![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
I've removed this recently added content from the lead. The reference to her severance has been discussed above and the consensus was against inclusion in the lead. In addition, I don't believe the lead to a BLP is an appropriate place for subjective commentary. CFredkin ( talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Many biographical leads summarize the (subjective) reception of the article subject by reliable sources. For instance, virtually every recent Presidential biography has, in its lead, a reference to that President's "ranking" among historians. Likewise, in this case, I don't see how one can dismiss the idea of providing in the lead a summary of Fiorina's business career, which is the centerpiece of her biography. The wording can be tweaked (although frankly, if you're being honest, I think you'd agree that "mixed to negative" is a very charitable summary of Fiorina's reception as HP CEO), but I'm not going to bother unless we can find common ground that some sort of summary of this sort belongs in the lead. MastCell Talk 18:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Its stock price had fallen by approximately half its value compared to when Fiorina had started, while the overall NASDAQ index had decreased by about a quarter owing to turbulence in the tech sector. She took home a US$22 million severance package.HP stock jumped by 6.9 percent when she was fired.
Fiorina received a severance package from HP worth more than $42 million. Assessments of Fiorina's tenure as HP CEO have been mixed to negative;her name appears on many lists of "history's worst CEOs", but others have argued that she was a competent manager faced with a severe economic downturn and a dysfunctional board of directors.
But two years of almost nonstop global chaos — terrorism, failed states, the breakdown of borders — has upended that assumption for Clinton’s team. From Europe to the Middle East to Asia, countries Clinton once cast as foreign policy successes are now crisis spots, and public opinion toward Obama’s overall foreign policy performance has turned sharply negative. Then there are the scandal-tinged questions about Clinton’s management of the State Department, in the form of GOP investigations into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi and Clinton’s use of a private email server. As Clinton begins her White House campaign, her strategists face a political challenge: how to cast a positive light on a State Department record that has sprouted some warts.
[1] CFredkin ( talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
To edit this article, one must understand policies and consensus of how those policies are generally interpreted. One does that, by seeing how those policies are applied at other articles. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Hey all,
Yes, I am a rather new user, but really became tired of being anon and wanted to actually have some sort of credentials attached to what I do here on Wikipedia and in the future.
I was reading over Ms. Fiorina's article here and was mildly shocked to not see a black lock in the corner and even more shocked to see that this page was almost written as an attack page vs. other, more neutral sources that could be found around the web.
I am one to believe that *some* of the sources being pulled from USA Today and Fortune are more opinionated compared to some other sources used on this page.
The way the page is worded, especially around her business record at HP is not worded in a way that sounds... neutral. Also, taking a look at the talk page, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how this page should be worded and what should and should not be included.
I put a neutrality box at the top of the page and hopefully this can be resolved within the near-future.
And... yes, I do know Wikipedia's editors have a more progressive ideology, but surely this cannot override the goal of neutrality on all articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGiantDragon ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Re this removal of content in the "Education" section relating to the shift in Fiorina's views on education policy between 2010 and 2015: I've restored this content, for several reasons: (1) The material is well-sourced, to two different references; (2) the content is stated objectively and is directly supported by the source (it's a quote, in fact); (3) the content is straightforwardly factual and carry no value judgment (it does not use a contentious label, such as flip-flop); and (4) the material is a necessary transition sentence to the reader's understanding; it is jarring to the reader to read "Fiorina praised X" and then "Fiorina criticized X" without some clear bridge between the two. Neutrality talk 22:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit in which I removed "during the merger" has been challenged by Anythingyouwant. I've looked at each of the sources from my list of eight, and only PolitiFact (Tampa Bay Times), states that Fiorina laid of 30,000 employees as a result of the merger. This is what they say: "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek.". (emphasis added) Most sources seem to say that Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP.
I would also note that, even in large companies, mergers don't take five-and-a-half years to happen.- Mr X 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, if the layoffs during her tenure at HP occurred in conjunction with the merger, then Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP. There's nothing inconsistent about any of these sources. Please read over the section in this Wikipedia article on layoffs and look at the cited sources. No source whatsoever seems to be claiming that there were substantial layoffs in the years following the merger. You people seem to be inventing the notion (inadvertently or not) that Politifact is making a minority claim, out of thin air. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
MrX, the sources I am relying upon are those that were cited until today in the pertinent section of the Wikipedia article. All of the sources that you cite are consistent with here having fired 30,000 people in the span of one minute:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
yeah, that seems totally fringe to me. About as fringe as the weather report this morning saying the sun rises in the east. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
those two statements don't contradict each other. Dell acquired my company 3 years ago. My entire team was laid off last month directly because of the acquisition and redundancy created. in giant companies getting everything transitioned in order to be able to do the layoffs generally takes quite a bit of time. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been some deletions from the Abortion section since this version, and a dispute over the inclusion of the word "however" has occurred in the editing (not on this page):
The second is totally neutral, but lacks the context provided by the first. A sin of omission is still wrong.
