Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

RfC: Should the lede say that Fiorina has never held public office?

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.

---

Fiorina is described in the opening sentence as an American Republican presidential candidate and former business executive who currently chairs the non-profit philanthropic organization Good360. Should the lead mention that Fiorina has never held public office?

Comments

• Yes. This is an article about a former business executive and a current politician, and mentioning this fact in the lead is necessary to provide a complete biographical picture. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. I can't imagine why anyone would think it shouldn't be in the lede. It's pertinent, relevant, and germane in an article about an individual running for public office. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Nope, not everything that is well-sourced and true and notable belongs in the lead, as opposed to belonging later in the Wikipedia article. This particular factoid is an argument about her suitability for the U.S. presidency, and belongs later in the Wikipedia article with other context about that. It is also a purely negative statement, which is highly unusual in a lead. For example, Hillary Clinton has never run a business, and yet we don't put that in the HRC lead (or anywhere else). Furthermore, this factoid is redundant in the lead; if she had occupied a notable public office then the lead would mention it, and — since it doesn't — the intelligent reader who cares about this will assume that she hasn't occupied public office.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - This is a important piece of information for a biography about someone running for the highest public office in the United States. - MrX 16:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No This is a bio, not a discussion of her fitness for public office. It could perhaps be mentioned in the body of her bio, but not in the lead.CFredkin (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No The reader can find out by reading her biography in detail that she has never held public office, and pointedly stating that she hasn't in the lead, I just don't see a purpose to it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. The fact is important to her political campaign, promoted by Fiorina as an advantage, critiqued by others as a disadvantage, and generally commented on by many sources. Even the friendly source the Politics and Governance Portal says that "One of Fiorina's major liabilities is a complete lack of a political resume, as she has never held any public office." She's running as a "political outsider" who is happy to report that her supporters say that they are "delighted" that she has not ever held elective office. The UK's Guardian says "Fiorina has never held political office and has fought one political campaign..." So the issue is significant inside and outside of the US. Binksternet (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• No It is not a defining characteristic of the subject of this article that is essential for readers to understand. Moreover, it's inappropriate and unworkable to include in the lead of this or any article information about what this or any subject has not done. If significant sources have discussed this lack of experience in a specific context then it may be appropriate to include that in the appropriate section of this article. ElKevbo (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Politics is most CERTAINLY a driver of traffic and readers to this page (if not THE driver). Therefore commenting on her Political career thus far is important in the lead Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 16:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

• No Besides the concerns laid out by others, this isn't notable enough for the lede, particularly if by "public office" we mean "elected office." It's not as if it's unheard-of for Presidential candidates to not have come from a political background. The top two republican polling candidates (as of now) don't. Eisenhower didn't. Reagan only head one public office before the presidency and had a background in entertainment. Further, do we think that Wikipedia is burying important information and potentially misleading people by putting it further down in the article? That seems like a stretch, especially since it can be so easily inferred by the current lead that she hasn't held office before, because all other candidates who have, it IS in the lede. Mreleganza (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No, This is a biography, not a campaign nor an anti-campaign page. She has not done a lot of other items also should we list them all. Is the fact that she has not held office a significant event in her life? No. Jadeslair (talk) 16:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - agree with Binksternet's well-expressed view. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - certainly it should be mentioned in the article as the article is an encyclopaedic summary of her career. But the lead is a summary of that summary and stating things she hasn't done is frivolous in that location. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

*No, as one is not defined by negative-space attributes, i.e things they have notdone. I'm quite honestly surprised that this is even up for debate, it is so nakedly WP:NPOV-violating and partisan. Tarc (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - as per Tarc and CFredkin. While it may be appropriate to mention, in a section about her candidacy for president, that she has not held public office and that she is apparently using that as a 'selling point' for her candidacy, it does not belong in the lede of her encyclopedic biography. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• No Erniecohen (talk) 02:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• No as per above (Mostly Tarc (Yes I know his comment's been struck but he still has a point!)) - We shouldn't list things they haven't done but should instead list and focus on what they have done. –Davey2010^Talk 00:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - summoned here by bot. Just because the fact in question is a notable aspect, does not mean it necessarily belongs in the lede. The lede does not need to summarize her suitability for office. It can be discussed later in the article. Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• No -- for many of the reasons stated above. I'd say it makes more sense to put what's notable about her career (that is, the thing for which she is most known) than to describe experiences she has not had. You could make an endless list of things she has not done. I do however think the widespread and numerous critiques of her performance as "worst CEO" and "worst tech CEO" are a quite notable dimension related to her career (again, the aspect of her life for which she is best known) and think that fact *should* be in the lede. But to get back to the issue at hand-- her lack of doing something, while perhaps persuasive one way or another re: her campaign, does not seem to belong in a general encyclopedic biography. --04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.35.111.141 (talk)

