Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc.

There's a number of citations in this article that need to be verified, improved and so on. Please include and note them here, as they are found.

• In the section titled Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; controversy the first sentence makes non-verified claim: "Fiorina began describing herself as Chair and CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises where, according to her political campaign Facebook page, she is 'bringing her unique perspective and experience to bear on the challenging issues of our world, championing economic growth and empowerment for a more prosperous and secure world'.[81][verification needed]." Yet, nowhere at Fiorina's Facebook Page can this quotation be found, nor is it traceable. At that, I wouldn't exactly call a Facebook Page a stable or reliable source. If this cannot be verified, I would suggest removing it from the article. In fact, the paragraph could probably stand without such an introduction; if then to re-phrase it to reflect the rest of the contents. The content from the SF Chronicle was added later as a separate thought, independent from this Facebook claim. It's actually a stronger and more substantial reference to the claims. So, the Facebook mention may not be necessary. Otherwise, find another complimentary and similar reference with this same point made by the Chronicle. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

This still needs to be resolved and it's a glaring problem, although not with an immediate solution. It may be assumed that she was making these talking points, but a better source need to be found to establish that, instead of leaving this broken Facebook reference. Any ideas? Even initial thoughts would help at this point. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: although the citation for Facebook has yet to be verified, nevertheless, I've found a reference wherein Fiorina OFFICIALLY names herself as "CEO Carly Fiorina Enterprises." It's stated on an official document (press release) from One Woman Initiative, witch is published by the U.S. State Department's press office. Therefore, I changed the first sentence leading into the this section, so as to read as follows: "In her time as Chair of One Woman Initiative, Fiorina also began describing herself as Chair and CEO of Carly Fiorina Enterprises[97]; whereas, according to her political campaign Facebook page…" By the way, there may well be a way to find deep-rooted (old) Facebook posts, but it could be a difficult and technological search… not sure if its worth the time and energy. All the same, at least it's established how this claim came about and it's verified that she did indeed promote herself as CEO, as early as 2008, before The SF Chronicle released their investigative news story. Ca.papavero (talk) 06:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the lead section, mentioning "worst CEO" claim: The Guardian and Observer were removed, because of overkill. The Guardian citation redundantly refers to the other sources already cited; i.e., CBS, USA Today, Portfolio; whereas, its not an original source for this claim. Remove Observer citation, also because of overkill; plus, that it redundantly quotes the other sources already cited (CBS, USA Today, Portfolio). Ca.papavero (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2015 (UTC) Also remove ref name CNBC; no citation found. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• In the section AT&T and Lucent, Remove link rot, no proper citation available, not verifiable; s/b from allbusiness.com, re. key words "human resources", "employee development", "leadership"; noted dead link as of date April 2015

• Avoid duplication! Sellers & Daniels (Fortune, October 1998) was added twice! Please be sure to see if the reference is already appearing in the article... especially when its appears in string of citations, i.e., appearing again right next to the same. It doesn't get more obvious than that.

•The section of the article under AT&T and Lucent makes a claim with many superfluous citations (overkill): "In 1998, Fortune magazine named Fiorina the 'most powerful woman in business' in its inaugural listing, and she was included in the Time 100 in 2004 and remained in the Fortune listing throughout her tenure at HP. She was #10 on the Forbes list of The World's 100 Most Powerful Women for 2004.[25][26][27][28][29][30]" Those six citations are copied here:

Fortune Magazine is referenced twice for the feature "Ranking The 50 Most Powerful Women…", October 1998; that is, briefed either from an article written by Julie Creswell, or by collaboration of Patricia Sellers with Cora Daniels. Only one of these references is necessary, since they're referring to the same ranking by Fortune Magazines, year 1998. The article by Julie Creswell mentions Fiorina's name four times, comparatively to that of 23 times by Sellers and Daniels. Obviously, this later citation would be more significant to include.

Forbes Magazine is referenced three times, unnecessarily. The article by David Einstein is not actually that of a "ranking," therefore not relating to claims of "Most Powerful Women" and so on. Instead, Einstein announces her appointment as CEO of HP, as of year 1999. If she's just entering the position at HP, this hardly supports said claim. This may be a significant article, but it's not supporting the claim made in the sentence, where its used as a citation. Conversely, another Forbes Magazine reference appropriately cites Forbe's year 2004 "Most Powerful Women" with Fiorina ranked at 10; but, that's just one page (duplicating a reference), as per the citation from Elizabeth MacDonald and Chana R. Schoenberger. Only one of these references is necessary, not several pages from the same article. Obviously, I'd suggest the one that openly names MacDonald and Schoenberger, omitting the others.

