![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
This is a bio, but we have a political positions section, in which we report on the subjects' viewpoints, including comments that have been debunked or fact checked. Deleting material that describe this person's views, is not what these sections are about - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
According to expert testimony, there were 6937 community banks in 2010, and that number declined 12% in the next four years. So, 832 community banks closed in the four years from 2010 to 2014. I do not support mentioning this fact in the present BLP, because our "political positions" section ought to describe her political positions, and that does not include describing opinions, critiques, counterarguments, or partisan hatchet jobs that support her positions or oppose her positions. User:CFredkin is entirely correct here, IMHO. For us to say or imply or cite some source as saying that 543 banks have failed since 2008 is not only probably wrong, but it is also completely inappropriate for the BLP of Fiorinia. Please put it in the article about community banks or something like that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is unresponsive to the expert testimony that I provided. Moreover, per instructions:
“ | You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
[1]There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. [2]It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. [3]In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. |
” |
Per [2], it is not clear what the neutrality issue is here. We are seeking to neutrally describe her political position, not neutrally describe the political issue that she was addressing, and, even if we were trying to do the latter, why ignore expert testimony? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the last warning I'm going to post here: Revert-warring with with an unsupported "BLP" or "per talk" justification is directly in violation of Arbcom sanctions concerning American Politics. As to the substance of this article content, TFD is absolutely correct we may only include what secondary RS identify and document as noteworthy. Original Research as to percentages without RS that relates it to Fiorina's musrepresentations as they relate to her campaign positions, is irrelevant and useless to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers.That is an argument borrowed from the conservative leaning Mercatus center. [1] Sources abound.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
These deregulatory actions [Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the Riegle-Neale Act of 1994, which expanded interstate banking, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999] eliminated rules that had kept the financial industry relatively stable over the previous seventy years. Republicans tend to ignore this history, and point solely to Dodd-Frank, the regulatory legislation introduced in 2010 to crack down on risky behavior in the financial industry, as the main killer of small community banks over the past few years- Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers. [4]22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina said Dodd-Frank resulted in ten "too big to fail" banks becoming five even bigger banks. She noted that it also destroyed nearly 1,600 community banks.[5] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina faulted the Dodd-Frank financial reform law for leading to consolidation in the banking industry and regulatory burdens that have hurt community banks. The increase in the size of the give biggest banks is "crony capitalism," she said. [6]- Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
During the Dodd-Frank portion of the GOP debate (where a few candidates made hazy claims of their own), Fiorina threw out the figure that 1,590 community banks have gone out of business. Not quite! According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which tracks banks’ demise across the country, just 543 banks have failed since 2008. The latest one occurred on Oct. 2 in Washington state, when the Hometown National Bank closed its doors. [7]- Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Cwobell, banks going out of business and failure are not the same thing. The failed banks were insolvent, placed into receivership, the FDIC paid their depositors and they were sold to other banks. TFD ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
FIORINA: Can I just -- could I just say, as a chief executive who's had to make tough calls to save jobs and to grow jobs, I think what's interesting about Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts. Socialism starts when government creates a problem, and then government steps in to solve the problem. Government created the problem. (APPLAUSE) Government created the problem of a real estate boom. How did we create it? Under Republican and Democrats alike, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, everybody gathered together, Republicans and Democrats, and said, "home ownership is part of the American dream. Let's create a bubble," and then government stepped in -- by the way, under president George W. Bush, banks were told -- encouraged -- told, really -- to buy other banks, to take money. And now what do we have with Dodd-Frank? The classic of crony capitalism. The big have gotten bigger, 1,590 community banks have gone out of business, and on top of all that, we've created something called the Consumer Financial Production Bureau, a vast bureaucracy with no congressional oversight that's digging through hundreds of millions of your credit records to detect fraud. This is how socialism starts, ladies and gentlemen. We must take our government back. Activist ( talk) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which pic is best at the top?03:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Red because blue is borders on a blp violation Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Note - I just sharpened, brightened and made the blue pic smaller. It can easily be reverted back at commons if anyone objects. I don't particularly like either pic, but at least I think the blue one is better than it was. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we be using Fiornas campaign blog thing as a source for this article? Seems unnecessary. Beach drifter ( talk) 06:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The line referencing that she laid off 30'000 people to make HP more compeditive and safeguard the remaining 80'000 jobs is extremely subjective and the source comes from her own "Secretary to CEO" website. I'm sure there are many reasons for laying off 30'000 people and maybe it did save the other 80'000 jobs but there's no real evidence offered. I believe the line should be removed completely.
At right is a recently-uploaded picture, and below that is the current top picture. Which would be better atop the article?
Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
First off, you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia. Second the one with the mike has been stable for a long time and it shows her in the context of her political activities (or previous marketing activities, which have always been her strong point.) There are many other ways to improve this article. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia"I don't know where you've gotten the impression that photos can't be changed, updated, or even retouched in Wikipedia. They can and it happens all the time. The new photo is infinitely better than the one that's currently there. And the one that's currently there is the best of many we've had to choose from. Getting the best photo possible should be the goal, just as writing the article to be the best it can be should be the goal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place for amateur photoshop heroics, nor is it the place to reassert your view without addressing the issue of encyclopedic and factual accuracy. Why not ask her for a freely shareable photo? Then you'll have a real option worth the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thepoint is that to overrule 2 RFCS there should be a new RFC rather than a quick change. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO How, specifically, are the 8 edits you reverted en masse "POV language and spin"? I'll note that some of the content you restored is not supported by the source(s) provided and is therefore a BLP violation. CFredkin ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, The Guardian article does not say they did not break the law, it said they did not sell tissues. Again, could you please read the article, and also the link it provides which explains why it is inaccurate to say they sold tissues. If you do not have time, I will briefly explain it: They donate the tissues, but receive compensation for preparing them. That is standard, accepted and legal practice. TFD ( talk) 01:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would the following language be acceptable:
"In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which in some cases is reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue." CFredkin ( talk) 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"This money is usually paid by tissue procurement companies, such as StemExpress Inc, which prepare the materials for use by scientists. Planned Parenthood used the reimbursements to cover the expense of collecting and preparing such materials. The law that governs such transactions dates back to the 1990s, when the use of stem cells was widely debated." The linked article says, "[Arthur] Caplan’s ethics articles influenced a 1993 addition to title 42 of the US code, the statute cited in the videos which prohibits selling fetal tissue, but does allow for certain reimbursements based on cost." TFD ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, for you to continue to revert all 8 of my edits when there appears to only be a dispute about one of them, is not reasonable or in good faith.
CFredkin (
talk)
01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
According to sources, the law states that PP is prohibited from selling fetal tissue at a profit. I'm not making that claim. My point was that when someone receives compensation for a good or service that's selling, regardless of whether it's done at a profit or a loss. But that's all beside the point. As I've stated above, my objection is to the use of th e term "donate", which I think for most people implies that PP received no compensation (or reimbursement) for the tissue they provided to researchers. That's definitely not the case. Therefore I think it's mis-leading to use the term "donate" here. I've made a good faith suggestion above of alternative language that I think is more accurate than either "sell" or "donate". If that's not acceptable, then I'd be interested to hear either an alternative proposal or an explanation as why "donate" is the best possible term here. CFredkin ( talk) 03:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Planned Parenthood reverses policy of taking money for fetal tissue 'donations'
Planned Parenthood Stops All Reimbursement for Fetal Tissue Donations
Planned Parenthood stops accepting payment for fetal tissue used for research
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which at the time in some cases was reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue.
CFredkin ( talk) 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which she claimed was providing fetal tissue to researchers at a profit.
CFredkin ( talk) 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the rationale for the reversion of this edit, which included the following:
1. The following statement, which was well-sourced and widely reported:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept money from researchers for fetal tissue.
2. The following statement, which included an edit to address POV language by clarifying the role of the grand jury in clearing PP of "wrongdoing":
A grand jury later declined to charge Planned Parenthood with wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record.
3. The following statement, which removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV weasel words ("Despite this.."):
Fiorina maintained her stance that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit.