In that edit, I restored the word "however" by undoing the deletion by User:Professor JR, with this edit summary: "Not editorializing, but a transition term required in good English writing. The statement is a rebuttal response to Fiorina's statement." When the sources justify such terms, we are allowed to use them, and in fact are required to use them. That's not "editorializing". When one statement is a direct rebuttal or clarification to a previous comment, such a word is needed. Leaving it out is just shoddy and inaccurate writing.
NOTE, my use of the word "rebuttal" in my edit summary isn't entirely the right word to use. What follows is a clarification-rebuttal, because it clarifies that what she actually saw is not what she thought it was. She described what she was misled to believe. What she describes is not in the original video, but only in the doctored video she saw. It is not our job to improperly defend Fiorina, but it is a defense, because it places the blame on CMP, not on her. They doctored the videos and she was duped by their doctored editing and bears no blame for that, other than her exaggerating. Bottom line: She actually did "see" what she claims she saw. She's not lying.
Professor Jr later removed it again. He just doesn't understand.
I'm restoring that "however". Per BRD and BLP, please discuss here until we get a consensus to change it. Doing otherwise is edit warring. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this would not be an issue, and would not have been commented on by so many RS, if she had not bought the implication by CMP that the video did show an actual event at a PP clinic: "Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." There isn't."
The natural flow of events, with RS explanation, goes something like this:
Does that sound about right? AFAIK, it's factual, and our content should document this. In this connection, if we do it right, we might be able to drop the "however", or keep it, as it will be more obvious why it's needed. It all depends. We must not add our own editorializing which implies something not found in RS, or perform synthesis which creates an impression not found in RS. Right now we have a gap in our coverage. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This was already discussed above, although the conversation got sidetracked: Under the "Abortion" section SuperCarnivore591 removed the sentence (directly after "Fiorina supports eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood") that says which says "The use of federal funds for abortions is mostly banned under current law." SC591 wrote that this text is "unnecessary" and that "Fiorina supports defunding, that's all the reader needs to know."
That's not a policy-based reason to delete this well-sourced material. Wikipedia doesn't just include the "necessary" (bare minimum) content - it includes content referred to by the (reliable, third-party) sources to lend a full understanding.
There is a very important policy-based reasons why we need to keep the text, which are:
-- Neutrality talk 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
SuperCarnivore591, I'm not sure what you think you're doing with this edit, but you may have done more than you intended. You removed properly sourced information (that's known as vandalism), including an exact quote, which you called "undo". Well, it's not "undue". It's the exact quote which ties the first and last parts of ONE sentence together, and it was in quotes to make sure it was clear that it was from the RS. When you see that kind of thing, you should know better than to touch it without discussion.
The inclusion of that information prevents readers from being misled into believing that PP uses federal funds for abortions. It doesn't, and two RS we use there note that fact, and so should we. We want to get this right, not tell a POV one-sided story.
Your addition of other information about "largest provider" could have been done without deletion of properly sourced content, but, as noted by Cwobeel, it's unnecessary anyway (the wikilink works fine), so don't edit war. (Also your ref wasn't even placed next to the content it supports.) If you still feel the content is improper, then continue this discussion and convince us.
I'm going to restore the proper version:
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
PetroskiSoapbox
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BullRangifer ( talk) 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
New research about Fiorina's career that includes data not currently covered in the article. We ought to mine that article to improve the bio. [1]
References
- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summary in this edit, I dispute that we should add "... while hiring tens of thousands of people..." to the lead. It's content not already in the body of the article, it appears to be original research, and it's vague. I would want to see at least three reputable sources that say "hiring (or hired) tens of thousands of people" before even considering it. - Mr X 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's what CNN Money said:
"She has also noted -- correctly — that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired. HP and Compaq had a combined 148,100 employees just before she was hired in 1999, and 150,000 by the time she was fired in 2005.
(---clip---)
In all, the terminations cost HP 26,400 jobs."
