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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
We're citing critics, by name, in the lede here in an attempt to unduly "balance" her once being widely named the "most powerful woman in business." We've gone off the deep end of original research and synthesis by asserting that her "public persona has notably changed over the years" and that her "image still shadows her reputation," without an inkling of reliable sourcing to back up those editorial opinions drafted here on Wikipedia. And the wp:point " no need for Fiorina's words here" (at her biography) on arguably the most important event in her life says a lot about the hatred dripping from some editors for this lady.
She's led an interesting life. I believe we can try to document her life with facts from reliable sources, rather than making up facts or using sources like blogs that call her an "asshole." Unfortunately, the small number of editors who are willing to revert any changes they consider even remotely "favourable" towards Fiorina made removing such that source a multi-month affair.
I've tagged the article as non-neutral given its current state. The opinion recently stated by another editor at wp:blpn about a key part of the lede sums it up best: this article has gotten to a point where it is "contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy." Justen ( talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•In the very fist paragraph of the lead section, is it better to describe Fiorina thus: "Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent, before being chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005." Or is it better to state that she "was an executive" and achieved such status at AT&T/Lucent; i.e., before jumping to HP? It seems minor, but… one stresses her achievement and attained position, while the other emphasizes her significant climb and drive to prominence. Should it be stated that "...Fiorina rose through the ranks AND was an executive…"? This question posed to an edit made by Anythingyouwant. Ca.papavero ( talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•In regards to Fiorina's "changing persona": User:Justen said above in One of the worst tech CEOs that "...the "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" assertion in the lede is pretty blatantly wp:or (presumably by way of wp:synthesis…" Ca.papavero acknowledged those points and made further suggestions. Ca.papavero ( talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•The lead section has become crammed, not briefly summarized. Verbose, descriptive and over nuanced words and phrases have been added. Qualifiers and explanations are teased into sentences. Additional modifiers, like adverbs and adjectives are added when not necessary. Full-on quotations are highlighted in the lead, although it may not be necessary and it can make too much weight and impact (such as by reader's considerations thereof). The lead paragraphs even includes parenthetical remarks! It anecdotes the subjects life, when such nuance should be the job of the body of the article. This introduction names other persons, other than the subject, some of them esoteric, as well as those of who are merely critics of the article's subject. Even if these other persons are notable or scholarly themselves, they typically have no direct association to the person who is the primary concern. Links and allusions to other Wikipedia articles, such as by name of persons, events, organizations, etc., should not be cluttered through the lead, therein leading to tangents from the actual subject. This article includes several additional citations and points crammed into a lead sentence or its paragraphs, whereas they should instead be placed at their appropriate section in the below body. Some sentences have two to three citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. But, if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably doesn't belong in the lead section in the first place. In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. Finally, the ending sentence of a lead section should not repeat the point that's made by the first sentence. That also suggests the need to better condense. Ca.papavero ( talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This header is in the article, and it's too long. It also does not reflect the substantial support since 2002 for her performance as a business person (see sources cited in the lead). So, I would recommend sonething like "Appraisals over the years" or something like that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There are 164 footnotes, but the last twenty or so do not seem to show up in the footnote section. Anyone know why? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a piece in the Huffington Post from 2011 that says: "Today, the merger is nearly six years old. And, surprise, surprise -- it's turned out to be a sensational combination, whether measured by market share, market leadership or increased shareholder value." I would imagine that other sources like this might be available too. Here's an interesting and well-balanced set of opinions from an article this month in Bloomberg. The Bloomberg piece includes the following opinions from 2011:
I agree that this Wikipedia article seems to take a non-neutral negative view of the merger. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"It took somebody with more operations experience to make the merger really work ... I think when (Compaq CEO Capellas) left, the operations stuff was handed to Carly, and she didn't have that strength. Obviously, Mark Hurd does." —Arch Currid, head of corporate public relations at Compaq at time of the merger.