MIT News is not the primary source of The 2004 Time 100. (i.e., supposedly ranking the "most influential people in the world today"). It would be more appropriate to cite Time itself, rather than MIT News.

IN SHORT… this entire sentence is jumbled and overstated conjecture, colluding different claims that are not the same; i.e., they don't have the same methodology, as well as they'e not conforming with categories such as business, politics, entertainment, etc. Fiorina is compared to everyone from Oprah Winfrey, to Condelezza Rice, Osama Bin Laden, Norah Jones, etc. This is grossly generalized and misleading. Ca.papavero (talk) 04:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the lead paragraphs of the article, a sentence states "Since then, she has been described by some publications (and business scholar Jeffrey Sonnenfeld) as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time…" There's two citation from CBS for this claim; whereas, only one is necessary coming from this same source. This second, titled "Five things to know about Carly Fiorina" is merely a re-hash of things past, a retrospective from a year 2015 perspective, as she plans to run for President. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•Broken citation and unverified claim in section Hewlett-Packard (HP): "In 2001, Fiorina was named one of the thirty most powerful women in America by Forbes magazine." Removed, because this was not properly cited (link rot) and its not recoverable. This is now an unknown source. Already said elsewhere…overkill. Ca.papavero (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

• An infographic added as of 8 May 2015‎ by Bueller 007

HP stock price since 2000.

is not verifiable and does not appear to be a reliable source either. Clicking the link, it claims to be from Peter L Salmon - Own work Previously published: http://hpstockprice.com. Does Bueller have permission for this infographic? Clicking the link, it cannot be found on the internet. There's no transparent methodology to this presentation, nor proof that permission was give by HP to use their logos, etc. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bueller 007 re-placed the infographic after being removed, saying "easily verifiable information taken from the wikipedia page for HP)" But, simply copying an infographic from another Wikipedia article does not provide it verification or make it any more reliable. The infographic is attributed to "Peter L Salmon - Own work Previously published: http://hpstockprice.com" but that link has since become inactive, suggesting link rot. Unless, this source can be re-substantiated, it remains questionable. Furthermore, Peter L Salmon does not appear to have a wikipedia User page, or discussion page; instead, directing to User talk:Peter L Salmon with nothing there. So, that being the case, use of this infographic could also be questioned at the Hewlett-Packard article. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Here you go. I just verified it for you. Whew. That was tough. It's almost like it's readily accessible information that it's in the public domain because it's a publicly traded company. [5] Bueller 007 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

That is hardly a complete verification. The infographic that you have shared to this article is an embellishment of the "public domain" information that your are now providing. At that, you have not acknowledged the other problems that I have described. Furthermore, please don't use sarcastic and cutesy tone. It's unprofessional and unbecoming. It's also not my job to do this grunt work for you, since you posted it. Just like that bare URL mentioned below. I'm typically very proactive, sourcing and verifying broken and poorly cited links as best as I can. I've actually cleaned-up many of them, as you see noted here. I hope you can appreciate that. Ca.papavero (talk) 10:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

•Bare URL added as of 8 May 2015‎ by Bueller 007: Found under section titled Forced resignation from HP.

Ca.papavero (talk) 10:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In section Personal transition, via other organizational designations: A few questionable citations. It's said "She is an Honorary Fellow of the London Business School." A citation from HP's executive profiles webpage no longer includes Fiorina; so, the this is not verifiable, unless can be found elsewhere on the site. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine, 2002-12-01 (et seq.) 2600:1006:B154:7E0A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Similarly, a broken link from Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TCSM). Placed to support same claim as above, but no longer includes Fiorina; so, the this is not verifiable. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Removed dead link from Revolution Health, since the company is no longer in business and probably not recoverable. The link now directs to another website, a sitemap for corporate.everydayhealth.com Ca.papavero (talk) 23:33, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the section about Criticism and Praise, advice is needed for how to treat a citation that mentions Portfolio.com"(then a division of Condé Nast) have ranked Fiorina as one of the worst American (or tech) CEOs of all time." This is published by CNBC, which is a division of NBC Universal, but its apparently compiled or originally from Portfolio.com, which was then a division of Conde Nast… which in turn has merged into another company since then. Do you think this is appropriately attributed and referenced, or do you have a better recommendation as how to treat it? This is probably one of the more complex one's I've seen. As the citation is now written, all parties are mentioned; but, I'm not sure exactly the right way. Maybe its okay, maybe it could be better. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