• No -- We generally don't describe people by what they haven't done. A better question is if she should be called a "politician" in the lead sentence. I know some people can and do use the word to refer to people who have only been candidates but there's something off about it. I think there's equivocation going on. To me and I assume most people, when I hear the term, it suggests somebody who's held office already. So while it may be technically correct (under some definitions), it could be viewed as intentionally misleading if there's intention to suggest experience that doesn't exist or if the that's how readers often take it. This very RfC could be viewed as an attempt to balance-out bias from calling her a "politician". Jason Quinn (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• No -- This would be obviously non-neutral, and besides it is unnecessary. Since the lead does not state she is a former office holder, the reader will know this fact intuitively. Mentioning it gratuitously is just a cheap shot. Eclipsoid (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• No -- As others have stated, this would probably not comply with WP:NPOV. The fact that she has never held public office can easily be extrapolated from the lack of a political infobox. Moonboy54 (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discusssion

Most sources that profile Fiorina, include this fact:

• "While she has never held public office -- and lost her only political race, a 2010 Senate bid in California -- Fiorina said her status as an outsider is an asset because professional politicians have failed everyday Americans." [1]

• "But Fiorina, 60, has considerable challenges, chiefly that she has sought but never held public office. Lingering disarray from her last campaign could also haunt her next one, undercutting her image as an effective manager. " [2]

• "Fiona has run for public office once before. She challenged California’s incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer back in 2010. Fiorina lost, and it wasn’t close." [3]

• "Despite never being elected to public office, Mrs. Fiorina has been a regular in Republican circles since her high-profile ouster from Hewlett-Packard in 2006." [4]

• "Fiorina, 60, has never held public office. A 2010 run for US senate collapsed amid images of private jets and million-dollar yachts. Now, she hopes the revived record of a dot-com businesswoman will vault her over the otherwise all-male Republican field of mostly professional politicians – or at least lead to a spot as one of their vice-presidential running mates to face Hillary Clinton head-on." [5]

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do any of them include it in the article title or the lead sentence?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

These are all article profiling Fiorina, so yes. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Which one says in the article title or lead sentence anything about what she has not done?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That's very easy to find; this is phrased often in terms of "she's an outsider." E.g.: Before Trump or Fiorina, There Was Wendell Willkie: If either Donald Trump or Carly Fiorina receives the 2016 Republication presidential nomination, it will be a rare achievement. Only once in American history has a major political party granted its prize to someone whose principal qualification was to have served as a corporate chief executive. (NYT, first two sentences); U.S. Republican debate brings outsider Fiorina to the fore: Once among the most powerful women in American business, Carly Fiorina emerged as a leading contender in the 2016 Republican presidential campaign alongside Donald Trump, another outsider from the corporate world. (Reuters, first sentence); Can never-elected Carson or Fiorina win in Iowa? No candidate who has never held elected office has won the Iowa caucuses in modern times ... former tech-industry executive Carly Fiorina — officially joined the presidential race on Monday (Des Moines Register, first two sentences). Neutrality^talk 02:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

h one says in the article title or lead sentence anythi

This is what we have as the opening sentence of the lengthy Carly Fiorina#Political career section:

Fiorina has never held public office, but said that her status as an outsider is a positive, given that in her opinion, professional politicians have failed to deliver to the American people, stating in an interview with Fox News in 2015 that "82% of the American people now think we need people from outside the professional political class to serve in public office."