- Cwobeel (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead says she laid off 30,000 workers at Hewlett Packard. Here is the cited source. And here is what the cited source says:
"In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people," she said. "That's why I understand where the anger came from."
But Fiorina has also been quick to point out, as she did in a 2010 interview with NPR, that, overall, jobs were created during her tenure as HP's CEO.
"Companies go through tough times ... but net-net we created jobs," she said.
Obviously, this item in the lead is very much non-neutral. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a source that sums it up quite well, published just after Fiorina was ousted by the HP board:
Still, there is plenty to criticize about Fiorina's tenure at HP. At this point, the changes that Fiorina made didn't turn out so well for the thousands of Hewlett Packard and Compaq employees that were laid off and the millions of HP stockholders who lost equity since she took over. HP stock is worth less today than it was in 1999. Dell and IBM stock has increased in value. [1]
References
- ^ Magid, Larry (9 February 2005). "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". CBS News. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
- Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This entire subject, both in the lead and in the separate section of the article (with sub-header) needs to be cross-examined and fleshed out. We should do more research on it. This is indeed one of the hotter issues concerning her tenure. Both sides of the arguement needs to be included, as well as perhaps deeper relevance or significance to readers. She acknowledges lay-offs or termination, but then she talks about what resulted at the end with the merger… which is not necessarily one and the same for some people. This needs to go beyond the simple claim that 30,000 people were terminated (if true), but explain with the 5 Ws: who what, when, where, why… even how. And differentiate those 5Ws at HP from Compaq, if necessary. Merger and acquisitions are not all that clean-cut… they are a process, concerning time and stages, wherein that can be highlighted how she and the other CEO (at Compaq) negotiated the deal, and what employees had to say about it. I've already read some of this stuff, but haven't included it. It is interesting to note, how it all "came down" and "worked out." That hasn't been mentioned, even briefly, if we want to go there or touch on that. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I went ahead and made some edits to the lead, which seems compliant with WP:NPOV now. So, if someone would like to remove the tag at the top, or perhaps move it lower in the article, that would be fine with me. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant During, after, and more recently is accurate and provides the necessary context. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead presently says (emphasis added, refs omitted):
“ | After her resignation, she was described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time. More recently, others have defended her leadership decisions and business reputation. | ” |
I removed "more recently" and Cwobeel improperly reverted. The refs supporting the first sentence are CBS (April 27, 2012) and USA Today (February 16, 2005). The refs supporting the second sentence are Barrett (April 4, 2010), Loren (May 14, 2008), and Bloomberg (May 4, 2015 but including quotes from 2001 thru 2011). It's obvious from these dates that the "more recently" is wrong. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
WE MUST STOP LUMPING CITATIONS AT THE END OF SENTENCES & PARAGRAPHS. I've said it already, but I'm highlighting it again here: Some sentences have two, three or FOUR citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. And with all the citation verification I've completed here in this article…. I'm really questioning if that's true. See the entire section for
Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. on this Talk Page. (I think I'm the only one that's noted therein, so far. And I created that section, so that everyone knows what's been verified and what needs follow-up. Plus, it keeps a track record, preventing total loss. Anyways... if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably needs to be fleshed out . In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. The few times I've added two sentences at the end of a statement, for example, is because one is a video and he other text. Otherwise, they probably have a different point of view and statement that should be clarified and differentiated… IF they're the SAME, why do we need the extra reference, after all? That should be common sense. But, if I must be frank, I'm really getting annoyed by these lump citations, placed by other editors (sometimes bare), that are left to readers to reason, if not other editors to verify and do the vetting. That's nonsense… and at this point, it's really become a tremendous burden. It must stop. This article is not a bulletin board in which to cram information.