•In the section about Advocate at large, there's a broken citation for the sentence that reads "On February 8, 2013, Fiorina gave a keynote address at the Ripon Society’s Legislative and Communications Directors Symposium on Leadership at Mount Vernon, advocating for several issues including simplifying and reforming the federal tax code, promoting the use of business technology in government, and helping small businesses." Doing a search on Ripon's own website does not find the article. Neither does a Google search… only three hits of which two are from Wikipedia itself, and that's from THIS article. The third is a mere interface to this article. If anyone out there knows how this was sourced, please help. But, otherwise, this entire paragraph and section is up for question. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Wayback Machine, 2013-04-30 (et seq.) 2600:1006:B154:7E0A:B945:D20A:9451:85D (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Current Job Positions

In all this time, I just realized that this article has somewhat neglected to clearly point out what are Fiorina's current job positions. That really must be stated at the lead, as well as —especially — in that side table with her picture and the "Personal Details." Then, it's very important that we stay on top of that, immediately noting changes. For example, I just clarified that although "In April 2012, Fiorina became chair of Good360, a nonprofit organization in Alexandria, Virginia, which helps companies donate excess merchandise to charities.[97]…." More over, "She maintains that position currently, as seen from the company website page, where it lists Board of Directors." Then, although, I wrote out the sections for Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation and Unlocking Potential Project, it must be stressed that these too are current positions. And there's probably more. This also has differentiate with her past positions, most of which I believe that I've vetted, as far as they're include in the article. But, there may be more there, too.

Fiorina's profile from Good360 states "She currently serves as the Chairman of the American Conservative Union Foundation, which annually hosts CPAC, and the Chairman of Opportunity International, the largest non-profit micro-finance lender in the world, giving out $6 billion at an average of $150 per loan lifting millions out of poverty around the world. In 2014, Carly launched the Unlocking Potential Project, a new PAC aimed at engaging women voters." Ca.papavero (talk) 08:32, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

•ACU ANNOUNCES CARLY FIORINA AS NEW CHAIRMAN OF FOUNDATION Ca.papavero (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

•OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL JOINS FORCES WITH CARLY FIORINA’S ONE WOMAN INITIATIVE

CARLY FIORINA STEPS DOWN AS GLOBAL BOARD CHAIR OF OPPORTUNITY INTERNATIONAL

NEW SECTION: "4.4 The One Woman Initiative and Opportunity International" as of Thursday 14 May 2014. These are no longer considered "current" positions for Fiorina as of May 2015. In fact, this would be the the anniversary of OWI (just this last Mothers Day); but, she has just resigned from Opportunity International as of this last week. OWI was last known as being under the umbrella of Opportunity International. So, this appears to end her connections to both OWI and Opportunity International. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Section continuity; flow of Fiorina's overall career

Looking back at the older talk pages about Fiorina, I realize that there's been lot's of debate about both her status and role at large; whereas, I believe that this may have had some impact on how the sections flow from one to another as it discusses how her career has changed. Currently, they go as follows:

1 Early life

2 Education and early career

2.1 AT&T and Lucent

2.2 Hewlett-Packard

2.3 After HP

3 Media career

4 Politics

4.1 Senate candidacy

4.2 Advocacy

4.3 Potential 2016 Presidential run

5 Personal life

I'm not really sure that her time at both ATT&T, HP and other major companies should be lumped together and considered together as "Education and early career." Perhaps her higher education could be considered one aspect of her life; but, those other jobs should be more appropriately and seriously considered as her "Career as a corporate executive" per se. At that, we're not yet sure she has rested this career path.

I don't think the next passage should be titled "After HP." That's rather like an understatement to what she's actually doing. Aside from her actual positions therein, we don't necessarily know how long she's had such relationships with these entities, as well as that she may well still maintain some of these positions and relationships, ongoing. Maybe this should say something like "(Other) organizational board and chair positions." It's not atypical for any high-level CEO, at one point later in their life, to turn away from direct, principle administrative roles; but, nevertheless continue advising and having other contributions on boards, committees and so on.

