![]() | 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 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The lead says that HP stock price fell 65% during her tenure. That seems to be out of context and imbalanced in terms of WP:NPOV. Here is what the Des Moines Register says:
“ | H-P’s stock fell 52 percent from her first day on July 19, 1999, to her firing on Feb. 8, 2005, using prices adjusted for dividends. (It’s even worse — down 65 percent — if actual prices are used.)....The tech-heavy NASDAQ index fared much better than H-P stock, falling 26 percent over Fiorina’s six-year tenure. | ” |
So the actual facts in context are still bad for Fiorina, but not nearly as bad as we now indicate in the lead. Note that this info is from an editorial, [1] but there are lots of straight news stories that confirm this. Some sources peg the stock drop at less than 50%. [2] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: I combined your edit with mine, hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Fiorina is seeking the nomination is not a primary feature of her bio and should not be on the first sentence. All other nominees have a mention of their running in the lead, but not on the first sentence, and for good reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A Whois search for Up-Project.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 19, 2014; its registrant contact name is listed as Frank Sadler of Cove Strategies (an Alexandria, Virginia based entity). [1]
References
- ^ "Whois lookup (for up-project.org)". Namecheap.com. Retrieved May 6, 2015.
Domain Name:Up-Project.org. Domain ID: D173024953-LROR. Creation Date: 2014-06-19T15:53:59Z. Registry Expiry Date: 2016-06-19T15:53:59Z. Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR). Registrant & Admin Name: Frank Sadler. Registrant & Admin Organization: Cove Strategies
WHOIS is a primary source, so if this material is notable for inclusion we need secondary sources to attest for that notability. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Please do not include trivial information unless it is notable and reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca.papavero you may need to learn the basics of WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:WPNOTRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto about this one. Utterly useless trivia in a biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A Whois search for OneWomanInitiative.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 2008, its registrant contact name listed as "Registration Private", its administrating organization as "Domains By Proxy, LLC" (of Arizona), and its registry expiry date as June 2015. [1]
References
- ^ ICANN. "ICANN Whois (for ONEWOMANINITIATIVE.ORG)". Whois.icann.org/en/lookup. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Domain Name:ONEWOMANINITIATIVE.ORG Domain ID: D153108701-LROR Creation Date: 2008-06-26T22:31:48Z Updated Date: 2014-06-16T06:38:21Z Registry Expiry Date: 2015-06-26T22:31:48Z Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR); Registrant ID:CR150820826 Registrant Name:Registration Private Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC Registrant State/Province:Arizona; Admin ID:CR150820827 Admin Name:Registration Private Admin Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC{{ cite web}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help); Missing or empty|url=
( help)
This article is hard to read since it is, in my opinion, carefully worded and choosey about how it portrays the subject in such a way as to bias the reader to think negatively about the subject. I am adding a tag for the neutrality to be checked. Please do not remove the tag until this matter is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 ( talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow you read the entire article in the whole 2 minutes between my edit and your revert? Fast reading skills. I am sure you found it to be very well structured but unfortunately I was looking for an unbias peer review not someone like you that has a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 ( talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Justen you may be correct, but still Cwobeel does seem to perhaps have a not-completely-unreasonable point. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags like this NPOV tag, anyone who sees the tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If anything, the article deserves a POV tag because it does not give enough detail about Fiorina's biggest disaster: her decisive role at HP to rid the company of its innovative qualities. She wanted to make the company huge, but its products were to be uninspiring commodities, sold for the lowest price. Before Fiorina, HP was a little bit like Apple in that it performed a lot of R&D to come up with very interesting products. Fiorina cut that stuff out. She also forced a top-down management system, rewarding unquestioning adherence to assigned tasks. Before Fiorina, HP's management system, called the "HP Way", was much more democratic and free-form, allowing cooperation between distant departments, supporting decision-making at the ground level, and fostering inventive teamwork solutions. Fiorina purposely shut down the HP Way. See Business Insider "Everything At Hewlett-Packard Started To Go Wrong When Cost-Cutting Replaced Innovation", and the Chicago Tribune "Carly Fiorina's disastrous paper trail". There's also "Carly Fiorina wrong for HP, wrong for California", "Misleading Claims", "Fiorina, Hurd: no practitioners of 'The HP Way'?", "Losing the HP way", "Carly Fiorina's HP legacy looms over her 2016 ambitions", "The rise and fall of the HP Way", and "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". I'm not going to fight the POV tag because the article fails to give enough detailed description of Fiorina's disastrous leadership of HP. Binksternet ( talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The stock performance is not disputed, so I see no reason to omit that graph. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Artaxerxes: It is simply without precedent or purpose that the inclusion of 'Republican Candidate for President' is included in her infobox as though it were an office. She is not, and has never been an officeholder. Wendell Willkie was the Republican Nominee in 1940; like Fiorina, Willkie was a businessman who never held public office, and his article doesn't have an officebox mentioning him as the Nominee in '40, although that is a far more prestigious position than a declared candidate (I like Fiorina, but she doesn't even qualify for debates as of now). This same isn't done for Ben Carson or Donald Trump, or for any other business executive who has run for office. An infobox, for a politician, lists one's offices held; being a nominee isn't an office, and certainly being a candidate with no formal national party endorsement certainly doesn't qualify. You can read in the lead that she is a candidate, but being a candidate is not an office nor an official function which is due for the infobox. Spartan7W § 17:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think someone is a politician unless that person holds, previously held public office (elected or appointed), or is or was a member of a political party's power structure like Reince Preibus beinh held of the RNC. To my knowledge, Carly only hopes to become a politician. Therefore I believe the technically correct term is an aspirant for public office or wants to be a politician. She could be a hopeful politician or wants to become a politician but not yet one. Please have some editors discuss because the Lede is wrong 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.61.76 ( talk)
For example see the lWede for Ben Carson who like Carly is also running for POTUS yet has no yet held public office. Yet his Lede is retire surgeon not a politician. Likewise carly is a retire bunisse excceotive NOT a polytician 74.67.61.76 ( talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For the time being, she is a politician. The best example, Wendell Willkie, Republican nominee in 1940, was a businessman just like Carly Fiorina. He lost to FDR. In teh year 1940, he was a politician for all intents and purposes, but because he lost and never subsequently held office, he reverts to 'businessman'. If Carly loses the nomination, the election, doesn't get picked as VP, or never becomes a cabinet officer, she will revert to businesswoman only. Spartan7W § 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
this article is in dispute because it reads like a one sided hit piece to make Fiorina look like a terrible person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 ( talk) 00:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me, this article is not neutral. From the beginning paragraph it highlights how she has failed as a CEO and had many people laid off as a result. Although the facts may not be disputed, the presentation of those facts as the highlight of her career, at the very beginning of the article make it clear the authors of this Wikipedia page do NOT have neutrality in mind, but rather have an agenda. 192.35.35.36 ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Anonymous
I'm not even conservative or Republican and it's shocking how one-sided this page is. Sad thing is it appears to really be the result of one editor taking control of the page and refusing to allow any neutrality into the picture. Even the introduction is jaw-dropping. Is the introduction really the right place for all of this slanted information? 2601:144:C003:97D:3597:117:A575:9274 ( talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a top pic should not show the subject looking directly away from the article text, and preferably will show the subject looking more forward than to the side. Also, the pic will preferably not be an (idolizing) shot from below, it should be of top quality, and should not be unflattering. So, here are some possibilities below. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If people like Image #2 then I could try to get the microphone removed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant:, @ Winkelvi: No consensus was formed to remove the below portrait, and none of the above pictures are in any way superior. I didn't take this picture, so don't think I have a personal attachment to it. All of the above pictures are not very flattering; #'s 1, 3, & 5 are simply not portrait quality, #4 is creepy, and #2 does nothing which the below (and previous infobox portrait) does not provide. #2, which is the current portrait, has a microphone in front of her face, it isn't in full focus, and she isn't looking at the camera, and the coloration isn't completely natural. The below could easily be a formal portrait if she was looking at the camera; it is in focus, well composed, well-lit, and illustrates a natural and flattering expression for Mrs. Fiorina. It is best for a portrait not to have a microphone or other distracting object in the way. I see no reason why the below was removed to begin with. Spartan7W § 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well there is a consensus now. There is no place on Wikipedia where that cross-eyed photo would be appropriate. It may be well composed and well lit, but it would be a throw-away for 100% of all portrait photographers worldwide. The only reason to suggest using it is out of childish partisan