References

As such, we ought to include a mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, because the lead section is a summary of important article content. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

Criticism by Sonnenfeld

The reliability of the source for these claims (Sonnenfeld) has been publicly disputed. This is mentioned in the Business Insider article.CFredkin (talk) 15:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It's absurd for Sonnenfeld to imply that he has knowledge of whether Fiorina has received offers of employment, and the fact that he would make that claim tarnishes his reliability in and of itself.CFredkin (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, the fact is that since HP, Fiorina has not been in business anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't mean she hasn't had offers of employment.CFredkin (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

We don't know that but if she had she is not saying. IMO, she has not had the need given the millions she got in her golden parachute from HP. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

User:CFredkin, Bill Clinton has publicly disputed many things on his article. This is no reason to delete material. Also read WP:VNT.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Sonnenfeld, I haven't commented (or edited the article) regarding him. But now I have taken a look at this material, and will offer a few thoughts about it. First of all, consider this quote from this Wikipedia article: "Others have defended her business leadership decisions and viewed the Compaq merger as successful over the long term." It is not NPOV to quote Sonnenfeld trashing Fiorina's business career at length, while only mentioning briefly that some people disagree. Moreover, editors of this article who tend to dislike Fiorina are not free to rely on other editors to counter the crud; WP:BLP forbids that.

Secondly, it's excessive to have Sonnenfeld in both the "Business Leadership image" section and the "Republican National Committee fundraising chair and 2008 campaign" section. If Sonnenfeld has any notable expertise here, it's as to the business leadership and not as to the 2008 campaign.Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

So, you provide a source from Carly Fiorina's official political campaign as a source for people disagreeing with Sonnenfeld? That's not a neutral third-party source. You can expect that source to be politically loaded and maintain heavy POV and he has disputed some of Fiorina's claims as "absurd". [6]. Since it is only Fiorina's political campaign disputing Sonnenfeld, there are effectively no real reliability disputes. That's equivalent to using a source from Barack Obama's 2008 or 2012 campaigns in a John Mccain or Mitt Romney article. Alon12 (talk) 18:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

As indicated above, the response on Fiorina's campaign site is referenced in Business Insider. Also, please see discussion below.CFredkin (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, so it's referenced in the blog "Business Insider", and, how does that change the credibility of the source? It's still only one single source disputing Sonnenfeld, and that is a POV-laden unreliable source. Alon12 (talk) 19:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

---

It's proper to include the quote. (1) Sonnenfeld is not some random person, but a prominent business prof and critic; (2) his views are reasonably representative of a good segment of opinion, and so are given due representative weight; (3) Sonnenfeld and Fiorina have had a very public back-and-forth on this and Sonnenfeld's comments were invoked by Fiorina's top campaign rival; (4) Sonnenfeld has appeared on (and had his comments discussed on, among others, CNN, CNBC, etc. So the content is short, it represents a significant strain of opinion, and the content relates to a theme of enduring significance throughout Fiorina's business and political career. All told, that's a clear keep. Neutrality^talk 00:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the quote, just because a non-third party objection to Sonnenfeld on the candidate's website disputes it, does not mean it doesn't belong as critical analysis, as that dispute is obviously not neutral. Sonnenfeld is also an expert at his field of business and business politics too, as was said above, etc. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my previous support, I'm now opposed to adding it for reasons including WP:UNDUE, etc. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Sonnenfeld's reliability and the propriety of including his quotes is in dispute. My understanading of WP:BLP is that the burden of evidence relies on those restoring the content. So, until there is clear consensus that it should be included, it should not be restored to the article.Eeyoresdream (talk) 03:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The evidence is in the sources and the fact that there seems to be a consensus for including this material. I've been pretty neutral about the content myself, but I'm not fond of seeing the implementation of a consensus reverted multiple times like I've seen here.- MrX 03:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. A good majority of editors believe there's nothing wrong with its inclusion, and there's no consensus against adding it. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC) Striking my previous support, I'm now opposed to adding it for reasons including WP:UNDUE, etc. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

By my count, I see myself, Anythingyouwant, Eeyoresdream, Gaijin, and ProfessorJR against inclusion; and Cwobeel, Victoria, Alon, Neutrality, MrX, and SuperCarnivore for inclusion. I don't believe that's a clear consensus for either. The consensus may become clearer over time, but until then (as has been stated repeatedly) policy wrt BLP's dictates that the content should not be restored.CFredkin (talk) 03:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The criticism of Sonnenfeld is from a questionable source (a political campaign's website) in the first place, meanwhile, a reliable source countered Fiorina's criticisms regarding Sonnenfeld (Politico). R.E Questionable Sources: [7] "Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities" The source you are citing is specifically a promotional website for Carly Fiorina, and therefore questionable. If you wish to use that source to counter the reliable source defending Sonnenfeld, then I suggest you take the discussion to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, the burden is on you to do that. Alon12 (talk) 08:42, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I believe this content is worth including. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus here. As CFredkin put it above, even before my !vote, "I don't believe that's a clear consensus for either. The consensus may become clearer over time,..." 5-3 5-4 is not a consensus, it's a simple majority that is not conclusive. In a borderline case like this, more input should be sought from outside editors, usually by using an RfC. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Gulfsteam jet

Re this edit on the Gulfstream jet: I don't think this is either trivia or undue.