From there, her role from "Media career" to "Politics" to Senate Candidacy" to "Advocacy and even "Potential 2016 Presidential run" blurs. Improvements to the overall timeline of her works have been made within this article; but, it in some ways, her role in each of these passages is not altogether definable, discernible or even differentiating. Partly, this is Fiorina's own public relations creation; but, perhaps, this article needs to make better sense of these considerations and her work, regardless. Is she a media spokesperson, politician, politico, pundit, advocate, political advisor? We're not entirely sure, perhaps, but we should try to better convey her career and work evolution, instead of falling into what's a somewhat a choppy presentation. Ca.papavero (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment. It is a bit messy and choppy. The tone of the article was more akin to a PR exercise than a WP bio, which was off putting when I read it first. I made a few changes, but it need a lot of work. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay… that's a good start. I took a glance at the "Contents" section and it looks like you comprehend what I was saying. I think you probably helped with the logic and progression. I'll have to read through again and see if it all jives per you own and and my analysis. Thanks.Ca.papavero (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

At least now we have a rational structure. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Re. User:Cwobeel: Okay, I read through the article and it does make lots more rational flow. I was impressed with your work… I realize you did a lot. Not easy. I still had a few questionable matters as I was reading between the lines; but, it's all much more workable now. Just as one of the things I noticed, is that you questioned when Up-Project began. It didn't occur to me to add the date at the lead of the paragraph (good idea), but I did include the state filing of the "incorporation date" with its citation (later in the paragraph). Would that suffice? Unless we can find evidence of the website being launched before becoming an LLC (such as from a news article or press release), then I would think this would be its official date. I guess you could do an internet domain registration search to find out when the domain name was created and purchased, if you want to go that far and think its pertinent? So far as I can tell, I'm not sure how much more this LLC does, other than own and manage the website. Doing an internet search for news about Up-Project, I actually only found two short pages of news that's mostly from 2014 to 2015. So, that provides a bit of a clue, although we should seek more insight about this and her other entities.Ca.papavero (talk) 07:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow-up re. UP-Project and its launch date(s): I did a Whois search and found that it clarified things, such as differences between the formation of the LLC and its website. This also provided insight to domain name registration, administration; plus, Fiorina's other associated persons and entities (e.g. Sadler, Koch Industries, etc.)

Further modifications to timeline and table of contents: After realizing how UP-Project was misplaced within the timeline, I then realized several other sections that were not logical. So, I not only moved sections around to better represent the course of history; but, I also separated her "business career" from those of her "transition" years and, then, those of her "political career." I think this will be much more clear and logical; but, even still, I am noticing some time gaps in the politics section. It's not all that terrible, from what I can so far tell, but it can be improved. Take, for example, that the section on politics reverts back to year 2006 to 2008, when Fiorina was working on Senator John McCain's presidential campaign. Then, it continues on again and catches up with events from 2009 and onward. That's while the previous section discusses her biographies, autobiographies and her persona within Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; plus its controversy. Fiorina's "transition" period isn't really dealing with her role in politics. At that time, it's really just discussing the change of her public persona, per se. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

TABLE OF CONTENTS modifications and timeline as of Friday 8 May 2015:

3 Business Career

3.1 AT&T and Lucent

3.2 Hewlett-Packard (HP)

3.2.1 Forced resignation from HP

4 Transition of career and public persona

4.1 Disputed claims as "most powerful woman" versus "worst CEO"

4.2 Biography and autobiography

4.3 Personal transition, via other organizational designations

4.4 Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation; controversy

This change primarily moves disputed claims for "Most Powerful Woman" v. "Worst CEO" out from the section for Business Career and to that of Transition of career and public persona. This highlights the dispute in regards to her public persona within one section of the article, instead of having it scattered continuously throughout…. that's rather haphazardly, tirelessly going tit-for-tat. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: For comparison to the above, more changes have occurred as of Sunday 10 May 2015. The table of contents now appears as the following:

1 Early life

2 Education

3 Business Career

3.1 AT&T and Lucent

3.2 Hewlett-Packard (HP)

3.2.1 Forced resignation from HP

4 Transition of career and public persona

4.1 Fluctuating appraisals

4.2 Biography and autobiography

4.3 Other organizational involvement

4.4 Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Fiorina Foundation

5 Political career

5.1 Senate candidacy

5.2 Unlocking Potential Project

5.3 Advocate at large

5.4 2016 presidential campaign

6 Personal life

7 References

8 Further reading

9 External links

The changes are also being made in the lead section, not a part of this above Table of Contents. Ca.papavero (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

:I've vetted many of Fiorina's "other organizational designations," now re-titled under the sub-header "Other organizational involvement." It appears that she had received many of these designations just after her exit from HP and sometime before her run for U.S. Senator, whereas she may have only served for a year or so. That's either before resigning or if that organization merged, went out business and so on. I think the additional notations therein this paragraph that lists all these designations, also now shows her role and participation therein. I believe it should remain as such, because this was really the transitional point of her career and shows her involvement at those organizations. At one point, just after leaving HP, this became part of her remaining credentials, per se. So, what's been added into that paragraph is a further examination thereof. And I'm not quite done yet. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Due to heavy-handed re-editing, much of the notes on the Fiorina's "organizational involvement" have been misplaced and no longer show in the current article. Some editors may think this information is trivial or tangential, but it establishes the continuity and flow of her career. We cannot really understand how that changed and where she was involved and what she was doing at any given time and place, if we wipe that out. I have been working diligently at creating her timeline and vetting though her extensive resume, including start and end dates on her various jobs or designations. But, if we keep deleting them, we cannot establish that basis. So, I would appreciate if many of those references would be restored, because I think that some of you may not see the big picture of where its going, even though I make copious notes here. There's still lots of information missing in the article itself. And that information is relative to this bigger picture. Not having it readily available, sets us back again — not just in terms of Fiorina's timeline, but the editing timeline of this article. By the way, I would also appreciate it, if edits that remove information were better noted, such as on this Talk Page, with explanations, if not even questions or discussions. After all, I have continuously invited others to do the same. Also, it would help if they were done in part, not in heavy-handed actions that crosses over into many types of actions throughout the article; that is, including everything from wording, punctuation, to citations, to sentence structure, paragraphing, shifting of sections, etc… all done in ONE edit transaction. Sorting through that kind of editing is traumatic and very confusing. It's also not very transparent to other editors, who are trying to review the changes. Sorting through all that, as just one edit transaction, is like looking through the eye of a tornado. It would better help to separate out these different editing areas from one another, one transaction at a time. Ca.papavero (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Fiorina's overall career and her crossing over into many areas, such as business, academia, non-profits and politics; it may be helpful to separate these "Other involvements" out accordingly, such as by paragraph. Right now, it reads sort of by timeline; and its jumping in and out along these types of organizations. I think it might be more sensible to have them sectioned out; especially as readers consider her various transitions, as well as her areas of expertise and involvement. It would highlight this better, as well as be consistent with the overall theme of the article that mimics her life. Its also like comparing apples to apples, oranges to oranges and so on. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

No list of her positions on Issues

In an article about someone who is expected to announce candidacy for the presidency on Monday, there is no list whatsoever of her position on issues. Where does she stand on gay marriage, the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria, immigration, the tax code, the race riots in Ferguson and Baltimore? We don't know a thing about her stand on any of those important issues of the day from this article. Somebody needs to get to work.68.206.142.96 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

68.206.142.96 (talk) 23:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably because she has not made any such statements yet. But if you find any, please post here. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some here [6]] but we will need to find the sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are not worth chasing down, because they are outdated, from 2010 and earlier. Fiorina may well change her mind about certain issues, simply because its 2015, and because the office she's seeking is different than before. Let's wait until WP:SECONDARY sources describe her current positions. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree: I made many of these points already in the above section Election Year 2016 Campaign, talking points & role. Now that she's been added into the page United States presidential election, 2016 with its link appearing here, I think it's time to move forward. Also notice that this other page has her named as a potential candidate with "Announcements impending." So, indeed, this article needs to catch up. She may well make that announcement in days (or not), otherwise she could be an advisor or politico for the party at large (again, like she was for McCain in a last Presidential campaign). (citation carried from other page). But, hey… we've made excellent progress! Good job everyone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ca.papavero (talk • contribs) 01:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

References

EXPANDING: I've added a few of her "viewpoints" to this section, although it could be further developed. The citations that I provided (namely two of them), actually include many of her positions. So, it can be further elucidated from those citations. PBS NewsHour and NY Times have covered it well; but, there's further insight to be appreciated by other publications. Ca.papavero (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

HP Timeline Incorrect?

