the Hillary article using only the comments of Starr and Gingrich and it is just as ludicrous to argue that we should quote the comments from Great-grandkids of David Packard like they are unbiased, objective observers and that we should treat them like they are experts on HP or the IT industry. They are major shareholders of that company they have vested interests in bashing Fiorina and because she advocated making bold changes to the company that created their trust funds. I'm not saying the article should be all sunshine and happiness toward Fiorina, but it should not be all POV bashing all the time. The literature does NOT support that premise. For example, one of the articles cited but NOT quoted is: The HP-Compaq Merger: Partners Reflect 10 Years Later. In that article the author, Rob Wright, talks about how he was firmly against the merger in 2001, but in 2011 he has decided that the merger was a success:
 * But fast-forward a decade, and solution providers say the historic merger was a surprising success and ultimately helped their businesses. And the bold move ultimately produced what the two companies promised – a worldwide technology powerhouse with top revenue positions in servers, PC and printers (go here for the official HP-Compaq merger press release).


 * "You look back now, and Carly [Fiorina, former HP CEO] was right – there was a lot of synergy between the two companies," Tommy Wald, CEO of White Glove Technologies in Austin, Texas, said. "The merger worked out well in retrospect. I think they turned the combined company into a strong channel company, which is what we were all concerned about as partners."

--ML (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wald was one of many HP/Compaq partners who, at the time, were skeptical of the move. Wald's company Riata Technologies (which merged with White Glove Technologies in 2010) was a loyal Compaq partner, and Wald didn't want to see his top vendor become part of HP. He was greatly concerned about the potential disruption in the channel, too.
 * Compaq and HP: Ultimately, the Urge to Merge Was Right, Alice LaPlante, Stanford Graduate School of Business.--ML (talk) 14:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Merger That Worked: Compaq and Hewlett-Packard, The Huffington Post.--ML (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you heard about the subject of Historical revisionism? This is a biography, and as such her tenure at HP, is fair game. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have no problems in presenting alternative views of her tenure, such as the one from Rob Wright, but proportionality has to be maintained as the prevalent viewpoint is that her tenure was disastrous in a number of fronts. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said it wasn't fair game. Your comment is completely off the topic.  If you actually read what I wrote then you will see that I don't think the whole article should be sweetness and light for Fiorina.  What I stated is that the way the article is written now about her HP record is biased and one-sided and it should be balanced with the facts that HP still exists, HP still is one of the leading IT companies in the world, HP did not fall apart as many of Fiorina's original (2001/2002/2003) detractors said it would and that many of her critics have changed their minds.  These are facts that the fact that the article does not present these facts make the article POV pushing. (Please, Anythingyouwant (talk), note what I just wrote.)  The POV pushing needs to be calmed down.  It is written and highly dramatic way, not encyclopedic. (Yes, some of the scare quotes have been removed.)  It sometimes quotes bloggers like that lady from the LA Times, Robin Abcarian, who is non-notable and the article of hers we quote is a commentary!  Wikipedia should not quote editorials to prove facts.  I calmed down her rant, but her rant should have never been in the article.  She is not professor of business, she is a blogger and political hack who was providing her opinion.  It was clearly marked opinion and/or commentary.  Her quote called the HP founder's saints!!! SAINTS!  What hogwash.  Why is an article about Fiorina calling the HP founders saints?  Did H and P get sainthood from the pope recently and I just missed it.  What a load of crap.  The article needs the rest of the redundancy and hyperbole trimmed down.  I did not say it should be removed entirely--so your point is irrelevant, but toned down and trimmed down.  Yes, her tenure is fair game, but hyperbole ("sainted H & P" and "went down in flames") and the redundancy (Following her resignation from HP, CBS News,[72] USA Today[73] and Portfolio.com[78]) has got to go.--ML (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cwobeel, you just admit above that you, and I quote you directly, "the prevalent viewpoint is that her tenure was disastrous in a number of fronts" what your point-of-view (POV) is that you are pushing. It is not up to you to decide what the "prevalent" POV should be, by definition that is POV pushing.  Thank you, though, for making it clear what your POV is AND that you are determined to keep pushing it.--ML (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The prevalent POV is the prevalent POV based on the overwhelming number of sources that describe her tenure as a total disaster. Do you want a list? I'll research it and post it here. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And yes, I am determined to make this article compliant with the non-negotiable policy of WP:NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  16:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If your comment above is true then why are you flat out stating that you are going to push your point of view? Let's deal with specifics, instead of your broad hyperbole ("non-negotiable policy").  Quoting non-notable bloggers from LA who say that Fiorina "went down in flames" is NOT NPOV, you matter how adamant you are about it.--ML (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that there is an overabundance of commentary on Fiorina regarding her time at, and departure from, HP. My viewpoint is not based on any personal or political agenda or from a personal point of view but from someone attempting to copy edit and improve on an encyclopedia article.  It occurs to me that while there is a (as CWO Beel put it) preponderance of negative commentary on Fiorina that outweighs the positive commentary, that doesn't mean this article has to do the same.  It needs to be balanced.  Not exactly 50/50, but more balanced than it is now.  Further, it is greatly over-laden with quotations on Fiorina's time at HP.  See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE for more.  I continue to stand by WP:IMPARTIAL as policy in regard to the article's current imbalance toward the negative.  Just because it exists, that doesn't mean we are compelled to include it.  How many times do you need to say essentially the same thing and how many different ways do you need to say it?  She has her detractors regarding HP and she has her supporters regarding HP.  We aren't here to make sure every negative viewpoint that says essentially the same thing as the next person giving a negative viewpoint is quoted.  We can paraphrase (within guidelines) and get the same result (fairly represent the negative) while keeping every reference.  What exists currently is a very bloated and unbalanced section.