It's a single sentence within an extensive biography (and extensive discussion of the subject's business career), so it is not undue. If the discussion of the jet took up two paragraphs, or was otherwise disproportionate to the other significant events in Fiorina's career - then I would agree it would be shortened. But this is a single sentence.

As for "trivia": a relatively quick search shows that the Gulfstream jet/Fiorina thing is discussed in multiple reliable, high-quality sources, in a way directly bearing on her image inside and outside HP, e.g.:

• Douglas M. Branson, The Last Male Bastion: Gender and the CEO Suite in America’s Public Companies (Routledge, 2009): In December 2009, Carly Fiorina appeared on the cover of Fortune, with the headline "The Cult of Carly." Inside, ... "Travels with Carly" described her use of corporate funds to purchase a $45 million Gulfstream IV so that she "could project her image worldwide." The Gulfstream jet, of course, represented a quantum jump up from the Ford Taurus Bill and Dave drove. HP had always used corporate aircraft in a plebeian way: as a taxi service to take engineers and managers to and from its remote outposts in Corvallis, Boise, or San Diego. In fact, immediately before Fiorina had arrived, CEO Platte caused HP to sell off two plush jets as unneeded. ... Fiorina reversed all this: HP would now use its aircraft in a patrician way. She caused HP to buy the Gulfstream and curtail the taxi service. On one trip alone, using the Gulfstream, Fiorina made eight stops in the United States, five in Asia, and five in Europe--in one week. She gave 47 speeches outside the company in one year and 70 in another . .... Cruising in her Gulfstream at 40,000 feet, Carly was perceived by HP employees as rendering lip service only to Bill Hewlett's "management by walking around." .... Fiorina believed that visibility for herself and for a CEO were good for the company, a value she put stock in throughout her career.

• Alejo G. Sison, The Moral Capital of Leaders: Why Virtue Matters (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2003), p. 105: At a time in her mandate when HP employees found it difficult even just to requisition pencils, Fiorina acquired two new Gulfstream IV jets and replaced two smaller ones in the corporate fleet. This fueled allegations - no doubt encouraged by Walter Hewlett's remarks - about her regal and detached manner. To these Fiorina responded, 'Why do people comment on my flying on a corporate jet when virtually every other chief executive in Silicon Valley does the same? (Lohr 2002d). To fight off the image of indulgence in corporate luxury, Fiorina went to the point of clarifying that she had no traveling hairdresser in her entourage, that she did her own laundry and grocery shopping, and that she drove herself to work, except when she hitched a ride with her husband, Frank. Moreover, her office was just a first-among-equals version of the classic Silicon Valley cubicle, fenced-off by shoulder-high partitions, albeit larger and in a corner space (Lohr 2001d). For Walter Hewlett, nonetheless, she was some sort of mercenary, the epitome of 'a professional manager, not someone really committed to HP' (Lohr 2001c).

These two examples are not exclusive. The Gulfstream jet is also discussed in, for example: Linda Babcock & Sara Laschever, Women Don't Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide (Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 93, and George Anders, Perfect Enough: Carly Fiorina and the Reinvention of Hewlett-Packard (Portfolio, 2004), among others.

