Wikipedia

Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 8

< Talk:Carly Fiorina
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Binksternet in topic "One of the worst tech CEOs of all time"
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Balance regarding Fiorina's business career

Latest comment: 9 years ago27 comments8 people in discussion

A coatrack tag was placed recently at the criticism and praise section. Coatrack really didn't apply, however, I did remove some of the excess "criticism" which decidedly outweighed the "praise" and caused the section to be unbalanced. Some rewording was also applied in line with WP:POV and to keep a more neutral tone to the article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I am going to put the coatrack tag back on the section and you need to leave it there until all of the problems with the section are fixed.--ML (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Continuing to try and get your way with this article (and other articles) through edit warring is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, and needs to stop. Please discuss why you think coatrack applies rather than edit war to demonstrate your dispute. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The tag also states Wikipedia:POVFORK, the section certainly is that.
You did some well thought out edits but there are still some pov issues. This is the first time I have see coatrack so I am not in a position to say but I would leave it up till ML's concerns are resolved. Jadeslair (talk) 19:06, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Please note that there are concerns from more than just one editor. Everyone's concerns need to be addressed as this is a community effort and no one person owns any article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand, I would not disregard anyones concerns unless they were a rogue editor. Jadeslair (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
I have looked at the coatrack section, it certainly is a coatrack and although they use an extreme example, it is covered here:1Here are some major issues withing the section, which by the way is under "Transition of career and public persona":
  • "According to an opinion piece" ..."upended HP’s famously collegial culture, killed off its beloved profit-sharing program and hung her own portrait between those of the company’s two sainted founders". Did the editors fact check that statement?

*"Among other criticisms," is meant to highlight an item which is WP:EDITORIALIZING

  • " despite a 70% gain in net income " more WP:EDITORIALIZING meant to highlight "the company's debt rose from ~4.25 billion USD to ~6.75 billion USD"
  • "Following her resignation from HP, CBS News,[72] USA Today[73] and Portfolio.com[80] have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." That is the third time this is mentioned "She has been described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time" is the first, "worst tech CEO of all time" as the second. "You couldn't pick a worse, non-imprisoned CEO to be your standard-bearer" is similar and could be counted as the fourth and many WP:WEASEL words, opinions and Propaganda.

I think we can remove these from the criticism section and incorporate them into sections such as Carly_Fiorina#Hewlett-Packard_.28HP.29. Some of them should be removed because they are already included in that section. To be clear, I am not suggesting to remove any factual statements from the article. Jadeslair (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Jadeslair, your dislike of the "worse, non-imprisoned CEO" quote does not render it unimportant to Fiorina's career. It's not just opinion, it's the very considered opinion of a Yale business management scholar, the respected Jeffrey Sonnenfeld. Sonnenfeld is not alone; his opinion is shared by others, and he is cited in the New York Times and also in The Week. Paul Begala also quoted Sonnenfeld in his book about John McCain. Others who used the quote include SiliconValley.com, Michael Winship of Journal (hosted by Bill Moyers), and the Los Angeles Daily News. So I wouldn't set my sights on that quote if I were you; it's pretty well nailed down. Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
They said it, it is a fact that they said it, no problem but it is not appropriate to have a laundry list of items to prove a point. In that case it is biased so a restructuring would be appropriate. Jadeslair (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
We really should set our sights on it, though, if our goal is truly to present a biographical encyclopedia article. It's one person's (or five, or ten people's) opinion, whether he graduated from Yale or not. It's not a biographical fact. The article is woefully out of balance, and was able to stay that way due to low editor traffic and the perseverance of a few remarkably dedicated editors who couldn't edit objectively outside their own personal points of view, sadly. Here's hoping more eyes here finally changes the disappointing reality that less-frequented articles within the project are especially susceptible to this sort of biased editing. Justen (talk) 13:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing biased about reporting significant viewpoints. In fact, it is the opposite. And your lack of WP:AGF does not help either. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
There's absolutely no policy against pointing out the negative impact of non-neutral editing, especially over the long-term. You fundamentally misunderstand wp:agf if you think there's some shelter in there for for blatantly biased editing. (It's important to note I've not singled out any individual editor. There's been a long-term pack, however, that has tag-team editwarred to prohibit most attempts to restore a neutral point of view to the article. I don't share many of the position Carly Fiorina has outlined, but the phenomenon here is one I've seen at other articles covering people across the political spectrum. It's unfortunate and it's a major deterrent to folks staying with or joining the project, sadly.) Justen (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This appears on the surface to be a good solution and compromise. I'd like to hear from other editors to get their opinions, though. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