spite. The microphone in the current photo is of zero import and does not harm the photo's usefulness in any way. Until a better license-free image can be located, that's the one we should be using. Eclipsoid ( talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. I wouldn't classify it as crosseyed, per-say, but I would say it is a tie with #2. I should have checked the talk page earlier, I just found the current picture of no superior quality. I will peruse the interwebs for a superior portrait. Spartan7W § 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the photo Spartan re-added makes her look cross-eyed. Photo #2 is bright, has an aesthetically pleasing background, and facially is much more flattering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ed Eduljee. "HP Hewlett Packard's Corporate Governance Woes Part 1". heritageinstitute.com. is listed as a source. The domain is privacy protected so we don't know who it is. The bottom of the webpages lists a non-notable person maybe he is the author it looks like a WP:QUESTIONABLE and self published source WP:USERGENERATED. No editorial policy listed among other concerns. Jadeslair ( talk) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke. To quote the woman from Bloomberg, this section of the Carly Fiorina article is a "trainwreck" and a "disaster". It could be eliminated entirely, but more reasonably it could be cut down to a couple of sentences. Their no reason to ever have a sentence that just says this, "Katie Benner of Bloomberg View described Fiorina's leadership at HP as a "train wreck" and a "disaster"." The number of problems with that one sentence are too numerous to mention, but it is typical of many of the sentence. This sentence is a hit and run. (1) Who is Katie Benner? Who cares? She is obviously a writer, but she doesn't even have an article about her in Wikipedia; therefore, at this point in time, Wikipedia does not even see her as notable. She has been cited in Wikipedia many times, with many different organizations, so she is a freelancer, which means she doesn't hold down a full-time stable gig. I don't see why her opinion is even relevant. Has she run a Fortune 20 company? No. (2) The sentence doesn't even provide the reader what her reasoning is. It just grabs the two insults and wraps them in scare quotes. It is just one of many BS sentences in the whole section. The whole section is a coatrack to list every conceivable complaint about Fiorina. It makes the whole article unfair and biased. It is a joke. I'm going to trim it down. Please feel free to work with me as I trim it down and end its existence as a place to dump on Fiorina, under the false claim that this is an encyclopedia article--especially since it has the name "praise" in the name but ZERO praise in the section.-- ML ( talk) 15:45, 8 August 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 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
The lead says that HP stock price fell 65% during her tenure. That seems to be out of context and imbalanced in terms of WP:NPOV. Here is what the Des Moines Register says:
“ | H-P’s stock fell 52 percent from her first day on July 19, 1999, to her firing on Feb. 8, 2005, using prices adjusted for dividends. (It’s even worse — down 65 percent — if actual prices are used.)....The tech-heavy NASDAQ index fared much better than H-P stock, falling 26 percent over Fiorina’s six-year tenure. | ” |
So the actual facts in context are still bad for Fiorina, but not nearly as bad as we now indicate in the lead. Note that this info is from an editorial, [1] but there are lots of straight news stories that confirm this. Some sources peg the stock drop at less than 50%. [2] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant: I combined your edit with mine, hope it works for you. - Cwobeel (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact that Fiorina is seeking the nomination is not a primary feature of her bio and should not be on the first sentence. All other nominees have a mention of their running in the lead, but not on the first sentence, and for good reason. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
A Whois search for Up-Project.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 19, 2014; its registrant contact name is listed as Frank Sadler of Cove Strategies (an Alexandria, Virginia based entity). [1]
References
- ^ "Whois lookup (for up-project.org)". Namecheap.com. Retrieved May 6, 2015.
Domain Name:Up-Project.org. Domain ID: D173024953-LROR. Creation Date: 2014-06-19T15:53:59Z. Registry Expiry Date: 2016-06-19T15:53:59Z. Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR). Registrant & Admin Name: Frank Sadler. Registrant & Admin Organization: Cove Strategies
WHOIS is a primary source, so if this material is notable for inclusion we need secondary sources to attest for that notability. Otherwise it fails WP:NOR. Please do not include trivial information unless it is notable and reported in secondary sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca.papavero you may need to learn the basics of WP:BRD. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
See also WP:WPNOTRS. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ditto about this one. Utterly useless trivia in a biography. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
A Whois search for OneWomanInitiative.org shows that the website domain name was created as of June 2008, its registrant contact name listed as "Registration Private", its administrating organization as "Domains By Proxy, LLC" (of Arizona), and its registry expiry date as June 2015. [1]
References
- ^ ICANN. "ICANN Whois (for ONEWOMANINITIATIVE.ORG)". Whois.icann.org/en/lookup. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).