Ca.papavero (
talk)
10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
•:Here's a whopper: "Subsequently, one of her scheduled appearances on behalf of the campaign was canceled, although she continued to chair the party's fundraising committee.[103][112][113][114][115]" That's FIVE citations behind what appears to be a very simple sentence. In fact… despite all these citations, I'm not exactly clear about the entire significance. Ca.papavero ( talk) 10:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Its stated "On the other hand, former Intel chairman Craig Barrett has spoken in Fiorina's defense.[16][17][18]" But, no explanation of what he actually said, although three citations behind a very simple sentence. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Under the "Media" section of this article, it reads at the end:
I have a problem with this information in the above. Some of the links have since gone dead, broken… victims of link rot. I was able to re-validate one of the mentions for the "Cyberposium '99"; but, frankly, it almost seems silly. This now occurred many years ago, whereas it was simply a speaking engagement and an appearance. Public personalities do engagements like this quite frequently, but I'm not sure why we need a long list of them here. Is this rather trivial or is it really important? Is it worth re-looking up all these sources and trying to verify them, especially if they appear to be old and less relevant? For example, more than 15 years later, I'm not sure how many people really care about an academic conference at Harvard…. aside from any in the present, for that matter. They could be well outdated and of less significance. (By the way, also notice that I left the dead link #88, while adding the new live #89. I'm not sure what to do about that, either). Ca.papavero ( talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There as paragraph that needs better citations and relevance:
"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared at many public events. She rang the opening bell of the Wall Street stock market on the official day of the HP-Compaq merger and in 2000 she was the ceremonial host opening the largest EasyInternetcafé at Times Square and the opening of the Epcot ride Mission: SPACE.[74] In 2004, Fiorina was a member of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, which produced a report for George W. Bush. She has appeared many times on TV such as in 2007 on Real Time with Bill Maher." I could not find anything on her ringing the opening bell at Wall Street… but, there's probably questions. Can anyone verify this? Ca.papavero (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am looking at the notes here, as I remember them from a while ago now. I noted the above, then some other editors decided to eliminate it. There seemed to be no objections to that. Now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large. That's since become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable. See this Talk Page, also on that topic. Ca.papavero ( talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a stray section? There's somewhat interesting information, but what exactly is this section's purpose… I've been wondering about this for a while now, indecisively. How does it differentiate from other sections, or how can it be developed? Ca.papavero ( talk) 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
ELIMINATED and copied below
Remnants of copied, two line paragraph |
---|
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. [2] On July 1, 2013, Fiorina spoke at the National Press Club, calling for reforms to boost small business. [3] |
Transferred by Ca.papavero ( talk) 06:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not yet an expert on the area Wikipedia Infobox, but I do realize that Fiorina's should be updated. I also realize it's not as easy as it seems. What exactly should be included there? It has to be comparable, concise, materially relevant and already cited elsewhere in the article. Right now (although I'm busy), I'm thinking of things to prepare us to move in that direction. There' a few vital information bits that have to be added, such as her current (job) positions or titles (all on their way at being verified). And, then, there's that controversial paragraph about Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Foundation… how do treat and "title" that? So… please offer feedback and help on this. I'd like to move forward on it soon. She is a U.S. presidential candidate and this information should be to the standards that are comparable to others. It's a priority, I believe. Another item on the list. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Rules and regulations emanating from Washington are choking America's potential entrepreneurs, Carly Fiorina, former chairman of Hewlett Packard, said at a July 1, 2013 National Press Club luncheon.
Sonali Basak of Medill News Service for 'Capitol Report'.
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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
We're citing critics, by name, in the lede here in an attempt to unduly "balance" her once being widely named the "most powerful woman in business." We've gone off the deep end of original research and synthesis by asserting that her "public persona has notably changed over the years" and that her "image still shadows her reputation," without an inkling of reliable sourcing to back up those editorial opinions drafted here on Wikipedia. And the wp:point " no need for Fiorina's words here" (at her biography) on arguably the most important event in her life says a lot about the hatred dripping from some editors for this lady.
She's led an interesting life. I believe we can try to document her life with facts from reliable sources, rather than making up facts or using sources like blogs that call her an "asshole." Unfortunately, the small number of editors who are willing to revert any changes they consider even remotely "favourable" towards Fiorina made removing such that source a multi-month affair.