In the section on Fiorina's tenure at HP, the third paragraph states that her announcement of the merger with Compaq occurred in September 2001. Reading the subsection below that ("Forced resignation"), I get the impression that she was forced out as CEO no later than about March 2001. If I'm reading those two bits incorrectly, I think they need to be clarified. If I'm not, a correction is in order.

Smontanaro (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Yup, something like this occurred to me, in the back of my mind, as I was adding in a citation that made timeline references that maybe didn't jive with the others. I added in the citation "Preston, Holly Hubbard (17 May 2003). 'Book Report : Perfect Enough'. The New York Times."; whereas, it mentioned the one year anniversary of the acquisition of Compaq. That implied year 2002 from 2003 at the review of a book. But, when I made that insight, I thought about everything else… subject to citation verification? It could be a number of factors. Maybe the citations themselves mis-referenced dates. Or Wikipedia editors jumbled things with piecemeal additions, etc. This will be a laborious endeavor to open each and every citation to see if it all jives…. but, at least we should start with the more glaring ones. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Downsizing and golden parachutes; to pension perform and state furloughs; to conflict of interest and associations.

AGAIN: Details about corporate mergers and acquisitions is not simply tangential information or superfluous. And yet, overzealous editing has wiped this out, or understated this phenomenon. Such information shows how her tenure ended, as well as perhaps her role and extent in those companies or organizations. Fiorina was part of three organizations (of which I know) that were either merged, acquired, downsized or went out of business: Revolution Health Group, Cybertrust and even her own project with USAID, The One Woman Initiative. And then, there's the entire ordeal with HP's merger and acquisition of Compaq, to which she was not simply a board member, but CEO. So, indeed these are important details of her career, as they highlight a pattern and role. Then, too, it also should not be implied or allowed to assume that her role with these organizations is still open, since she has either resigned or the company is no longer in business. As it currently stands, that's not readily apparent. That's in addition to her questionable role as CEO of Fiorina and Enterprises and her Foundation. Originally, this article claimed that she was on several boards, leaving it open to assume that they were all active roles… which I've established that they are not. Readers should have an easy and discernible understanding of both her CURRENT and PAST associations. Further, Fiorina is not immune to the controversies with layoffs (downsizing), restructuring, severance package, etc. It is not a subjective conclusion to realize that Fiorina is within that greater debate, as can be evidenced from citations already inside this article, but not elucidated. Many more citations can be added to the point, including the entire Demon Sheep and Demon Sheep II response, during her 2010 senatorial campaign. From that time, "downsizing" had become a very hot buzzword in the American lexicon of politics, surpassing the understated "layoffs." And Fiorina was put at the center of that, along with other people. This entire debate is still going on today, especially in California, even with regards to government itself; i.e., including furloughs, understaffing, backfilling, pension reform and on and on. And that mostly came forth from the terms of Governors Davis, to Schwarzenegger to Brown. If you know anything about California's turmoil and politics over the last 15 plus years and forward, this discussion is not going away. In fact, it's even at the local level, in the state's biggest cities like San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego. And finally, all of this is also subject to transparency, as Fiorina and other politicians make accusations about campaign contributions, Super PACs, conflicts of interest and the overall issue with corporate personhood and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission; plus, Freedom of association. Ca.papavero (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Article Assessment, Status & Peer Review

This article has received considerable development over the last month, including much work of my own. At this point, there's still more that could be improved; but, I would like to see a assessment in terms of overall quality and importance ranking; which is aside from a peer review with more recommendations. I think this needs to be done in a number of areas, including projects for biography, conservatism, and namely, the 2016 Presidential election. Presently, I am looking at this article relative to others of similar kind. Ca.papavero (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Re. Section: "Transition of career and public persona":

Re. Sub-section: "Criticism and Praise"

This section priorly titled "Response to media rankings and notable critiques" Ca.papavero (talk) 23:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes that I believe relate to some important editing matters:

• ¶1, The opening paragraph must establish the basis of the media rankings "Most powerful woman" and "Worst CEO" etc., where all this "controversy begins. And indeed, I believe it must be very clear that we're not just talking about "claims" or "critiques" from the the onset, but RANKINGS. Also known as LISTS or GROUPINGS. As some of you know, and i've repeatedly noted, these are actually controversial media and journalism devices, especially here in the U.S. That should be well noted here in the article, as well as differentiated from "straight news." I've been trying to get to that point for some time, so I hope that's clearer now. I also hope fellow editors agree, or at least consider that.