False balance is not balance. This is long standing material that is suddenly not acceptable? The fact that Fiorina is running does not mean that well sourced criticism and praise can be now deleted. Reverted per WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


@Cwobeel:You cite BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss. The section is still NPOV, before and after your revert. Longstanding is not a policy of wikipedia as far as I know. We are allowed to edit the page and are trying to discuss it here. I have stated some items I believe are important, what do you think of those? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talk • contribs)

Her business career and in particular her tenure at HP, is the single most notable aspect of this person (according to many observers and according to Fiorina herself), and as such, omitting the substantial criticism she received is contrary to our policy of NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

To move ahead on this, consensus needs to be reached. As a BLP, this is a serious issue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Pare down the negative and balance it with equal amounts of positive; keep all the references so readers can look into it further. She's not more vilified than praised, but you wouldn't know it by looking at this article. Words like "controversial" have to be placed correctly. Further, even though it's referenced in her own book, Fiorina's resignation continually being changed to "forced" (in the way it has been worded) reads POV. The bottom line is she resigned - her opponents say she was fired, she says she was forced to resign. "Resigned" alone takes the POV out. Side note: I believe her side of the story, but we still have to remain neutral in our content and writing that content. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You proposing "equal amounts of positive" is a proposal to violate NPOV, to violate WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. The proper weight is achieved when the article correctly reflects the literature on Fiorina, and the literature is largely negative. So having strongly negative assessments here is the right thing to do. Binksternet (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, I note from the personal bio at your user space that you have an employment history with AT&T. Lucent and AT&T are connected, are they not? Fiorina is connected with Lucent. I don't suppose you are editing based on any bad taste in your mouth regarding those connections, are you? And yes, I realize this would seem non-AGF on the surface, however, I think it's worth bringing up - since your edits seem to be anti-Fiorina in nature and pushing a negative POV. You're edit warring over it, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi, I was never aware of Fiorina back in the 1980s when I was a telephone technician. From the 1990s I have been a live sound engineer, working primarily in corporate events. As such, several times I have amplified Fiorina's voice for large audiences, and my assessment of her speaking skill is high. She is smart and she can put forward her ideas with strength. Professionally I have nothing but respect for her. None of my very indirect and neutrally colored professional contact with Fiorina prepared me for the very negative words I have found in the tech industry literature when I started reading about her in regard to her California Senate run in 2010. That's the point when I found out how reviled she was by HP stalwarts, and that she was considered a failure by business experts. So don't try to make me out as having a personal vendetta; my evaluation comes from reading the reliable sources, as should yours. Binksternet (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Binksternet, I sincerely thank you for clearing that up. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:19, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
It would appear, Binksternet, that you are unable to be neutral on this topic, given that you have already concluded the coverage off-Wikipedia is negative and that our article must reflect that in order to be neutral. A reasonable person might conclude that you will not be satisfied with the article unless it contains a negative tone. On what planet would that be considered NPOV? Sounds like flagrant bias to me. Eclipsoid (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
What is flagrant is your lack of understanding of WP:NOPV. I suggest you read it again to refresh your understanding of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

On what basis has this been deleted?

relatives of HP founder David Packard have spoken out against Fiorina's political aspirations for what they perceive as her having almost destroyed the company.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ Packard: Fiorina almost destroyed HP, Politico (March 8, 2010).
  2. ^ Carly Fiorina will run for president as a successful tech CEO. Silicon Valley says that's a fantasy, The Guardian (May 3, 2015).