— CNN Money
Almost all of the other sources say that she laid off 30,000 people. Some mention that the headcound remained roughly the same, or increased slightly, but I still have not seen a source that says she actually hired x people during her tenure. Best case: The CNN Money article is an example of sloppy journalism.- Mr X 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Compromise Proposal: "By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001." CFredkin ( talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees. By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of other companies acquired by HP since 2001." CFredkin ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe this should not be in the lead, but if it must be there, I can go with CFredkin's Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[9] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
These are both from September 2015. I personally think Image A is better, because it's more realistic (less makeup). Also, the attire in Image B seems inferior for a top portrait (e.g. short sleeves).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Was there ever a consensus on replacing the photo that was there previously? If so, I don't see it on this talk page. Was there something wrong with the photo that was there? There was consensus for it before it was removed. Therefore, I am going to replace it once again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WV. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI for all who have commented here ( MrX, VictoriaGrayson, Anythingyouwant, Cwobeel, Gaijin42, BullRangifer, SuperCarnivore591: I have started an RfC below regarding the infobox photo and added the previous, consensus photo that was removed without discussion or new consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems the video may have been created by her SuperPAC after the Sept. 16 debate. [10] TFD ( talk) 19:03, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
TFD, we are not talking about the video made by her SuperPAC after the debate, although it apparently also contains that Grantham content. Fiorina's claim was about a video released by CMP before the debate. (I also edit the article which documents this stuff: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. You may wish to read it.)
The unedited video from CMP does not contain that content. No one has found it there. By CMP's own admission, it's on the edited version released at the same time, and seen by Fiorina and thousands of others. It's on CMP's website and on CMP's YouTube channel, and is linked in this PolitiFact secondary source we use in the article I just linked above:
CMP admits they added content from Grantham:
That content has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, but Fiorina is one of many politicians and others who have seen the edited video who get the impression that it is footage from a Planned Parenthood clinic. That was CMP's intention. In their book, the ends justify the means.
PolitiFact cuts through the crap and states:
So, CMP's deception fooled Fiorina, she then ran with that story in a strong and exaggerated claim at the GOP debate, and was later chastised for it by the press, and much of that criticism is wrong. She actually did see that content.
BTW, I have added a heading above for this special discussion. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 23:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 18 |
I've removed this recently added content from the lead. The reference to her severance has been discussed above and the consensus was against inclusion in the lead. In addition, I don't believe the lead to a BLP is an appropriate place for subjective commentary. CFredkin ( talk) 17:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Many biographical leads summarize the (subjective) reception of the article subject by reliable sources. For instance, virtually every recent Presidential biography has, in its lead, a reference to that President's "ranking" among historians. Likewise, in this case, I don't see how one can dismiss the idea of providing in the lead a summary of Fiorina's business career, which is the centerpiece of her biography. The wording can be tweaked (although frankly, if you're being honest, I think you'd agree that "mixed to negative" is a very charitable summary of Fiorina's reception as HP CEO), but I'm not going to bother unless we can find common ground that some sort of summary of this sort belongs in the lead. MastCell Talk 18:26, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Its stock price had fallen by approximately half its value compared to when Fiorina had started, while the overall NASDAQ index had decreased by about a quarter owing to turbulence in the tech sector. She took home a US$22 million severance package.HP stock jumped by 6.9 percent when she was fired.
Fiorina received a severance package from HP worth more than $42 million. Assessments of Fiorina's tenure as HP CEO have been mixed to negative;her name appears on many lists of "history's worst CEOs", but others have argued that she was a competent manager faced with a severe economic downturn and a dysfunctional board of directors.
But two years of almost nonstop global chaos — terrorism, failed states, the breakdown of borders — has upended that assumption for Clinton’s team. From Europe to the Middle East to Asia, countries Clinton once cast as foreign policy successes are now crisis spots, and public opinion toward Obama’s overall foreign policy performance has turned sharply negative. Then there are the scandal-tinged questions about Clinton’s management of the State Department, in the form of GOP investigations into the 2012 attacks in Benghazi and Clinton’s use of a private email server. As Clinton begins her White House campaign, her strategists face a political challenge: how to cast a positive light on a State Department record that has sprouted some warts.
[1] CFredkin ( talk) 18:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
To edit this article, one must understand policies and consensus of how those policies are generally interpreted. One does that, by seeing how those policies are applied at other articles. Gaijin42 ( talk) 19:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Hey all,
Yes, I am a rather new user, but really became tired of being anon and wanted to actually have some sort of credentials attached to what I do here on Wikipedia and in the future.
I was reading over Ms. Fiorina's article here and was mildly shocked to not see a black lock in the corner and even more shocked to see that this page was almost written as an attack page vs. other, more neutral sources that could be found around the web.
I am one to believe that *some* of the sources being pulled from USA Today and Fortune are more opinionated compared to some other sources used on this page.
The way the page is worded, especially around her business record at HP is not worded in a way that sounds... neutral. Also, taking a look at the talk page, there doesn't seem to be a consensus on how this page should be worded and what should and should not be included.