 * The continued mention of "false balance" is not really appropriate, either. The manner in which the term is being thrown around again and again in this discussion, one would think policy on such supports the viewpoint of those using said terminology.  The only policy regarding "false balance" in articles is found here.  Indeed, it refers to giving equal time to fringe and minority theories, not  what it is being portrayed to mean: {{tq|"While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world."  We edit according to policy and guidelines.  As one can see, policy on false balance isn't what's being presented here, as if we are editing against policy and guidelines by wanting the balance being discussed.


 * One more thought: The finger pointing and accusations need to stop. Such behavior is doing nothing helpful or constructive.  -- WV ● ✉ ✓  17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern remains about presenting a false balance. I agree with you that there is no need to cite the same criticism again and again, but we have to find a way to respect NPOV and not try to equate negative comments with positive ones, giving a minority viewpoint the same weight as the majority viewpoint. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you Winkelvi. To be clear, I never stated that the article should only state positive things about Fiorina because it should state the problems at HP that are well-documented.  BUT, as you point out above, there is no need to make the article overly long by saying the same thing over and over again, from different people.  Also, "controversy" or "criticism" sections are frowned upon in Wikipedia and that is a fact.  No amount of pointing at NPOV policy is going to make that go away.  The section can be trimmed down (eliminate redundancy) and calmed down (remove the over the top language) and the negative information (with the addition of positive information) should be worked into other sections where the information applies.  That's all I am requesting.  I also don't see the point in engaging in heated battles throwing around clichés when we should be discussing the specifics how to change the article for the better.  For example, I have offered the following as an example of pointless, needless redundancy: (Following her resignation from HP, CBS News,[72] USA Today[73] and Portfolio.com[78]).  I advocated for eliminating the redundancy there and incorporating one version of that into a section that talks about that issue.  Let's focus on these specifics, instead of advocating for a certain point of view.--ML (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The article, especially that section, is a mess of redundant comments and over the top language and a refusal to insert positive comments about Fiorina.--ML (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to insert positive or negative comments. We are here to create NPOV articles that reflect significant viewpoints regardless if these are negative or positive, and we are obliged not to present a false balance. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  18:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And this comment above is an example of talking in generalities. It does not assist in the making the article better and it does not in any way dismiss or negate anything that I stated above.  Everything you stated above is true, of course.  But that misses the point.  It is a generalized statement that really can't be argued against, but it does not make the article any less biased and repetitive, and has a whole section that is basically a frowned upon controversy section that could be trimmed and calmed down and incorporated into other sections.--ML (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are under no obligation to present positive things. This is true, but it misses the point.  If the article is written in such a way to refuse to present positive things that DO exist then we are pushing a POV.  It is as simple that.  Also, when we repeat the same negative material over and over again then we are pushing a POV.  It is as simple as that.  For example, the opening sentence says, "CBS News,[72] USA Today[73] and Portfolio.com[78] ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time."  Why the need to list all three companies?  Also, who made CBS News an expert in who is great CEO or USA Today?  Wouldn't a more NEUTRAL presentation of that information merely state: "Fiorina has been named one of the worst CEOs, for her tenure at HP." (or something similar to this)???  Also, your concern is presenting the material in a NEUTRAL manner and I agree with your concern. You are not the only one that has that concern.  