BLP or not, well sourced material should not be deleted without a specific rationale. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pare down the negative and balance it with equal amounts of positive. That is not what NPOV is all about, false balance is no balance. Please re-read WP:NPOV: which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views - Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of NPOV. But it wouldn't be the first time you and I disagree, would it? :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You are not disagreeing with my interpretation. You are disagreeing with NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Reign of terror at HP

Latest comment: 9 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

Sonnenfeld said of Fiorina's time as CEO of HP that she was:"

...the worst because of her ruthless attack on the essence of this great company... She destroyed half the wealth of her investors and yet still earned almost $100 million in total payments for this destructive reign of terror.

This was first reported by Kevin Maney in a USA Today: Money piece, February 15, 2005.[1]

Plenty of people have quoted Sonnenfeld from Maney's Money article, making the quote important as a prominent and very negative analysis of Fiorina's career.

People who are new to this page ought to pore through the archives to see what has been discussed, for instance Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs. This will help newcomers understand why the article holds a strongly negative view of Fiorina's business career. Binksternet (talk) 16:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

And I maintain that it needs to be balanced, just as we try to balance articles about movies, music albums, and the like when it comes to how we present critical opinion. Even your header in this section gives an impression that her time at HP was, indeed, a "reign of terror". That's hardly neutral. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
An opinion needs not to be neutral. I find this attempt to attenuate the substantial criticism of Fiorina to be unacceptable. Her tenure at HP is the one aspect of her career that is notable, and viewpoints about her tenure are fair game. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to attenuate anything. If the better alternative is to add more positive criticism, then that would be fine, too. I'm merely trying to get some balance in a section that is top-heavy with negative criticism. See both WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL for more. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
You need to read False balance. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina's tenure at HP was a disaster according to a preponderance of sources. Presenting positive criticism of her tenure, would violate NPOV which calls for a proportional presentation of viewpoints, with minority viewpoints clearly indicated or omitted altogether . If you want to change policy discuss at WP:NPOV talk page. - Cwobeel (talk)
@Winkelvi: Per WP:BALANCE (my highlight): Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. Do you find positive commentary about Fiorina's tenure at HP that are relatively equal in prominence? If so, show us the sources, otherwise drop the stick. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Please don't issue aggressive ultimatums in what should be civil discussions working toward consensus. I hope you're not working toward another one of these type of incidences that ends badly. That would be disastrous for obvious reasons; no one wins, least of all Wikipedia, when such incidences occur. Can't we just discuss this in an agreeable and collegial manner? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
By "drop the stick" I'm certain Cwobeel was saying that you should stop asking for equal representation of positive and negative aspects of Fiorina's business career, which has been your stated stance here. You have yet to acknowledge how such a stance is a violation of NPOV, that a false balance is what you want. Instead, you should try to show that the literature gives equal time to Fiorina's business successes as it does her business failures. Binksternet (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The facts here are very simple: Fiorina's notability emanates almost exclusively from her tenure in HP, and the preponderance of sources report that it was a total disaster, not only in the loss of shareholder value, but also the loss on an entire culture of innovation and flat management. The fact that Fiorina is now a Presidential nominee means not that we should whitewash her past. Material that was 100% OK for years and stable in the article does not suddenly becomes "biased". I am trying to assume good faith here, but the WP:ADVOCACY can be smelled from miles. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
"the preponderance of sources report that it was a total disaster". Untrue. If that were the case, we wouldn't be able to find anything to the contrary. And that's simply not the case. " we should whitewash her past" - where is your evidence that is what's going on? I haven't seen anything that equates whitewashing. "Material that was 100% OK for years and stable in the article does not suddenly becomes "biased". Not the point. The point is that the article has an unbalanced preponderance of negative criticism in contrast to positive criticism. I'd say that no matter who the article subject was. I'm venturing a guess that anyone who understands WP:IMPARTIAL would agree. After all, "inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a ... proportionate representation of all positions". I'm not saying we need to make it completely equal (5 negative comments and 5 positive comments), but it needs to be closer to equal and the tone, most definitely, needs to be improved. "the WP:ADVOCACY can be smelled from miles." Another baseless accusation. Totally incorrect, and unhelpful, to boot. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
The sources have a strong tone of disapproval, for instance Fiorina made the cover of Fortune magazine on February 7, 2005, with the bold headline saying "Why Carly's Big Bet Is Failing." So even when she's on the cover the article is negative. Binksternet (talk) 06:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
What I saw was an aggressiveness in tone that's been part of CWO's repertoire previously between he and I and with others. I'm hoping I'm wrong. Whatever the case, I stand by policy in regard to both WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:03, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
@Winkelvi: You may need to re-read WP:BALANCE and WP:IMPARTIAL or at least explain how these apply here. Because there is zero contradiction between my arguments and the policy you are quoting. Please explain what you mean. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand there is a lot of emotion involved with those editing this article. Though, as this is a BLP, I recommend that before editing the article, the above editors work towards consensus here on the talk page first. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