I do agree that the Gulfstream could be integrated better into the text through expansion to include, as the above sources do, the addition of context (including content sympathetic to Fiorina, i.e., her cubicle and her rationale about viability). But it's clearly not "trivia." Neutrality^talk 23:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's the problem with that trivia, and it is trivia regardless of sourcing. It simply oozes of negative when taken out of context. Now I have to add in tit-for-tat sourced info to bring it up to speed and make it sound more neutral, which will add more bloated trivia. HP actually bought three planes in 2001 to replace two planes (and a leased plane) that were in bad shape and that were incapable of flying overseas (which is pretty much needed in this day and age). So company leaders probably flew coach overseas because they had no planes. They didn't fly coach in the US. Fiorina was in charge when HP upgraded the old planes but someone has to be in charge of the water dept when they upgrade major pipes too. In 2003 under Fiorina they also sold two jets in the fleet and decided to lease two replacements. It's amazing that the negative buying of a jet makes the cut, while selling two jets doesn't. I haven't checked this whole article for bias or non-bias, but I hope this trivia out of context sentence isn't an indication of what I would find. Fiorina may have done a lot wrong at HP, and her style certainly rankled the old boys club there, but this corporate jet sentence is ridiculous to be in an encyclopedia in this manner. Wikipedia is better than this imho. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate that long-forgotten context. Alas for Fiorina, it was not an invisible jet. The Gulfstream IV came up when HP employees were opposing the merger, came up when employees complained about layoffs and the end of traditional HP profit-sharing, came up when employees (and very likely the founders' sons) groused to the media that they saw Fiorina more often on talk shows and magazine covers than in the office. Fair or not, the plane became an optics problem, an unintended symbol of perceived mismanagement. That's not Wikipedia's doing: the reputational damage was done years ago. I'm not reinserting the text, but I do think it's more than "trivia" and deserving of your (footnoted) contextualization if it reasserts itself. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vesuvius Dogg. It's something that you would certainly see in a political ad, and those political ads that were put out by Barbara Boxer were certainly covered by the mainstream press. But an encyclopedia? However even your wording in explaining the optics problem is better than what the original sentence said. It wasn't so much that she upgraded the planes as to timing. I understand wikipeida works by consensus and if it looks like the majority want the plane info there there's not much I can do about it. But the way it's written is like something I got in the mail when she ran for senate. Sort of like Fiorina's salary increase/decrease mailings. From Boxer I got "her salary went from 1.2 to 4.1 million." From Fiorina I got "her salary dropped 24% from when she started to when she left." Of course the truth is inbetween: in 1999 her salary was $4.2 million, 2000 = $3.7 million, 2001 = $1.2 million, 2002 = $4.1 million, 2003 = $3.5 million, 2004 = $3.2 million. But as wikipedia we'd include all of that or none of that... we shouldn't cherry pick just because some in the media did. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I don't really think it was ever much more than an optics problem, and it would certainly be trivial today if the Compaq merger and such turned out a great success. But it is not just "trivia", it became a symbol hung round her neck. It keeps coming up in accounts of Fiorina's time at HP, notably in this Los Angeles Times article of a few days ago, which states that the Gulfstream was for Fiorina's "exclusive" use only. Never mind that she was encouraged to make the purchase and hired with the expectation that she would become a charismatic "front-woman" for the company. If it's in the article, this Gulfstream thing should not be stranded outside the broader context of how Fiorina put behind her the "HP Way" in favor of a more top-down management style, and despite or because of her isolation within the office, the plane became a rallying point among employees who complained about her supposed self-promotion, the HP television advertisements in which she starred, etc. The article needs more of that context, showing how the plane became a powerful and unfortunate symbol. I agree, it is basically a rehash of the Boxer campaign attack. But for better or worse, it's still coming up in current articles and should be contextualized. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

But if that's the case, we are an encyclopedia. If it were to be retained it should be blended into something "in context" while retaining the employees furor. Using some of your wording like:

During Fiorina's tenure as CEO, HP purchased three planes and leased two more to replace a mixture of five older owned and leased planes. The older planes were not capable of flying overseas.1 Nevertheless, one plane became a rallying point among employees who complained of the purchase of a US$30 million Gulfstream IV as an example of Fiorina's self-promotion and top-down management style.

I'm not saying that's the best choice of wording, but you get my drift. Left as it was sounds like it was pulled out of my mailbox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We're on the same page. I'll try to flesh that out when I have a better Internet connection (and juice for my computer). Here's hoping the result finds consensus here. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Out of town hockey game for me tomorrow (though not flying there on a corporate jet). So I'll see in a couple days what you came up with. The main point is always to give our readers the full-context facts (and sources) and not pull items willy-nilly out of the air. As an encyclopedia we have a responsibility to not pump people up or knock them down just because we can. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Still kind of fuzzy about the lease/purchase mix of planes before and after Fiorina, as the sources seem somewhat in conflict. But I'm hoping we're closer to NPOV consensus. I thought the part about her predecessor flying "coach" was a bit of an employee noticeboard snipe, so I excised it. I included Boxer for context, since her 2010 attack ad is basically the reason we remember it. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