I find the first sentence of the third paragraph to be NOT neutral and a sentence that needs to be calmed down: "Among other criticisms, Yale business management professor Jeffrey Sonnenfeld stated in regard to Fiorina being chosen to assist with the McCain presidential campaign: "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer."[57][83]"  First of all that sentence belongs not in a "Controversy" section but should be worked into the section about her work on the John McCain for President campaign.  But it also basically quotes an adviser to Obama--McCain's foe--intimating that Fiorina should be in prison for her work as CEO of HP.  That sentence is NOT neutral and it is needs to edited in three ways: (1) trimmed down, (2) moved to the McCain section, and (3) remove the references to prison.  It is hyperbolic BS from a McCain opponents adviser.  It is like quoting James Carville to get a sense of George H. W. Bush's economic policy.--ML (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See WP:QUOTEFARM and WP:LONGQUOTE for more. Let me elaborate on one of Winkelvi's previous comments.  He is absolutely right that the article has turned into a Quote Farm.  I noticed that you, today, edited several of direct quotes of Carly.  See here and here.  And those edits seem to make sense.  And in the edit summary you specifically referred to Quote Farm.  I agree with you the article should not be a Quote Farm.  But if you look at the Wikipedia policy violating section "Controversy" section (Criticism and praise) (it should be called Lots of Criticism and very little praise), you will also see a Quote Farm.  (1) Info World: the sixth worst tech flop of all-time and characterizing her as the "anti-Steve Jobs" for reversing the goodwill of American engineers and alienating existing customers, (2) In first sentence "worst CEO of all time" and then repeated again in the second sentence of the second paragraph, "worst CEO of all time", (3) Fortune Magazine: "most powerful woman in business", (4) Time: "most influential people in the world today", (5) Forbes: "The World's 100 Most Powerful Women", (6)  Jeffrey Sonnenfeld: "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer", (7) Michael Useem: "Fiorina scored high on leadership style, but she failed to execute strategy", (8) Loren Steffy: "her failed plan to acquire part of Pricewaterhouse Coopers was justified", (9)  Craig Barrett: "Carly Fiorina positioned HP for success ... Today, HP is a stronger company because of Carly Fiorina's bold action."  The whole section is series of cherry-picked quotes.  It is an essay.  It is not encyclopedia entry. Some of these quotes need to be eliminated entirely.  Some of them need to be paraphrased.  All of the quotes need to be moved to the appropriate section, assuming they deserve to be retained at all.  They ALL need to be trimmed down, calmed down, and moved to other sections (where they are appropriate to the topic of that section).  And some of them need to be eliminated.--ML (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See UNDUE.. Now when you review the section you see that the section allow calls Fiorina "worst CEO of all time" in the first section of the section and then repeats the phrase in the second sentence of the second paragraph of the section. Also, when you review the "Resignation from Hewlett-Packard" section, which is right before the "Controversy" section you will see that it states: "She has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time[72][73][74] The article repeats the same information, three different times in three different places.  It is undue weight.--ML (talk) 20:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} I have merged the contents of the "criticism and praise" into the appropriate sections, and removed some redundant mentioning of the sources that ranked Florina as worst CEO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:19, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Also removed the duplicated entry about worst CEO. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

What else? We need more useful suggestions. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Just added more on the positive criticism side. If anyone disagrees with its inclusion, please discuss it here first rather than just deleting or reverting. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

UNDUE
The recent addition, is WP:UNDUE. Sure, there are a few commentators that say that the merger was a success, but these are the minority viewpoint. But now it covers 2/3 of the section. Tagged accordingly. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disagree that it's undue weight. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So, in your opinion, comments from four individuals equate 100 of sources that describe Fiorina's tenure as a disaster? Is that your position? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This is bordering on the ridiculous:

The opinion of the VP responsible for the post merger, and a business professor given all this space in a short section? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Moved to the section in which the merger is described. It still needs paring down as it is too much text for two relatively unknown commentators. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The Stanford report is discussed in a recent Politifact analysis, along with a bunch of other sources. So this Stanford source seems acceptable for this Wikipedia article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that is acceptable, but it needs to be summarized as it exceeds other relevant commentary. Otherwise we are giving it too much weight. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have summarized their views, giving it the necessary weight amongst other commentators. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  23:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The re-placement of the content looks like a better choice. Moving on, I would like to discuss this: "Fiorina presented herself as a realist regarding the effects of globalization" at the opening of the fourth paragraph, HP section.  The way it reads seems less than neutral to me.  As if it could lead a reader to believe we are saying she was posing as a globalization realist rather than that's what she was.  Ideas on how we can reword for complete NPOV? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  03:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Better now? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, thank you for taking care of it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Have removed more undue weight. This time, from the early life section: Fiorina's father's occupations and career path need not be gone into in this article. He has an article, it's linked, therefore anyone who wants to learn more about him may do so there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Political career
This material is begin described as not compliant with NPOV by, straight after other comments from a similarly biased source (the VP in charge of the implementation of the merger), was argued for inclusion.

We can't have it both ways. Material that is properly attributed and that are properly sourced, even if they are not "neutral" are useful material and don't violate policy. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing this document is not a zero sum game ("we can't have it both ways") as if we don't use this particular quote then the article is not neutral--that is a bald faced false choice. As a matter of fact, it is not a game at all.  It is not the only problem left with the article.  There are many, many more POV issues but I'm not going to go over them tonight.  But as for this particular matter. Sonnenfeld has been quoted concerning Fiorina over and over again in multiple reliable sources over many, many years (10 years).  We don't need to use the quote where he basically implies that Fiorina belongs in prison. There are other, less inflammatory, quotes where he comments on Fiorina. It is an over the top quote and it pushes the article outside of the goal, which is a NEUTRAL POV article.  There is a quote where he gives Fiorina a C/C+ for her time as CEO for example.  This type of quote (where he basically says that she should be happy she isn't in prison) would NEVER make into an article about Hillary Clinton, nor should it.--ML (talk) 00:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What has this to do with Hilary Clinton? If you want to comment on that article, there is a talk page for that. I will paraphrase Sonnenfeld comment instead of quoting directtly if the metaphor he used bothers you. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  15:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note concerning Clinton: You are right this article is not about Clinton, but that misses the point. Neutral is neutral. Period.  If don't allow flamethrowing comments in the article about Clinton (which is right way to keep the article neutral) then we should not have a policy that allows flamethrowing comments in the article about Fiorina. That's was my point and I will ask the question again, in the future, would we allow that type of comment in the Hillary article and if the answer, in the future, is no then it should not be used.--ML (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Anything else? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits.--ML (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