POV issues remain unresolved

Latest comment: 9 years ago16 comments8 people in discussion

Per the numerous unresolved issues above, it is clear that this page has many unresolved POV issues. These issues need to be addressed and resolved here on the talk page. I will tag this article until these issues have been resolved. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, quite. What has happened here is that Fiorina's entry to the presidential race has brought a bunch of new editors to this article, ones who have no previous experience with the literature about Fiorina. I acknowledge that it's exciting to see a smart new candidate who is a woman, but the hopefulness for a candidacy cannot replace the existing literature on a candidate. The existing literature on Fiorina is largely negative with regard to her career at HP. So a largely negative analysis of her HP career would be appropriate. On the other hand, people who want to see Fiorina succeed in politics are super unhappy about that analysis. The POV problem would be solved if the editors here would read thirty or more randomly selected articles about Fiorina, published in reliable sources, and then draw from those sources in a balanced fashion. Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This comment: "On the other hand, people who want to see Fiorina succeed in politics are super unhappy about that analysis" is extremely unfair, non-AGF, and quite presumptuous. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:48, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the statement is unfair. I also don't think I've presumed too much (presumptuous); rather, I've assessed the situation myself and given my interpretation of what I see. Regarding AGF, "good faith" is what I give people who have yet to contribute. Once they have contributed my faith in them changes to my experience of them. Binksternet (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Then, obviously, you weren't including me in that grouping. Still, one need not "contribute" in a manner that meets your personal approval to be afforded good faith. At least I've never seen that as a caveat in the AGF policy. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
You are the only person who knows whether you "want to see Fiorina succeed in politics" and whether you are "super unhappy" about negative analysis of her time at HP. Again about good faith: "faith" is a belief or confidence that is not based on evidence. Once a person has evidence, they can modify their previous faith by factoring in this new evidence. The WP:AGF guideline is mainly about maintaining civil behavior on Wikipedia, which I agree is important. But it does not say to turn a blind eye on those who push a political aim. Instead, it says to deal civilly with those who you have identified as such. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We're going woefully off-topic here. But I will say in closing (in reference to AGF): AGF means assume good faith on the part of other editors in relation to their reasons for editing and their edits. The opposite would be what you've not only demonstrated in your words above, but also in what you are suggesting: anyone who opposes your viewpoint on the way the article should be comprised (or hasn't read as much as you have on Fiorina - another bad faith assumption, by the way) should be seen as pushing a biased POV in favor of Fiorina's campaign. Now, if that isn't what you meant, and I misread it, I apologize. But, if it is, I really can't see why you would think having a "assume the worst first" approach is productive or even close to what AGF really is about. In order to deviate from AGF one need have evidence to assume bad faith. There's been no evidence provided here to support the scenario(s) you are suggesting exist among editors who are discussing the opposite side of the coin from whence you are coming. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no "unresolved POV" issues here whatsoever. I find that determination to be pulled from thin air. The facts are that Fiorina has attracted considerable criticism from the business world about her tenure at HP, and not describing teh preception of the business community in the lede is contrary to NPOV. Tagged accordingly. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are unresolved issues on this page, they are unresolved because editors, including myself have concerns. That is the only requirement to be unresolved. Jadeslair (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Ism schism, and the other editors who see that the article has many unresolved POV issues. Cwobeel, your comment is incorrect and you need to work with the editors to trim down the POV bashing of Fiorina in the article.--ML (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