Domain Name:ONEWOMANINITIATIVE.ORG Domain ID: D153108701-LROR Creation Date: 2008-06-26T22:31:48Z Updated Date: 2014-06-16T06:38:21Z Registry Expiry Date: 2015-06-26T22:31:48Z Sponsoring Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC (R91-LROR); Registrant ID:CR150820826 Registrant Name:Registration Private Registrant Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC Registrant State/Province:Arizona; Admin ID:CR150820827 Admin Name:Registration Private Admin Organization:Domains By Proxy, LLC{{ cite web}}
:|access-date=
requires|url=
( help); Missing or empty|url=
( help)
This article is hard to read since it is, in my opinion, carefully worded and choosey about how it portrays the subject in such a way as to bias the reader to think negatively about the subject. I am adding a tag for the neutrality to be checked. Please do not remove the tag until this matter is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 ( talk) 20:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Wow you read the entire article in the whole 2 minutes between my edit and your revert? Fast reading skills. I am sure you found it to be very well structured but unfortunately I was looking for an unbias peer review not someone like you that has a political agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.118.199 ( talk) 21:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Justen you may be correct, but still Cwobeel does seem to perhaps have a not-completely-unreasonable point. When it comes to confusing or ambiguous tags like this NPOV tag, anyone who sees the tag, but does not see the purported problem with the article and does not see any detailed complaint on the talk page, may remove the tag. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
If anything, the article deserves a POV tag because it does not give enough detail about Fiorina's biggest disaster: her decisive role at HP to rid the company of its innovative qualities. She wanted to make the company huge, but its products were to be uninspiring commodities, sold for the lowest price. Before Fiorina, HP was a little bit like Apple in that it performed a lot of R&D to come up with very interesting products. Fiorina cut that stuff out. She also forced a top-down management system, rewarding unquestioning adherence to assigned tasks. Before Fiorina, HP's management system, called the "HP Way", was much more democratic and free-form, allowing cooperation between distant departments, supporting decision-making at the ground level, and fostering inventive teamwork solutions. Fiorina purposely shut down the HP Way. See Business Insider "Everything At Hewlett-Packard Started To Go Wrong When Cost-Cutting Replaced Innovation", and the Chicago Tribune "Carly Fiorina's disastrous paper trail". There's also "Carly Fiorina wrong for HP, wrong for California", "Misleading Claims", "Fiorina, Hurd: no practitioners of 'The HP Way'?", "Losing the HP way", "Carly Fiorina's HP legacy looms over her 2016 ambitions", "The rise and fall of the HP Way", and "The Rise & Fall Of Carly Fiorina". I'm not going to fight the POV tag because the article fails to give enough detailed description of Fiorina's disastrous leadership of HP. Binksternet ( talk) 07:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
The stock performance is not disputed, so I see no reason to omit that graph. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
@ Artaxerxes: It is simply without precedent or purpose that the inclusion of 'Republican Candidate for President' is included in her infobox as though it were an office. She is not, and has never been an officeholder. Wendell Willkie was the Republican Nominee in 1940; like Fiorina, Willkie was a businessman who never held public office, and his article doesn't have an officebox mentioning him as the Nominee in '40, although that is a far more prestigious position than a declared candidate (I like Fiorina, but she doesn't even qualify for debates as of now). This same isn't done for Ben Carson or Donald Trump, or for any other business executive who has run for office. An infobox, for a politician, lists one's offices held; being a nominee isn't an office, and certainly being a candidate with no formal national party endorsement certainly doesn't qualify. You can read in the lead that she is a candidate, but being a candidate is not an office nor an official function which is due for the infobox. Spartan7W § 17:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't think someone is a politician unless that person holds, previously held public office (elected or appointed), or is or was a member of a political party's power structure like Reince Preibus beinh held of the RNC. To my knowledge, Carly only hopes to become a politician. Therefore I believe the technically correct term is an aspirant for public office or wants to be a politician. She could be a hopeful politician or wants to become a politician but not yet one. Please have some editors discuss because the Lede is wrong 15:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.61.76 ( talk)
For example see the lWede for Ben Carson who like Carly is also running for POTUS yet has no yet held public office. Yet his Lede is retire surgeon not a politician. Likewise carly is a retire bunisse excceotive NOT a polytician 74.67.61.76 ( talk) 15:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
For the time being, she is a politician. The best example, Wendell Willkie, Republican nominee in 1940, was a businessman just like Carly Fiorina. He lost to FDR. In teh year 1940, he was a politician for all intents and purposes, but because he lost and never subsequently held office, he reverts to 'businessman'. If Carly loses the nomination, the election, doesn't get picked as VP, or never becomes a cabinet officer, she will revert to businesswoman only. Spartan7W § 18:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