I put a neutrality box at the top of the page and hopefully this can be resolved within the near-future.
And... yes, I do know Wikipedia's editors have a more progressive ideology, but surely this cannot override the goal of neutrality on all articles on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BigGiantDragon ( talk • contribs) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Re this removal of content in the "Education" section relating to the shift in Fiorina's views on education policy between 2010 and 2015: I've restored this content, for several reasons: (1) The material is well-sourced, to two different references; (2) the content is stated objectively and is directly supported by the source (it's a quote, in fact); (3) the content is straightforwardly factual and carry no value judgment (it does not use a contentious label, such as flip-flop); and (4) the material is a necessary transition sentence to the reader's understanding; it is jarring to the reader to read "Fiorina praised X" and then "Fiorina criticized X" without some clear bridge between the two. Neutrality talk 22:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
This edit in which I removed "during the merger" has been challenged by Anythingyouwant. I've looked at each of the sources from my list of eight, and only PolitiFact (Tampa Bay Times), states that Fiorina laid of 30,000 employees as a result of the merger. This is what they say: "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek.". (emphasis added) Most sources seem to say that Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP.
I would also note that, even in large companies, mergers don't take five-and-a-half years to happen.- Mr X 14:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Obviously, if the layoffs during her tenure at HP occurred in conjunction with the merger, then Fiorina laid off 30,000 employees during her five-and-a-half years at HP. There's nothing inconsistent about any of these sources. Please read over the section in this Wikipedia article on layoffs and look at the cited sources. No source whatsoever seems to be claiming that there were substantial layoffs in the years following the merger. You people seem to be inventing the notion (inadvertently or not) that Politifact is making a minority claim, out of thin air. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:01, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
MrX, the sources I am relying upon are those that were cited until today in the pertinent section of the Wikipedia article. All of the sources that you cite are consistent with here having fired 30,000 people in the span of one minute:
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
yeah, that seems totally fringe to me. About as fringe as the weather report this morning saying the sun rises in the east. Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
those two statements don't contradict each other. Dell acquired my company 3 years ago. My entire team was laid off last month directly because of the acquisition and redundancy created. in giant companies getting everything transitioned in order to be able to do the layoffs generally takes quite a bit of time. Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been some deletions from the Abortion section since this version, and a dispute over the inclusion of the word "however" has occurred in the editing (not on this page):
The second is totally neutral, but lacks the context provided by the first. A sin of omission is still wrong.
In that edit, I restored the word "however" by undoing the deletion by User:Professor JR, with this edit summary: "Not editorializing, but a transition term required in good English writing. The statement is a rebuttal response to Fiorina's statement." When the sources justify such terms, we are allowed to use them, and in fact are required to use them. That's not "editorializing". When one statement is a direct rebuttal or clarification to a previous comment, such a word is needed. Leaving it out is just shoddy and inaccurate writing.
NOTE, my use of the word "rebuttal" in my edit summary isn't entirely the right word to use. What follows is a clarification-rebuttal, because it clarifies that what she actually saw is not what she thought it was. She described what she was misled to believe. What she describes is not in the original video, but only in the doctored video she saw. It is not our job to improperly defend Fiorina, but it is a defense, because it places the blame on CMP, not on her. They doctored the videos and she was duped by their doctored editing and bears no blame for that, other than her exaggerating. Bottom line: She actually did "see" what she claims she saw. She's not lying.
Professor Jr later removed it again. He just doesn't understand.
I'm restoring that "however". Per BRD and BLP, please discuss here until we get a consensus to change it. Doing otherwise is edit warring. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 21:32, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Keep in mind that this would not be an issue, and would not have been commented on by so many RS, if she had not bought the implication by CMP that the video did show an actual event at a PP clinic: "Fiorina’s claim makes it sound like there is actual footage of Planned Parenthood examining an aborted fetus whose heart is still beating, while someone says "we have to keep it alive to harvest its brain." There isn't."
The natural flow of events, with RS explanation, goes something like this:
Does that sound about right? AFAIK, it's factual, and our content should document this. In this connection, if we do it right, we might be able to drop the "however", or keep it, as it will be more obvious why it's needed. It all depends. We must not add our own editorializing which implies something not found in RS, or perform synthesis which creates an impression not found in RS. Right now we have a gap in our coverage. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 02:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This was already discussed above, although the conversation got sidetracked: Under the "Abortion" section SuperCarnivore591 removed the sentence (directly after "Fiorina supports eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood") that says which says "The use of federal funds for abortions is mostly banned under current law." SC591 wrote that this text is "unnecessary" and that "Fiorina supports defunding, that's all the reader needs to know."