• ¶2 compares to the first. Its the proverbial apples to apples, not apples to oranges. In this paragraph, we're still talking about RANKINGS, but how those rankings changed when she exited HP, namely. That must be clear. And it must be counterpointed to the OTHER and ORIGINAL rankings that are priorly established. By the way, it is also important to NAME those sources that are doing this ranking, if not their methodology….which we haven't even included, but might be a consideration (if briefly, or bring it into question). More over, not each of these rankings and their methodology is the same, states the same, nor comes to the same conclusion, etc. Nor is their moniker branding exactly the same. So, please, make sure you actual deep read these sources. Otherwise, we're falling into the trap of gross generalizations and, as Justen brilliantly pointed out: a POV SYNTHESIS.

• ¶3 goes into notable persons and their critiques, which is not the same as a ranking. In sociological terms (perhaps), we might differentiate this as a qualitative versus quantitative analysis or critique. One is mostly based on personal opinion and so-called expertise; while the other is based on so-called scientific methodology and collaborative analysis. So, here, we're looking at an individual's comments, versus that of a comprised media organization. Which, by the way, also take note that CNBC is sourcing Portfolio.com's ranking (a company formerly of Conde Nast)… So this stuff gets really sticky and hard to verify. It should not be compared to an notable person's or scholars's work. None of these sources should be lumped, in fact.

• ¶4 bridges all of the above and brings it to more current relevance, since this entire ordeal began over… yes, 10 years ago! And it's still being debated, still being hashed back and forth, with relevance on either side. Even now with the upcoming 2016 elections. More than that, this paragraph shows that there is indeed a defense — as much as there's support and accolades — for Fiorina and her causes. That's whether you, personally, like her or not.

• ¶5 finally shows Fiorina's OWN response to the rankings and critiques, although from a political standpoint. This is indeed, how she's popularly opened-up to the criticism and started countering it. She may have made some earlier comments, but this is really the "beef" of her current stance. From there, we already see the political responses to that, and still mired in the stigma of ratings and critiques. Her own response was priorly included here, but someone wiped it out. That's not acceptable. These interviews with Couric and Van Susteren are indeed notable and copied in circulation. They represent some of her first significant interviews dealing with her persona, critiques of her tenure at HP and going forward as a Presidential candidate. It is formative and showing how she's moving on… transitioning as a candidate. Inclusion of citations and quotes from both The National Review and The Nation, show how all of this will continue to be subject for discussion, even during election debates and campaigning. Maybe that's as long as she stays in the race; but, maybe it will last beyond that, too.

• ¶6 is perhaps less significant, but it does show how the more general media critiques and debates still playing out, even now, years later. Ca.papavero (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding-in further name references for continuing quotations or claims, of which citation was already made. It's a lot of work and technicality. I appreciate the help cleaning it up. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that some of the titles have changed and last paragraphs have been merged. Ca.papavero (talk) 19:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of the content of the section is irrelevant. First, it falsely claims things to purportedly have been said in an interview with Greta, and the entire paragraph in which that false claim is found is completely irrelevant to the section in which it is found (i.e. "criticism and praise"). It is just a statement about Hillary Clinton and how, apparently, job titles mean nothing to Carly. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:03, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Wiped section (originally ¶5), including interview with Couric and Greta Van Susteren

Responding to criticisms in interviews with Katie Couric and Greta Van Susteren, Fiorina implied there has been a double standard when comparing herself to others including Hillary Clinton. She "dismissed the suggestion that [Clinton's] serving in such roles as U.S. senator and secretary of state are accomplishments...", saying “In the world that I come from, a title’s just a title…. Why are we so impressed with political titles? A senator is a title. Secretary of state is a title. What has anyone accomplished with their title?”