L This is not trivia, but a fact that has been widely covered, in particular when her predecessor flew coach. It presents context for her leadership style as a business woman, which is the most notable aspect of this person. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely worth including. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Include; it's not trivia. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is trivia. So she purchased a Gulfstream jet for travel instead of coach like her predecessor. Pure trivia, which has no bearing on her business performance, also WP:UNDUE and irrelevant. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:17, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious. A Coach ticket is what? $500 to $2,000 depending on destination? A G500 costs US$42 million. May not be bearing on her business performance, but surely bears on her business leadership style, don't you think? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh sorry, it was just a Gulfstream IV, for US$30 million. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Include, not trivia. An important part of Fiorina's corporate CEO story. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Expand or Omit I don't think the current version reflects the sources, which discuss the jet as emblematic of a detached and disengaged management style. On the substance of it, at the CEO's compensation rate, the $30MM capital expenditure (not expense) to make her more comfortable and productive is likely a good choice. The business decision, solely on monetary terms, would never favor flying the CEO cramped uncomfortably in a coach seat with a bag of pretzels, risking the CEO might arrive in less than happy condition at an important corporate event. On the other hand, there clearly was and remains a problem related to the appearance of such travel and its effect on employee morale. It seems clear that the sources are saying that, absent Fiorina's other defects of management style and substance, this jet would not have been a matter of concern. Either the WP text should contextualize the issue or it should be omitted as a synthy swipe, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that, if the Gulfstream is mentioned, context should be as well. But I've removed the third sentence regarding the Boxer ad, as I think it seems like an excessive amount of content on this subject (and is also not relevant to the section).CFredkin (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Super PAC Video

I've removed this content referring to a video produced by a Super PAC supporting Fiorina. By definition, Fiorina has no direct control over the Super PAC, so I don't think its actions belong in her bio.CFredkin (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I originally put it in but your point is valid. However, the fact that the 'Carly for America' Super-PAC issued a video itself heavily edited and drawn from five different video and audio sources, to illustrate what Fiorina might have been describing, and the candidate continued to assert in interviews that she had seen such a video and her debate statements were truthful and accurate, well, that itself raises questions. She doesn't coordinate with her Super-PAC? Fine. But they are on the same page when it comes to narrative embroidery. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys realize what a silly standard you're espousing? We can only mentions things that Fiorina has "direct control over"? She didn't have direct control over the board of HP, but we mention their actions... to take only one example. More generally, we include material that is relevant to Fiorina's biography. We don't exclude material on the basis that Fiorina lacks direct control over it, because this is not an Authorized Biography. It's notionally an encyclopedia article. MastCell ^Talk 20:30, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the Super PAC material isn't directly relevant to her biography, as every action her Super PAC does doesnt' have to be documented. I don't believe everything in her biography she must have direct control over in order for it to be mentioned, but it does need to be relevant. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

How do you determine relevance? Personally, I'd look to reliable sources, and numerous sources connect this SuperPAC ad directly to Fiorina (e.g. Politico, Fox News, Washington Post, Yahoo! News, Vox.com). What's your basis for saying this is irrelevant to Fiorina's political biography? MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

MastCell is right, and SuperCarnivore591, yet again, reveals they don't understand our policies for inclusion. Anything tangentially related to Fiorina is fair game for consideration. If it's been mentioned in RS, then we can at least consider it. This is definitely presented by RS as connected with Fiorina. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The only person who doesn't understand inclusion policies is you, BullRangifer. I understand inclusion policies perfectly fine, unlike you, and I know that just because anything might have a connection to Fiorina and is verifiable does not mean that it belongs in this article. The Super PAC's actions might be relevant in the Carly Fiorina presidential campaign, 2016 article but it doesn't belong here, in her bio. "Anything tangentially related to Fiorina is fair game for consideration" is flat-out false, especially if the material in question is trivia and not relevant to her biography. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Even though you are a newbie and not expected to understand policies as well as some of us old timers here, I'm still going to expect a decent level of reading comprehension from you. (I suspect you mean "that it doesn't belong[s] in this article.") No, I didn't say that. Notice my qualifiers: "is fair game for consideration" and "at least consider it". -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• I am concerned that the entire section on her ignorant remarks about abortion is turning into a he-said-she-said narrative. We are citing National Review - which leads with "Up-to-the-minute conservative commentary" - as rebuttal to independent analysis showing her claims to be "mostly false". That is giving undue weight to an obvious apologist: the video to which she referred is clearly blatant propaganda and substantially misleading, we should not be asserting parity between that documented fact and the arm-waving of conservative commentators. Guy (Help!) 11:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