this article is in dispute because it reads like a one sided hit piece to make Fiorina look like a terrible person — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.139.48.22 ( talk) 00:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me, this article is not neutral. From the beginning paragraph it highlights how she has failed as a CEO and had many people laid off as a result. Although the facts may not be disputed, the presentation of those facts as the highlight of her career, at the very beginning of the article make it clear the authors of this Wikipedia page do NOT have neutrality in mind, but rather have an agenda. 192.35.35.36 ( talk) 19:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Anonymous
I'm not even conservative or Republican and it's shocking how one-sided this page is. Sad thing is it appears to really be the result of one editor taking control of the page and refusing to allow any neutrality into the picture. Even the introduction is jaw-dropping. Is the introduction really the right place for all of this slanted information? 2601:144:C003:97D:3597:117:A575:9274 ( talk) 23:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Generally speaking, a top pic should not show the subject looking directly away from the article text, and preferably will show the subject looking more forward than to the side. Also, the pic will preferably not be an (idolizing) shot from below, it should be of top quality, and should not be unflattering. So, here are some possibilities below. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:10, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
If people like Image #2 then I could try to get the microphone removed. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:15, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
@ Anythingyouwant:, @ Winkelvi: No consensus was formed to remove the below portrait, and none of the above pictures are in any way superior. I didn't take this picture, so don't think I have a personal attachment to it. All of the above pictures are not very flattering; #'s 1, 3, & 5 are simply not portrait quality, #4 is creepy, and #2 does nothing which the below (and previous infobox portrait) does not provide. #2, which is the current portrait, has a microphone in front of her face, it isn't in full focus, and she isn't looking at the camera, and the coloration isn't completely natural. The below could easily be a formal portrait if she was looking at the camera; it is in focus, well composed, well-lit, and illustrates a natural and flattering expression for Mrs. Fiorina. It is best for a portrait not to have a microphone or other distracting object in the way. I see no reason why the below was removed to begin with. Spartan7W § 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Well there is a consensus now. There is no place on Wikipedia where that cross-eyed photo would be appropriate. It may be well composed and well lit, but it would be a throw-away for 100% of all portrait photographers worldwide. The only reason to suggest using it is out of childish partisan spite. The microphone in the current photo is of zero import and does not harm the photo's usefulness in any way. Until a better license-free image can be located, that's the one we should be using. Eclipsoid ( talk) 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. I wouldn't classify it as crosseyed, per-say, but I would say it is a tie with #2. I should have checked the talk page earlier, I just found the current picture of no superior quality. I will peruse the interwebs for a superior portrait. Spartan7W § 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the photo Spartan re-added makes her look cross-eyed. Photo #2 is bright, has an aesthetically pleasing background, and facially is much more flattering. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:15, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Talk:Rick_Perry#RFC_about_whether_his_presidential_candidacy_should_be_mentioned_in_the_lead_paragraph Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Ed Eduljee. "HP Hewlett Packard's Corporate Governance Woes Part 1". heritageinstitute.com. is listed as a source. The domain is privacy protected so we don't know who it is. The bottom of the webpages lists a non-notable person maybe he is the author it looks like a WP:QUESTIONABLE and self published source WP:USERGENERATED. No editorial policy listed among other concerns. Jadeslair ( talk) 15:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The so-called "Criticism and praise" section is a coatrack and a joke. To quote the woman from Bloomberg, this section of the Carly Fiorina article is a "trainwreck" and a "disaster". It could be eliminated entirely, but more reasonably it could be cut down to a couple of sentences. Their no reason to ever have a sentence that just says this, "Katie Benner of Bloomberg View described Fiorina's leadership at HP as a "train wreck" and a "disaster"." The number of problems with that one sentence are too numerous to mention, but it is typical of many of the sentence. This sentence is a hit and run. (1) Who is Katie Benner? Who cares? She is obviously a writer, but she doesn't even have an article about her in Wikipedia; therefore, at this point in time, Wikipedia does not even see her as notable. She has been cited in Wikipedia many times, with many different organizations, so she is a freelancer, which means she doesn't hold down a full-time stable gig. I don't see why her opinion is even relevant. Has she run a Fortune 20 company? No. (2) The sentence doesn't even provide the reader what her reasoning is. It just grabs the two insults and wraps them in scare quotes. It is just one of many BS sentences in the whole section. The whole section is a coatrack to list every conceivable complaint about Fiorina. It makes the whole article unfair and biased. It is a joke. I'm going to trim it down. Please feel free to work with me as I trim it down and end its existence as a place to dump on Fiorina, under the false claim that this is an encyclopedia article--especially since it has the name "praise" in the name but ZERO praise in the section.-- ML ( talk) 15:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)