I've tagged the article as non-neutral given its current state. The opinion recently stated by another editor at wp:blpn about a key part of the lede sums it up best: this article has gotten to a point where it is "contrary to the fundamental principles of BLP policy." Justen ( talk) 17:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•In the very fist paragraph of the lead section, is it better to describe Fiorina thus: "Starting in 1980, Fiorina rose through the ranks at AT&T and its equipment and technology spinoff, Lucent, before being chief executive officer of Hewlett-Packard (HP) from 1999 to 2005." Or is it better to state that she "was an executive" and achieved such status at AT&T/Lucent; i.e., before jumping to HP? It seems minor, but… one stresses her achievement and attained position, while the other emphasizes her significant climb and drive to prominence. Should it be stated that "...Fiorina rose through the ranks AND was an executive…"? This question posed to an edit made by Anythingyouwant. Ca.papavero ( talk) 08:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•In regards to Fiorina's "changing persona": User:Justen said above in One of the worst tech CEOs that "...the "Fiorina's public persona has notably changed over the years" assertion in the lede is pretty blatantly wp:or (presumably by way of wp:synthesis…" Ca.papavero acknowledged those points and made further suggestions. Ca.papavero ( talk) 23:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
•The lead section has become crammed, not briefly summarized. Verbose, descriptive and over nuanced words and phrases have been added. Qualifiers and explanations are teased into sentences. Additional modifiers, like adverbs and adjectives are added when not necessary. Full-on quotations are highlighted in the lead, although it may not be necessary and it can make too much weight and impact (such as by reader's considerations thereof). The lead paragraphs even includes parenthetical remarks! It anecdotes the subjects life, when such nuance should be the job of the body of the article. This introduction names other persons, other than the subject, some of them esoteric, as well as those of who are merely critics of the article's subject. Even if these other persons are notable or scholarly themselves, they typically have no direct association to the person who is the primary concern. Links and allusions to other Wikipedia articles, such as by name of persons, events, organizations, etc., should not be cluttered through the lead, therein leading to tangents from the actual subject. This article includes several additional citations and points crammed into a lead sentence or its paragraphs, whereas they should instead be placed at their appropriate section in the below body. Some sentences have two to three citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. But, if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably doesn't belong in the lead section in the first place. In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. Finally, the ending sentence of a lead section should not repeat the point that's made by the first sentence. That also suggests the need to better condense. Ca.papavero ( talk) 08:43, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This header is in the article, and it's too long. It also does not reflect the substantial support since 2002 for her performance as a business person (see sources cited in the lead). So, I would recommend sonething like "Appraisals over the years" or something like that. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
There are 164 footnotes, but the last twenty or so do not seem to show up in the footnote section. Anyone know why? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Here's a piece in the Huffington Post from 2011 that says: "Today, the merger is nearly six years old. And, surprise, surprise -- it's turned out to be a sensational combination, whether measured by market share, market leadership or increased shareholder value." I would imagine that other sources like this might be available too. Here's an interesting and well-balanced set of opinions from an article this month in Bloomberg. The Bloomberg piece includes the following opinions from 2011:
I agree that this Wikipedia article seems to take a non-neutral negative view of the merger. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"It took somebody with more operations experience to make the merger really work ... I think when (Compaq CEO Capellas) left, the operations stuff was handed to Carly, and she didn't have that strength. Obviously, Mark Hurd does." —Arch Currid, head of corporate public relations at Compaq at time of the merger.
- Cwobeel (talk) 01:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead says she laid off 30,000 workers at Hewlett Packard. Here is the cited source. And here is what the cited source says:
"In the course of my time there, we laid off over 30,000 people," she said. "That's why I understand where the anger came from."
But Fiorina has also been quick to point out, as she did in a 2010 interview with NPR, that, overall, jobs were created during her tenure as HP's CEO.
"Companies go through tough times ... but net-net we created jobs," she said.