User:Ism schism, since you put the tag at the top of the article, would you mind putting a concise list of the items that you think need attention, maybe using bullet points. Just referring to the years of previous commentary at this page does not give enough guidance. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

There are at least three ongoing discussions in subsections above about issues with the lack of neutrality in the article, to start. Justen (talk) 02:11, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Would it be too much too ask you to identify those sections?Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a court case, there's no need to number the evidence. Justen (talk) 16:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No one is asking you to number them. I just want to know which sections you're talking about. It's kind of hard to discuss objections to the article if people won't say what the objections are. I will remove the POV tag if no one will say why it's there. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Don't remove the POV tag. The article is still seriously flawed. I have outlined some of the POV issues in the next section below.--ML (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Forced to resign – consensus from 2009

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

The wording "forced to resign" has long represented consensus here. Other wording used by our reliable sources is "fired" and "resigned". Fiorina acknowledges that she was forced out, that she did not choose to resign.

Our colleague Justen was chided by Blaxthos six years ago for trying to erase the "forced to resign" wording. Justen put together a Request for Comment at that point, but it went against his wishes, settling on a consensus for "forced to resign". See Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_3#RfC:_Consensus_on_resignation_context.3F, closed on October 1, 2009.

The biography even had a section with the heading "Forced resignation from HP" from April 30, 2015,[2] until June 16 when it was changed by Artaxerxes as "less prejudicial; clearer", which I think was a misleading edit summary.[3] Fiorina was clearly forced out of HP. Binksternet (talk) 00:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might have misread the discussion (perhaps to try to prove some sort of a point here?). I proposed "forced to resign" as a balance between "fired," "asked to resign," and "resigned." I'm always happy to be chided for trying to find neutral wording that is consensus supported.  :) Justen (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
"Forced to resign" on its own reads POV to me. If there's something preceding it, maybe something that briefly but clearly describes how they (HP and Fiorina) got to that point. I heard her today, during an interview, describe the scene just before her forced resignation as "a boardroom brawl". Something that at least gives more context rather than the impression that she was a tacit recipient of their decision would be good. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina's assessment is not defining, per WP:SECONDARY. We give much more importance to secondary sources, which say that there was a running dispute about Fiorina within the board, and she was successful in turning the majority of them against her. She was voted out by the board and informed of the decision after the fact, without directly participating herself. "Brawl" says there was a fight, but the vote says there was a majority against her. Sure, she had a supporter or two, but they did not save her. Binksternet (talk) 03:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Earlier, you cited Fiorina's book in supporting the use of the word "forced" in her book. Now you are claiming we can't go on that per WP:PRIMARY. Please make up your mind. Both my spouse and I have worked in corporate business with Fortune 500 companies at management level for decades. CEO's most certainly can and do get fired with no resignation occurring. Fiorina said "boardroom brawl" followed by an explanation that she fought the resignation. She did not say nor did she imply that there was anyone in that fight but her. If there were those on her side - and I'm sure there were more than a supporter or two, they probably didn't want to risk their own careers by speaking up, that's how the politics of corporate business works. But, I digress. Regardless, the characterization of Fiorina's resignation by only saying "forced resignation" creates an incomplete picture. Surely with all the articles you've edited over the years, along with your obvious ability for creativity, you can see that there's more that could be said than just "forced resignation" and that without more context, that phrase is as dry and unpalatable as cold, burned toast, leaving a bad taste in your mouth. I see no reason why giving more context would - or should - be a problem for anyone with an NPOV approach to this article. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:55, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a big deal, but I did not cite Fiorina's book. I'm a pretty big fan of WP:SECONDARY sources. They typically say she was fired or forced to resign; a minority simply say "resigned" but never as if it were her own idea. A contemporary source called it an "ouster", the board ridding itself of Fiorina. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Total nonsense, I am afraid. We follow the sources, not our own ideas of what was the context of Fiorina's termination. if the preponderance of sources use "forced resignation" that is what we use here. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You completely missed my point. I never said nor implied that we shouldn't go with the sources. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