I have indeed addressed this already, as well as that when you watch the video with Couric, Fiorina is in fact asked "what's your reaction" about both the http://www.carlyfiorina.org website, in addition to the layoffs and her performance at HP. That occurs from minutes 3:25 and forward in the video (as its included with the Couric citation). She not only answers the question, but re-frames it… whether we like her re-framing or not. And that's the point being made in the article. This has been her reply: pointing out what Fiorina believes is a double standard, then not only disagreeing with the question, but reframing it and going on to what she feels are her accomplishments and so on. As I've said, it's one of her earliest examples, to which we point out later in the article, similar responses at CPAC, Good Morning America and in other articles and interviews. I think that's relevant to include, instead of constantly wiping Fiorina's own particular address on the topic. Just because someone doe not like how she's answered the question, doesn't discount her address. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

This section was again wiped by Bueller 007. First time as mentioned in the above, 11 May 2015; second time 16 May 2016. Ca.papavero re-introduced the information, expanded upon it, as well as gave the explanations at this Talk Page, noted in the above. With regards to several edits made by Bueller 007 on 16 May 2015, most of them were not noted with explanation, nor did this editor make such points at the Talk Page. In one of the very few notes or explanations made by Bueller 007, it was again sarcastically stated, including a euphemism for profanity: 14:23, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (92,609 bytes) (-300)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: as i've said before, there is NOTHING about this topic in the interview with greta. watch the frigging thing and don't re-add this nonsense again.) This is not the first time that this editor has behaved in this manner, and its only become worse. I've opened discussions on the Talk Page, as well as that I've asked this other person to stop using sarcastic tone; plus, many of us have also had repeated differences with this editor on POV (to which he appears to be dogmatic); warring and even citation verifications (e.g., bare URLs, a questionable infographic, etc.). Indeed, in his second explanation, the editor says: "14:27, 16 May 2015‎ Bueller 007 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (90,407 bytes) (-2,202)‎ . . (→‎Criticism and Praise: the interview with couric and the quote cited has ~nothing~ to do with this section. the quote used is about her political inexperience, not her performance as a CEO)." I have just replied to that above. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

TO SEE PAGE PRIOR TO EDITING by Bueller 007, go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carly_Fiorina&oldid=662416861#Criticism_and_Praise and see Ca.papavero's last version Ca.papavero (talk) 00:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Praise and criticism

BTW… I've also notice how editors here have reversed the presentation dealing with Fiorina's "Praise and criticism." As the article now reads, collaborative RANKINGS that are not clear about their methodology, have the same weight and and comparison of yet another ranking by other sources, that could have a completely different methodology, and yet also still no transparency. At that, they're lumped together with the opinions of other news sources and writers, that are not necessarily basing their perspective on "straight news," aside from rankings. They're also lumped together with the opinions of various pundits, industry analysts and so on…. as if they're all the same thing. And this shows that either you don't really comprehend the nature of different sources, or you're being incredibly hypocritical and maybe even deceitful. Still, many of you have the audacity to question the quality and reliability of sources, while you overlook things like this. But, then, official records, they're considered "unreliable." What's more hypocritical than that? This is a total sham and masquerade. In fact, you have even wiped out Fiorina's own replies, subjecting the entire premise of that section, if not the entirety of this article, on your own personal POV. Time and again. When Fiorina and other news sources challenge the lead-in and biases of a question, a ranking or claim, you wipe that out, or don't acknowledge it. That's POV. Its become a very clever game of citing so-called WP guidelines, while framing the entire discussion, as well as the article itself. Ca.papavero (talk) 07:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

If you want to engage in a discussion, please tone down the rhetoric, otherwise it will be easy to ignore your comments. I for one, refuse to engage with a person that attacks others and that lacks the ability to WP:AGF - Cwobeel (talk) 14:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Now you're editing my COMMENTS. And you keep reading the riot act. You ask me to "tone down the rhetoric" when you keep on with your passive aggressive techniques, destroying work of others, not only withholding good faith, but assassinating it and taking credit from others. You are (Personal attack removed), hiding your so-called integrity behind a series of very technological actions. You bury evidence, disrupt continuity and and cut threads. Then you cite the "guidelines" copiously and rally the crowd, so that you cannot be questioned. You've lost all credibility with me, User:Cwobeel. You're staging the article, as well as the discussion thereof. It's already been framed, and now you're trying to frame those that disagree with you… editors like myself. And its appalling. You're not an editor, you're (Personal attack removed). Ca.papavero (talk) 19:26, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see no personal attacks. Continuing with this attitude may not bode well for you, as it is a blockable offense. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2015 (UTC)