When there is a boatload of sources, then we should be deliberately choosing the highest quality references. Academic references from scholarly pieces when possible, or review pieces that attempt to describe her or her involvement in a situation in context. So, primary sources that are opinion pieces or written by people close to a situation should be depreciated in favor of higher quality references. When possible, I encourage everyone to replace direct quotes about her from political opponents with review articles that put the comments in context. Sydney Poore/FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 15:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree 100%. Sonnefeld was involved closely in the whole HP/Compaq merger debate, on the side of the H & P Families, in direct opposition to Fiorina.  He was actively assisting those families in their proxy fight with Fiorina.  He is still on the payroll of the H & P Families as a consultant.  He is not a high quality source.  There are better quality sources that can be quoted than Sonnefeld.  One indicator of his lack of subjectivity is the fact that in the quote used in this article he basically states that she should be happy she is not in prison, or she is one step from prison, etc.  It is a flamethrowing comment from a source that is directly, personally, financially involved in seeing Fiorina fail and/or damage her reputation or the damaging the reputation of the merger.  He is a poor, poor quality source.  Yes, we should be using higher quality sources from more objective sources.  That is a fact with which I agree.--ML (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Example of a Very Poor Source. Sonnefeld is a poor source because he is directly involved seeing Fiorina's failure, but there are other poor sources in the article.  Another example is this one from the third paragraph of the section entitled, "Republican National Committee fundraising chair and 2008 campaign": After media coverage of Fiorina's comments, CNN reported a top campaign advisor for McCain said, "Carly will now disappear...Senator McCain was furious."  We don't even know who said this.  It is a completely anonymous quote.  The same information can be presented in the article from someone whose name we know.  There is a "boatload of sources" to back up the exact same sentiment.  We don't need to be quoting a anonymous source that may or may not exist.  That needs to be substituted with a better source.--ML (talk) 16:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So do it... You can research and find better sources, I can't do it all on my own -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Dear Cwobeel: Don't assume that I told you to do it. I was just explaining what I am going to do. But I can't do it right now because I have a real job that pays me real money so I win get to it when I can.  I probably won't get to it until this evening. Thank you for working with me on these issues.--ML (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I tried, but I can tell you that finding "Academic references from scholarly pieces" is not an easy task. I searched and there is not much. This means that we have to use what we have, as whitewashing is not an option as it will fail WP:NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a neutral reliable source to present exact same information in a unbiased way. I did notice that you made a reasonable edit to my edit, but you had to add in the edit summary the following backbite: "making sense of a sentence /c/e". Good job.  Also, there was no "whitewash" of the previous information that was just more unnecessary melodrama.--ML (talk) 15:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey relax, that edit summary was not intended as a backbite. Lets not make this personal OK? We have been doing pretty good over past few days in responding to POV concerns and improving the article. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  15:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--ML (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * said that Sonnenfeld was not a reliable source, but the point is that Sonnenfeld was quoted by others, so Sonnenfeld is not actually our source. We're not looking, for instance, at an op-ed written by Sonnenfeld himself. His pronouncements about Fiorina have been quoted by reliable sources, making the quotes both reliable and significant to Fiorina. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed the Sonnefeld quote. I just made the point that he is person whose job is to attack Fiorina.  He gets paid to attack Fiorina.  He is paid by the members of the Packard and Hewlett families to attack Fiorina in as many newspaper articles as possible.  This is a fact.  There is no speculation over this.  I realize that we are quoting reliable sources.  But there are many, many attack quotes from him and we cherry-picked the one where he obliquely implies that she should be in prison.  Prison was his word.  He is a paid consultant to Walter and William Hewlett.  Part of his consulting gig is to attack Fiorina relentlessly.  We don't mention this fact in the article whatsoever.  We quote him like he is an objective outside source, but he isn't.  I have made the analogy that it is like quoting James Carville about what his take is on George H. W. Bush economic policy.  Carville is biased source toward Bush, that's a fact and so is Sonnefeld.--ML (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We quote him as reliable because his opinion is considered important by our reliable sources. It doesn't matter if he boils children and eats them. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And that comment is hogwash. We would not quote Charles Manson.--ML (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That comment is horse hockey. We are editors.  We decide what is undue weight and what isn't.  Your comment is what outside the basics of three pillars of Wikipeida.  It isn't even close to reality.  We do not just take every single comment made in reliable sources and jam them into the articles.  That is hogwash and horse hockey.  I'm not saying we should not quote Sonnenfeld.  I just think that, as editor FloNight, pointed out we should pick and choose our sources wisely--especially if we have boatloads of them, which we do in Sonnenfeld's situation, since he is paid hack for the Packard and Hewlett families.  And yes it would be relevant if he "boils children and eats them". What hogwash!  That's a nonsensical statement.--ML (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "He gets paid to attack Fiorina. He is paid by the members of the Packard and Hewlett families to attack Fiorina in as many newspaper articles as possible. This is a fact." According to whom/what in the way of a reliable source is this fact?  Further, Carville is not biased toward, but biased against GW Bush.  That's what you were trying to say, right? -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "For instance, Sonnenfeld said he has been critical of Hewlett-Packard, giving Carly Fiorina low grades as a CEO and calling the pay package for her successor Mark Hurd “a ‘damning indictment’ of CEO hiring contracts,” in the Seattle Times in 2010. Hewlett-Packard has been a sponsor of Sonnenfeld’s non-profit in the past. Although Sonnenfeld did come to HP’s defense when its board suddenly decided to fire Hurd after allegations that he had had an inappropriate relationship with an “adult” actress HP had hired to act as a hostess at client events." #1 Example: DuPont activist battle spreads from Wall Street to academia.--ML (talk) 18:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Example #2: Being friends with Yale prof Sonnenfeld has its benefits--ML (talk) 18:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Example #3: The Big Lie: Spying, Scandal, and Ethical Collapse at Hewlett Packard.--ML (talk) 18:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The first example you provided is from an unreliable source per Wikipedia standards. The second example you provided is from a book that doesn't - from what I can tell - give any hard evidence that Sonnenfeld is what you say he is. -- WV ● ✉ ✓  18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC).
 * More hogwash. What I gave you is all from reliable sources. I don't want to hear hogwash about how the NY Post is not reliable.  It doesn't matter anyway because I'm not putting these particular quotes in the article.  I provided proof that Sonnefeld has worked for the HP Board, during the Fiorina deal and he was part of the drama that unfolded at HP, an active participant.  I'm going to edit the quote regardless of your comments above.  There are better sources for the information and nothing you have said change that fact.--ML (talk) 19:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