Obviously, this item in the lead is very much non-neutral. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Here is a source that sums it up quite well, published just after Fiorina was ousted by the HP board:
Still, there is plenty to criticize about Fiorina's tenure at HP. At this point, the changes that Fiorina made didn't turn out so well for the thousands of Hewlett Packard and Compaq employees that were laid off and the millions of HP stockholders who lost equity since she took over. HP stock is worth less today than it was in 1999. Dell and IBM stock has increased in value. [1]
References
- ^ Magid, Larry (9 February 2005). "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". CBS News. Retrieved 10 May 2015.
- Cwobeel (talk) 01:50, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
This entire subject, both in the lead and in the separate section of the article (with sub-header) needs to be cross-examined and fleshed out. We should do more research on it. This is indeed one of the hotter issues concerning her tenure. Both sides of the arguement needs to be included, as well as perhaps deeper relevance or significance to readers. She acknowledges lay-offs or termination, but then she talks about what resulted at the end with the merger… which is not necessarily one and the same for some people. This needs to go beyond the simple claim that 30,000 people were terminated (if true), but explain with the 5 Ws: who what, when, where, why… even how. And differentiate those 5Ws at HP from Compaq, if necessary. Merger and acquisitions are not all that clean-cut… they are a process, concerning time and stages, wherein that can be highlighted how she and the other CEO (at Compaq) negotiated the deal, and what employees had to say about it. I've already read some of this stuff, but haven't included it. It is interesting to note, how it all "came down" and "worked out." That hasn't been mentioned, even briefly, if we want to go there or touch on that. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
References
I went ahead and made some edits to the lead, which seems compliant with WP:NPOV now. So, if someone would like to remove the tag at the top, or perhaps move it lower in the article, that would be fine with me. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:18, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant During, after, and more recently is accurate and provides the necessary context. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
The lead presently says (emphasis added, refs omitted):
“ | After her resignation, she was described as one of the worst tech CEOs of all time. More recently, others have defended her leadership decisions and business reputation. | ” |
I removed "more recently" and Cwobeel improperly reverted. The refs supporting the first sentence are CBS (April 27, 2012) and USA Today (February 16, 2005). The refs supporting the second sentence are Barrett (April 4, 2010), Loren (May 14, 2008), and Bloomberg (May 4, 2015 but including quotes from 2001 thru 2011). It's obvious from these dates that the "more recently" is wrong. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
WE MUST STOP LUMPING CITATIONS AT THE END OF SENTENCES & PARAGRAPHS. I've said it already, but I'm highlighting it again here: Some sentences have two, three or FOUR citations making a point; which most likely would imply weight, greater considerations and complexity… that's if they are indeed relevant. And with all the citation verification I've completed here in this article…. I'm really questioning if that's true. See the entire section for
Citation Verifications; failures, improvements, etc. on this Talk Page. (I think I'm the only one that's noted therein, so far. And I created that section, so that everyone knows what's been verified and what needs follow-up. Plus, it keeps a track record, preventing total loss. Anyways... if a single sentence has that many citations and weight, then it probably needs to be fleshed out . In fact, I would contend that ANYWHERE in the entire article, there should rarely ever be a case for a long string of citations behind the end of a paragraph, or the period and comma of a sentence. This is typically overkill. I would think that any writer or editor would normally realize that each one of those citations should usually have a separate explanation, if they are indeed all necessary to include. I would suggest either selecting a few that are truly pertinent (eliminating superfluousness), or explaining each citation's differentiation and significance. Place them appropriately in a sentence and paragraph, not lumping them at the end. The few times I've added two sentences at the end of a statement, for example, is because one is a video and he other text. Otherwise, they probably have a different point of view and statement that should be clarified and differentiated… IF they're the SAME, why do we need the extra reference, after all? That should be common sense. But, if I must be frank, I'm really getting annoyed by these lump citations, placed by other editors (sometimes bare), that are left to readers to reason, if not other editors to verify and do the vetting. That's nonsense… and at this point, it's really become a tremendous burden. It must stop. This article is not a bulletin board in which to cram information.