CFredkin ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add this source. VictoriaGrayson Talk 04:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ancestors of Carly Fiorina | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Can someone add this to the bottom of the article page, when I do it it causes Chrome to crash. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following statement be added to Carly Fiorina:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept reimbursement from researchers for fetal tissue. At the time of the announcement, Fiorina commented: "This organization is continuing to butcher babies for their body parts while mocking pregnancy centers and taking taxpayer dollars." [1]
in conjunction with the following statement which was recently added:
19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)A grand jury later concluded that Planned Parenthood had not committed any wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record. Despite this, Fiorina held her stance, asserting that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit. [2]
References
This article is thorough and complete. Should it be nominated for WP:GA?-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)-- Wikipietime ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Need to consider moving toward inclusion into article as further details gell. Fiorina and Pac's smear in Utah are linked and seen as a pro Cruz maneuver by Fiorina to posture for VP. [1]
The connectivity to Make America Awesome [2] [3] The Election CFO principal, Chris Marston [4]
![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
This is a bio, but we have a political positions section, in which we report on the subjects' viewpoints, including comments that have been debunked or fact checked. Deleting material that describe this person's views, is not what these sections are about - Cwobeel (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
According to expert testimony, there were 6937 community banks in 2010, and that number declined 12% in the next four years. So, 832 community banks closed in the four years from 2010 to 2014. I do not support mentioning this fact in the present BLP, because our "political positions" section ought to describe her political positions, and that does not include describing opinions, critiques, counterarguments, or partisan hatchet jobs that support her positions or oppose her positions. User:CFredkin is entirely correct here, IMHO. For us to say or imply or cite some source as saying that 543 banks have failed since 2008 is not only probably wrong, but it is also completely inappropriate for the BLP of Fiorinia. Please put it in the article about community banks or something like that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is unresponsive to the expert testimony that I provided. Moreover, per instructions:
“ | You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
[1]There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved. [2]It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given. [3]In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. |
” |
Per [2], it is not clear what the neutrality issue is here. We are seeking to neutrally describe her political position, not neutrally describe the political issue that she was addressing, and, even if we were trying to do the latter, why ignore expert testimony? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the last warning I'm going to post here: Revert-warring with with an unsupported "BLP" or "per talk" justification is directly in violation of Arbcom sanctions concerning American Politics. As to the substance of this article content, TFD is absolutely correct we may only include what secondary RS identify and document as noteworthy. Original Research as to percentages without RS that relates it to Fiorina's musrepresentations as they relate to her campaign positions, is irrelevant and useless to this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers.That is an argument borrowed from the conservative leaning Mercatus center. [1] Sources abound.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
These deregulatory actions [Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the Riegle-Neale Act of 1994, which expanded interstate banking, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999] eliminated rules that had kept the financial industry relatively stable over the previous seventy years. Republicans tend to ignore this history, and point solely to Dodd-Frank, the regulatory legislation introduced in 2010 to crack down on risky behavior in the financial industry, as the main killer of small community banks over the past few years- Cwobeel (talk) 22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers. [4]22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina said Dodd-Frank resulted in ten "too big to fail" banks becoming five even bigger banks. She noted that it also destroyed nearly 1,600 community banks.[5] - Cwobeel (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Fiorina faulted the Dodd-Frank financial reform law for leading to consolidation in the banking industry and regulatory burdens that have hurt community banks. The increase in the size of the give biggest banks is "crony capitalism," she said. [6]- Cwobeel (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
During the Dodd-Frank portion of the GOP debate (where a few candidates made hazy claims of their own), Fiorina threw out the figure that 1,590 community banks have gone out of business. Not quite! According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which tracks banks’ demise across the country, just 543 banks have failed since 2008. The latest one occurred on Oct. 2 in Washington state, when the Hometown National Bank closed its doors. [7]- Cwobeel (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Cwobell, banks going out of business and failure are not the same thing. The failed banks were insolvent, placed into receivership, the FDIC paid their depositors and they were sold to other banks. TFD ( talk) 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
FIORINA: Can I just -- could I just say, as a chief executive who's had to make tough calls to save jobs and to grow jobs, I think what's interesting about Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts. Socialism starts when government creates a problem, and then government steps in to solve the problem. Government created the problem. (APPLAUSE) Government created the problem of a real estate boom. How did we create it? Under Republican and Democrats alike, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, everybody gathered together, Republicans and Democrats, and said, "home ownership is part of the American dream. Let's create a bubble," and then government stepped in -- by the way, under president George W. Bush, banks were told -- encouraged -- told, really -- to buy other banks, to take money. And now what do we have with Dodd-Frank? The classic of crony capitalism. The big have gotten bigger, 1,590 community banks have gone out of business, and on top of all that, we've created something called the Consumer Financial Production Bureau, a vast bureaucracy with no congressional oversight that's digging through hundreds of millions of your credit records to detect fraud. This is how socialism starts, ladies and gentlemen. We must take our government back. Activist ( talk) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Which pic is best at the top?03:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Red because blue is borders on a blp violation Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ ( talk) 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Note - I just sharpened, brightened and made the blue pic smaller. It can easily be reverted back at commons if anyone objects. I don't particularly like either pic, but at least I think the blue one is better than it was. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 09:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Should we be using Fiornas campaign blog thing as a source for this article? Seems unnecessary. Beach drifter ( talk) 06:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The line referencing that she laid off 30'000 people to make HP more compeditive and safeguard the remaining 80'000 jobs is extremely subjective and the source comes from her own "Secretary to CEO" website. I'm sure there are many reasons for laying off 30'000 people and maybe it did save the other 80'000 jobs but there's no real evidence offered. I believe the line should be removed completely.
At right is a recently-uploaded picture, and below that is the current top picture. Which would be better atop the article?
Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 22:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
First off, you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia. Second the one with the mike has been stable for a long time and it shows her in the context of her political activities (or previous marketing activities, which have always been her strong point.) There are many other ways to improve this article. SPECIFICO talk 00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia"I don't know where you've gotten the impression that photos can't be changed, updated, or even retouched in Wikipedia. They can and it happens all the time. The new photo is infinitely better than the one that's currently there. And the one that's currently there is the best of many we've had to choose from. Getting the best photo possible should be the goal, just as writing the article to be the best it can be should be the goal. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place for amateur photoshop heroics, nor is it the place to reassert your view without addressing the issue of encyclopedic and factual accuracy. Why not ask her for a freely shareable photo? Then you'll have a real option worth the discussion. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thepoint is that to overrule 2 RFCS there should be a new RFC rather than a quick change. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 11:00, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO How, specifically, are the 8 edits you reverted en masse "POV language and spin"? I'll note that some of the content you restored is not supported by the source(s) provided and is therefore a BLP violation. CFredkin ( talk) 22:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, The Guardian article does not say they did not break the law, it said they did not sell tissues. Again, could you please read the article, and also the link it provides which explains why it is inaccurate to say they sold tissues. If you do not have time, I will briefly explain it: They donate the tissues, but receive compensation for preparing them. That is standard, accepted and legal practice. TFD ( talk) 01:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would the following language be acceptable:
"In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which in some cases is reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue." CFredkin ( talk) 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"This money is usually paid by tissue procurement companies, such as StemExpress Inc, which prepare the materials for use by scientists. Planned Parenthood used the reimbursements to cover the expense of collecting and preparing such materials. The law that governs such transactions dates back to the 1990s, when the use of stem cells was widely debated." The linked article says, "[Arthur] Caplan’s ethics articles influenced a 1993 addition to title 42 of the US code, the statute cited in the videos which prohibits selling fetal tissue, but does allow for certain reimbursements based on cost." TFD ( talk) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, for you to continue to revert all 8 of my edits when there appears to only be a dispute about one of them, is not reasonable or in good faith.
CFredkin (
talk)
01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
According to sources, the law states that PP is prohibited from selling fetal tissue at a profit. I'm not making that claim. My point was that when someone receives compensation for a good or service that's selling, regardless of whether it's done at a profit or a loss. But that's all beside the point. As I've stated above, my objection is to the use of th e term "donate", which I think for most people implies that PP received no compensation (or reimbursement) for the tissue they provided to researchers. That's definitely not the case. Therefore I think it's mis-leading to use the term "donate" here. I've made a good faith suggestion above of alternative language that I think is more accurate than either "sell" or "donate". If that's not acceptable, then I'd be interested to hear either an alternative proposal or an explanation as why "donate" is the best possible term here. CFredkin ( talk) 03:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Planned Parenthood reverses policy of taking money for fetal tissue 'donations'
Planned Parenthood Stops All Reimbursement for Fetal Tissue Donations
Planned Parenthood stops accepting payment for fetal tissue used for research
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which at the time in some cases was reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue.
CFredkin ( talk) 05:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which she claimed was providing fetal tissue to researchers at a profit.
CFredkin ( talk) 05:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
What's the rationale for the reversion of this edit, which included the following:
1. The following statement, which was well-sourced and widely reported:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept money from researchers for fetal tissue.
2. The following statement, which included an edit to address POV language by clarifying the role of the grand jury in clearing PP of "wrongdoing":
A grand jury later declined to charge Planned Parenthood with wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record.
3. The following statement, which removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV weasel words ("Despite this.."):
Fiorina maintained her stance that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit.
CFredkin ( talk) 18:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Please add this source. VictoriaGrayson Talk 04:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Ancestors of Carly Fiorina | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Can someone add this to the bottom of the article page, when I do it it causes Chrome to crash. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 00:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following statement be added to Carly Fiorina:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept reimbursement from researchers for fetal tissue. At the time of the announcement, Fiorina commented: "This organization is continuing to butcher babies for their body parts while mocking pregnancy centers and taking taxpayer dollars." [1]
in conjunction with the following statement which was recently added:
19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)A grand jury later concluded that Planned Parenthood had not committed any wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record. Despite this, Fiorina held her stance, asserting that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit. [2]
References
This article is thorough and complete. Should it be nominated for WP:GA?-- Mr. Guye ( talk) 23:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)-- Wikipietime ( talk) 18:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Need to consider moving toward inclusion into article as further details gell. Fiorina and Pac's smear in Utah are linked and seen as a pro Cruz maneuver by Fiorina to posture for VP. [1]
The connectivity to Make America Awesome [2] [3] The Election CFO principal, Chris Marston [4]