You may not want to hear it, but the NYP is not a reliable source. Especially for a BLP. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I notice I have to repeat things with you because you don't seem to either understand or don't read them the first time: It does not matter because I did not use the NY Post article for a quote.  Also, it is not proper to use the NY Post Page 6 section, that is clearly gossip, but the other sections are fair game, as long as they provide new information that cannot be found in a better source.  But once, again, I will repeat for you, it does not matter because I did not use that quote in the article just to make my point, which, of course, was correct.--ML (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Further,, when you make comments (as above) that say you're going to do something whether other editors disagree with you or not, it's not a sign of good faith editing or wanting to collaborate. It's worrisome, frankly. Wikipedia is a community effort, not one where we work in individual vacuums. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 21:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I worry that you will not engage in constructive discussion. You editing and your comment is worrisome.  So there, what good for the goose is good for the gander.  Now, this conversation was a total waste of time because it did not make the article better in any way whatsoever, it only made you feel better because you got to give out a lecture.  This page should be dedicated to a more constructive use about how to make the article better, not your pointless lectures.  I don't have anything to apologize for or change.--ML (talk) 22:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * MaverickLittle, you keep deleting that content while there is emerging consensus for its inclusion. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are talking about. I am going to be bold and make edits to make the article better.  That is what I have been doing.  The article was a total POV mess when I got here.  I remember that the article at one point had a graph of HP stock chart that was home-made (not from a reliable source) that had false information in it and it present the false impression that the stock price drop much, much worst than it truly was.  It just flat out made up numbers.  I had to fight with you to get that removed.  That is true.  Now, what I did with the Sonnenfeld quote is that I improved it.  I focused on the actual substance of what Sonnenfeld was being critical of (Fiorina's leadership style) instead of the way the quote was before I edited, which basically said that Sonnenfeld thinks McCain was stupid for picking a loser.  There was no substance, just juvenile Fiorina bad and McCain is stupid, which is not encyclopedic and it does NOT follow the basic principal of neutrality.  Sonnenfeld substance was added and the juvenile raspberry was removed.--ML (talk) 22:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Removed the juvenile raspberry again--not needed to express the main point.--ML (talk) 22:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Because you are relatively new here, I'm going to point some things out to you that you will want to consider, :


 * A statement like "I don't know what you are talking about. I am going to be bold and make edits to make the article better.", in the midst of all the discussion here and by ignoring the discussion, your words pretty much read like "I didn't hear that!".


 * A statement like "The article was a total POV mess when I got here." reads like "This article needs me to fix it". The truth is, Wikipedia doesn't need you or me or any of us.  There are tens of thousands (or more, I think) Wikipedia editors out there in the world.  Please read WP:WPDNNY for more.


 * When you say "the article at one point had a graph of HP stock chart that was home-made (not from a reliable source) that had false information in it", please remember that Wikipedia is a work in progress and will never be "finished" nor will it be perfect.


 * I see a lot of self-focus on what you are doing, what you want, what you think you are entitled to do, etc. For example, in just the paragraph above, you wrote: "I am going to...what I have been doing... when I got here...I remember...I had to fight...what I did...I improved it...I focused on...I edited".  Please read WP:TEAMWORK, take it to heart, and remember that you aren't here all alone.  There are others who would like to work on this article peacefully.  And, while you're at it (because the preponderance of "I" comments from you above reminded me of this) see WP:OWN.