Ca.papavero (
talk)
10:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
•:Here's a whopper: "Subsequently, one of her scheduled appearances on behalf of the campaign was canceled, although she continued to chair the party's fundraising committee.[103][112][113][114][115]" That's FIVE citations behind what appears to be a very simple sentence. In fact… despite all these citations, I'm not exactly clear about the entire significance. Ca.papavero ( talk) 10:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
• Its stated "On the other hand, former Intel chairman Craig Barrett has spoken in Fiorina's defense.[16][17][18]" But, no explanation of what he actually said, although three citations behind a very simple sentence. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Under the "Media" section of this article, it reads at the end:
I have a problem with this information in the above. Some of the links have since gone dead, broken… victims of link rot. I was able to re-validate one of the mentions for the "Cyberposium '99"; but, frankly, it almost seems silly. This now occurred many years ago, whereas it was simply a speaking engagement and an appearance. Public personalities do engagements like this quite frequently, but I'm not sure why we need a long list of them here. Is this rather trivial or is it really important? Is it worth re-looking up all these sources and trying to verify them, especially if they appear to be old and less relevant? For example, more than 15 years later, I'm not sure how many people really care about an academic conference at Harvard…. aside from any in the present, for that matter. They could be well outdated and of less significance. (By the way, also notice that I left the dead link #88, while adding the new live #89. I'm not sure what to do about that, either). Ca.papavero ( talk) 09:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There as paragraph that needs better citations and relevance:
"Through all this time, Fiorina has appeared at many public events. She rang the opening bell of the Wall Street stock market on the official day of the HP-Compaq merger and in 2000 she was the ceremonial host opening the largest EasyInternetcafé at Times Square and the opening of the Epcot ride Mission: SPACE.[74] In 2004, Fiorina was a member of the President's Commission on Implementation of United States Space Exploration Policy, which produced a report for George W. Bush. She has appeared many times on TV such as in 2007 on Real Time with Bill Maher." I could not find anything on her ringing the opening bell at Wall Street… but, there's probably questions. Can anyone verify this? Ca.papavero (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I am looking at the notes here, as I remember them from a while ago now. I noted the above, then some other editors decided to eliminate it. There seemed to be no objections to that. Now however, I'm wondering about a very short section that's currently titled Advocate at large. That's since become whittled down to two sentences, one of which is questionable. See this Talk Page, also on that topic. Ca.papavero ( talk) 03:51, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this a stray section? There's somewhat interesting information, but what exactly is this section's purpose… I've been wondering about this for a while now, indecisively. How does it differentiate from other sections, or how can it be developed? Ca.papavero ( talk) 23:07, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
ELIMINATED and copied below
Remnants of copied, two line paragraph |
---|
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. [2] On July 1, 2013, Fiorina spoke at the National Press Club, calling for reforms to boost small business. [3] |
Transferred by Ca.papavero ( talk) 06:12, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not yet an expert on the area Wikipedia Infobox, but I do realize that Fiorina's should be updated. I also realize it's not as easy as it seems. What exactly should be included there? It has to be comparable, concise, materially relevant and already cited elsewhere in the article. Right now (although I'm busy), I'm thinking of things to prepare us to move in that direction. There' a few vital information bits that have to be added, such as her current (job) positions or titles (all on their way at being verified). And, then, there's that controversial paragraph about Carly Fiorina Enterprises and Foundation… how do treat and "title" that? So… please offer feedback and help on this. I'd like to move forward on it soon. She is a U.S. presidential candidate and this information should be to the standards that are comparable to others. It's a priority, I believe. Another item on the list. Ca.papavero ( talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Rules and regulations emanating from Washington are choking America's potential entrepreneurs, Carly Fiorina, former chairman of Hewlett Packard, said at a July 1, 2013 National Press Club luncheon.
Sonali Basak of Medill News Service for 'Capitol Report'.