That's not a policy-based reason to delete this well-sourced material. Wikipedia doesn't just include the "necessary" (bare minimum) content - it includes content referred to by the (reliable, third-party) sources to lend a full understanding.
There is a very important policy-based reasons why we need to keep the text, which are:
-- Neutrality talk 01:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
SuperCarnivore591, I'm not sure what you think you're doing with this edit, but you may have done more than you intended. You removed properly sourced information (that's known as vandalism), including an exact quote, which you called "undo". Well, it's not "undue". It's the exact quote which ties the first and last parts of ONE sentence together, and it was in quotes to make sure it was clear that it was from the RS. When you see that kind of thing, you should know better than to touch it without discussion.
The inclusion of that information prevents readers from being misled into believing that PP uses federal funds for abortions. It doesn't, and two RS we use there note that fact, and so should we. We want to get this right, not tell a POV one-sided story.
Your addition of other information about "largest provider" could have been done without deletion of properly sourced content, but, as noted by Cwobeel, it's unnecessary anyway (the wikilink works fine), so don't edit war. (Also your ref wasn't even placed next to the content it supports.) If you still feel the content is improper, then continue this discussion and convince us.
I'm going to restore the proper version:
{{
citation}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)
PetroskiSoapbox
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).BullRangifer ( talk) 04:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
New research about Fiorina's career that includes data not currently covered in the article. We ought to mine that article to improve the bio. [1]
References
- Cwobeel (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
As stated in my edit summary in this edit, I dispute that we should add "... while hiring tens of thousands of people..." to the lead. It's content not already in the body of the article, it appears to be original research, and it's vague. I would want to see at least three reputable sources that say "hiring (or hired) tens of thousands of people" before even considering it. - Mr X 13:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's what CNN Money said:
"She has also noted -- correctly — that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired. HP and Compaq had a combined 148,100 employees just before she was hired in 1999, and 150,000 by the time she was fired in 2005.
(---clip---)
In all, the terminations cost HP 26,400 jobs."
— CNN Money
Almost all of the other sources say that she laid off 30,000 people. Some mention that the headcound remained roughly the same, or increased slightly, but I still have not seen a source that says she actually hired x people during her tenure. Best case: The CNN Money article is an example of sloppy journalism.- Mr X 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Compromise Proposal: "By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of companies acquired by HP since 2001." CFredkin ( talk) 16:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
"During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees. By 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined, and that 2004 number included roughly 8,000 employees of other companies acquired by HP since 2001." CFredkin ( talk) 16:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe this should not be in the lead, but if it must be there, I can go with CFredkin's Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
[9] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
These are both from September 2015. I personally think Image A is better, because it's more realistic (less makeup). Also, the attire in Image B seems inferior for a top portrait (e.g. short sleeves).
Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Was there ever a consensus on replacing the photo that was there previously? If so, I don't see it on this talk page. Was there something wrong with the photo that was there? There was consensus for it before it was removed. Therefore, I am going to replace it once again. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with WV. VictoriaGrayson Talk 00:21, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
FYI for all who have commented here ( MrX, VictoriaGrayson, Anythingyouwant, Cwobeel, Gaijin42, BullRangifer, SuperCarnivore591: I have started an RfC below regarding the infobox photo and added the previous, consensus photo that was removed without discussion or new consensus. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It seems the video may have been created by her SuperPAC after the Sept. 16 debate. [10] TFD ( talk) 19:03, September 27, 2015 (UTC)
TFD, we are not talking about the video made by her SuperPAC after the debate, although it apparently also contains that Grantham content. Fiorina's claim was about a video released by CMP before the debate. (I also edit the article which documents this stuff: Planned Parenthood 2015 undercover videos controversy. You may wish to read it.)
The unedited video from CMP does not contain that content. No one has found it there. By CMP's own admission, it's on the edited version released at the same time, and seen by Fiorina and thousands of others. It's on CMP's website and on CMP's YouTube channel, and is linked in this PolitiFact secondary source we use in the article I just linked above:
CMP admits they added content from Grantham:
That content has nothing to do with Planned Parenthood, but Fiorina is one of many politicians and others who have seen the edited video who get the impression that it is footage from a Planned Parenthood clinic. That was CMP's intention. In their book, the ends justify the means.
PolitiFact cuts through the crap and states:
So, CMP's deception fooled Fiorina, she then ran with that story in a strong and exaggerated claim at the GOP debate, and was later chastised for it by the press, and much of that criticism is wrong. She actually did see that content.
BTW, I have added a heading above for this special discussion. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 23:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)