 * As has already pointed out a few posts above, you really don't need to be so defensive.  We are all trying to improve the article.  Working together is a much more pleasant experience, and achieves more toward the ultimate goal: improving the encyclopedia.  Please take these comments as they are intended: friendly, good faith suggestions.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You can read into the comment whatever you want. But your comment does not change the fact that my edits are constructive, follow neutral POV, and are supported by reliable sources and you, personally, don't like my edits.  But it is not all about you all the time.--ML (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a total mess when I got here and I am not going to apologize for the work I put into it. And I am not going to read some hogwash essay that you think I need to read because the truth is I don't want to and I don't have to. You should re-read and report back to all of us.--ML (talk) 15:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, duh, but that stock chart was a travesty of false information and never should have been in the article ever.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to apologize for. What a waste of time your comments are.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I have noted before, I have been following your talk page and the comments you have been leaving for me and I can only say that you need to follow your advice because you don't practice what you preach. It is as simple as that, otherwise you would not have all of the fights with the vast number of people that you are fighting with at any one time.  If you were to follow your own advice and stop lecturing others and follow what you preach then you would not be in constant fights with other editors.--ML (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I have moved your individual comments from where you placed them in between each of my own comments to you. In the future,, don't respond as you did.  If you want to make your own point-by-point comments, individually addressing what's been said to you, find another way to do it.  What you ended up doing was essentially WP:REFACTORING what I wrote, and not in an acceptable manner.  Respond to editors on talk pages after their signature, not in the middle of what they've written.


 * Addressing your response(s), I will just say this: if you continue with the attitude and aggressiveness you're still exhibiting, don't claim ignorance of policy and guidelines when you end up at a noticeboard. I've provided plenty of policy and guidelines here for you to look into, however, your response is "I don't need to read it".  So be it.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop with the lectures. You are flat out wrong. The essay that I did not read and will not read is NOT a policy and no matter of your hogwash will not make it a policy.  You are only lecturing me because you think you can make me stop editing the article because none of my edits violate Wikipedia policy.  If they did then you would be calling admins all day long, but instead you are just making random lectures about things you refuse to do yourself.--ML (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Scholarly source
In a post on one of the above sections, suggested we look for "academic references from scholarly pieces". I did some research and found this case study

There is good material there that can be used to improve the article as it pertains to Fiorina's tenure at HP. I will slowly start adding from it, and I encourage others to do the same. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  03:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a good thing. Now, we can wean out the quotes from <violation of wp:blp removed> Jeff Sonnenfeld <violation of wp:blp removed>.--ML (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Per WP:TPO, I have removed two comments which were, in my estimation, violations of WP:BLP policy on possibly libelous commentary. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * , you have to give real evidence that Sonnenfeld's commentary is what you say and is not acceptable per Wikipedia guidelines and policy. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I do not have to do that at all. All I have to do is find a quote that better, and there are many of them, and replace the poor source with a better source.  So, once again, your comment is pointless and wrong.--ML (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is another one:

Fortune 20 company
I don't think there is such a denomination: -   Cwobeel   (talk)  16:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * These are the words taken directly from the reliable source.--ML (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If Fortune itself doesn't list a "Fortune 20", then said reliable source is obviously not reliable enough on this point. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's rich. The reliable source that I am referring to is Fortune magazine. You didn't even look.  You just wanted to disagree with anything that I say.--ML (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Doing a quick look on search term "Fortune 20", nothing comes up. From Fortune I see "Fortune Most Admired Companies: Top 20", but nothing on the nomenclature you are using.  It needs to be removed as non-existant.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OMG: Dude, really? The article currently quotes directly from two different issues of Fortune magazine.  Look at the article first.  Obviously, you didn't look before you disagreed with me.  That's obvious.  That's an example of how you don't follow your own advice.  But you could have started with the article, at least.  But of course you didn't check first because that would have meant following your own advice.  Please see: Carly Fiorina talks tough In a Fortune interview, the former Hewlett-Packard chief talks about what she learned during her tumultuous tenure, FORTUNE Magazine, By Matthew Boyle, Fortune writer, October 24 2007: 9:12 AM EDT, "(Fortune Magazine) --Carly Fiorina didn't just break the glass ceiling, she obliterated it, as the first woman to lead a FORTUNE 20 company."--ML (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Because it's not supported with other sources and because it's included in brackets within the interview/article, I think at the very least, it's questionable. People misspeak in interviews all the time.  Until we find something outside the one source, I don't think it should be included in the lede and needs to be reworded.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You are looking at the wrong Fortune magazine article you need to look at the one that I provided above. This is another example of how you don't follow your own advice.  I gave you a link to the correct link and you did not review it.  You need to look at the one written by this man: Bloomberg's Matthew Boyle, formerly of Fortune.  You can find the correct link here: Here is the link to the correct article please read the comment of others".--ML (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I read the article/reference attached to the statement in the lede. Since it's being used as a reference, I don't see how it's the wrong one, it's just not the one you are referring to.  -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  17:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course, you read the wrong one because the article I referred to did not put anything in brackets. It is a Fortune magazine article that by a Fortune magazine writer who uses the phrase "Fortune 20" in the article.  There is nothing clearer.  So if you count the article that you are referring to, which is obviously different, then there are at least two articles from Fortune magazine with the same phrase.  So to take this to its logical conclusion, when you said that there might be a situation where someone "misspoke" then your objection makes no sense.--ML (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Another reliable source: National Public Radio talking about Carly Fiorina.--ML (talk) 17:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * msnbc--ML (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Time--ML (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Politico--ML (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3rd Example of Fortune magazine, BOOM!--ML (talk) 17:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * USA Today--ML (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * US News & World Report--ML (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * National Journal--ML (talk) 19:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * New Republic--ML (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal--ML (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Slate--ML (talk) 19:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Women's Health--ML (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * International Business Times--ML (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * InfoWorld--ML (talk) 19:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Associated Press as quoted in the Chattanooga Times Free Press--ML (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Washington Post--ML (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Hill--ML (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Bloomberg--ML (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tough Choices: A Memoir, By Carly Fiorina--ML (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Nation--ML (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Palm Beach Post--ML (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * London Telegraph--ML (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Christian Science Monitor--ML (talk) 19:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Power, Politics, and Organizational Change: Winning the Turf Game, By David Buchanan, Richard Badham--ML (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The National Review--ML (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do when sources get it wrong. But indeed, Fortune does not have a "20" category. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The have Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000, and a bunch of others for specific industries. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Probably what these sources wanted to say was that HP in the top 20 on its Fortune 500 list. See: -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/1999/
 * http://archive.fortune.com/magazines/fortune/fortune500_archive/full/2005/


 * Agree. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

With that evidence, I see no reason why not to use "as the first woman to lead a company in the top 20 as ranked by Fortune" -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Changed in lede, left the other mention as it is an attributed quote. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The change is appropriate. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 22:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. Let's move on. Fine bit of Googling, User:MaverickLittle., , that's the most teethgnashing "yeah, you got a point" I ever heard. Drmies (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was quite relaxed, myself. Nary an instance of TMJ or the need for dentures. :-). Kinda felt like CWO and I just sat back, watched it all unfold, and when it was all over said (once again), "Here's a solution".  The solution was implemented simply and without bloodletting.  A win-win all around, I'd say! -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  23:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Numerous reliable sources call it fortune 20 then it is fortune 20, just because they don't have a standalone list for it does not mean anything. Fortune themselves call it that and other sources back it up. It is that simple. Jadeslair (talk) 03:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Not that simple at all. Fortune may refer to it, but they don't name it as an actual ranking list that means anything: see here. -- <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">WV ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓  03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Fortune 20 does not mean anything. It is just a term used. So we should probably only put the terms like list or ranking when used by the source when referring the the actual list. It does tell me that the company was in the top 20 at the time. Was it in the top 20? Jadeslair (talk) 03:34, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * yes it was. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs needed in lead
The lead presently says: On February 9, 2005 the HP board of directors forced Fiorina to resign as chief executive officer and chairman, over concerns of the company's performance and disagreements about shifting her authority to division heads.[1][2]

[1] [2]

Reference [1] doesn't say a word about the reasons for her resignation. And reference [2] is a dead link.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed this material, since the footnotes do not support the text.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Refs are in the article body:

There is no need to have refs in the lede, providing we have them in the article's body text. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  17:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If we have refs in the lead, they should be good refs instead of lousy refs. I'll take a look at these further refs now.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)