This article from the day: [4] Hewlett-Packard Co. Chairman and CEO Carly Fiorina, one of the most powerful women in corporate America, is leaving the troubled computer maker after being forced out by the company's board. (highlight is mine) - Cwobeel (talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Forced to resign is fine with me as the first mention of her leaving HP, after that it is just trying to push a position. Which is not part of Wikipedia Manual of Style. Jadeslair (talk) 05:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

"One of the worst tech CEOs of all time"

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I came to this article having never heard of Fiorina, so obviously looking for information rather than seeking to change it. But, the description "one of the worst tech CEOs of all time", written in Wikipedia's voice, immediately threw up a red flag for me. Looking further into it, the sources provided all seem to be Buzzfeed-style countdowns – the two authors listed are Kevin Maney and Steve Tobak, who both seem to be self-employed "consultants". This concerns me, and I think we should employ higher quality sources before describing anyone on Wikipedia as "one of the worst" of anything. ¡Bozzio! 17:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

There's probably not going to be a "worst-of" list in a peer-reviewed journal, but such an evaluation in an industry publication or from a well-known columnist would be enough. ¡Bozzio! 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
See previous lengthy discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs - Cwobeel (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I see lots of sources there describing her as a bad CEO, but none saying she's "one of the worst of all time"…would hedging the statement slightly be a good comprise? E.g., "Many sources regarded her term as CEO negatively" or "Her term as CEO has been rated poor by many sources"… ¡Bozzio! 17:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_4#One_of_the_worst_tech_CEOs - We can add many more sources, but three are sufficient for WP:V. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Also note the next sentence that has been placed for balance and NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Nobody calls her the worst CEO of all time, but they certainly call her one of the worst tech CEOs. Important distinction. Binksternet (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I googled that Jeffrey Sonnenfeld quote, and his original quote doesn't have the word "CEO" in it. Jeffrey Sonnenfeld of Yale University told USA Today, at the time, said she earned a place among "the worst because… So, it seems you've deliberately misquoted him to paint her in a bad light. Looking at the rest of the talkpage, it's obvious that you've got severe WP:OWNERSHIP issues. That's unfortunate, but I guess to be expected on high-profile political articles. I'd quit with the condescension too if you don't want to piss off more editors. I'm done here. ¡Bozzio! 08:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bozzio, the "CEO" in the quote was provided by the context, and stated explicitly by the original source, which is Kevin Maney of the USA Today' Money column. Maney wrote in February 2005 an article with the title "Can Fiorina trump competition for 'worst tech CEO' title?" Within the article, Maney conducts a little contest that he calls American Ouster, in which "six tech CEOs" are evaluated to see who is the worst. That's why people have taken Sonnenfeld's quote to mean that Fiorina was considered the "worst tech CEO", or even the worst CEO, as quoted by Matt Krantz for USA Today's Money/America's Markets, who puts "CEO" in editorial parentheses, acknowledging that it was not in the original quote, but that it was the intended meaning.[5] So it's not people here making shit up. Binksternet (talk) 17:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If the Sonnerfiled quote is modified in the future I think some information from [here] should be used, it is one of the most neutral posts I have seen and it includes a response from Carly. I am not proposing any other statement but if there are. I think that is a pretty NPOV source.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carly_Fiorina/Archive_8&oldid=680613390"