So, it's been reverted back in "for balance". Wikipedia does not balance fact with opinion, because Wikipedia is not Fox News. Guy (Help!) 14:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. This opinion should be left out, unless it is cited as significant by multiple other reliable sources.- MrX 15:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrX and JzG - the Jonah Goldberg/National Review thing is entirely superflous here and is especially inappropriate when we already have three straight-news/factchecking pieces and no other commentary. I would maybe be OK with Goldberg if we balanced opinion with other opinion (e.g., quote from National Review and then contrary perspective from The Nation or The New Republic or something. But right now it reads as if we're balancing fact with opinion, and that's off. And adding more opinions would bog down the article further in something that is a small piece in her overall life. (I would rather have additional content on her major financial backers or something less redundant and more informative). Neutrality^talk 22:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh my ... Fiorina does not control 99% of what is said in this article. Any and all significant viewpoints about Fiorina, are by definition, the body of material that can be used in her bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Illogical statement

This statement, which is also illogical in the source, is now in the article:

"Fiorina said she was open to a government shutdown if it would make President Barack Obama and the Democratic Party defend "the butchery" of Planned Parenthood."[8]

The word "defend" is the problem. Shouldn't it read "stop defending", or something like that? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Huffington Post has made typos like this before, like in this article, where they misspelled "redistricted" as "redistrcted". I have changed it to its obvious meaning. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. It's so obviously a typo that we can fix it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't think this is a typo. I think the idea is to force the Democrats on the defensive. The NYT reported it this way: Mrs. Fiorina, appearing Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” sounded open to a shutdown, saying it would force Democrats to defend what she called “the butchery” of Planned Parenthood. (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/27/jeb-bush-opposes-shutdown-over-planned-parenthood-funding-carly-fiorina-doesnt/) Neutrality^talk 04:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Both our source and the NYT are quoting the same interview. I have now used the exact quote so we avoid any OR. We may just have to leave it as is, since it's possible that is her logic, weird as it may be; she'd rather cause confrontation than effect resolution. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is her quote and should stay as is. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm OK with that. Thanks. Neutrality^talk 22:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Good. Here is the version using the exact quote. Let's keep that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Peter Burrows

Peter Burrows is the main biographer of Fiornia under HP's leadership. It is a significant viewpoint, and is being reverted by no apparent reason.[9]

Peter Burrows, the author of Backfire: Carly Fiorina’s Battle for the Soul of Hewlett-Packard, a book published in 2013 covering Fiorina’s tenure as HP's, said that staff had high hopes that she would change the company for the better, but instead she became the symbol of the company's demise.

References

- Cwobeel (talk) 17:56, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Because it's clear that not all the staff felt that way, and that just mentioning the staff who had a negative view of her while not mentioning those with positive ones would be both WP:UNDUE and a NPOV violation. The "business leadership image" section has a lot of criticism of her as it is. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a cherry picked quote and does not belong in a bio, as a BLP we can all write much better than this. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Amazing. Here we have Fiorina's biographer, and his viewpoints are suppressed. I will start an RFC. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The only thing inappropriate is your cherry picking. This BLP is not your personal political add. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picking? That is what the source picked, not me. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I invite you to summarize this content (interview with Peter Burrows). Cherry pick from that:

• "Fallen Star: Carly Fiorina". PBS Newshour. 10 February 2005. Archived from the original on 2 October 2015. Retrieved 2 October 2015. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

As no one is accepting the invitation, I will do it myself. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Personal life

How is that material "trivia"? This is a biography and that information is inherently useful. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Not everything that appears in reliable sources should end up in a person's biography here. I think that's particularly true if the sources are just documenting personal attacks by a political opponent, as in the case of Fiorina's yacht. Also I don't think her biography is an appropriate place to compile a list of all the properties she's owned.CFredkin (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

If she were unnotable, such content would indeed be trivia, but the subject of her use of her wealth has been criticized and should be mentioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Cwobeel and BullRangifer and disagree with CFredkin. (I'm the editor who added the material). The information is useful to the reader (it helps explain where Fiorina spends her time), and is repeatedly mentioned in reliable sources. Nor was the material a compilation of "all the properties she's owned" - rather, it's a brief summary of the places she's lived while in the public spotlight. Nor is the information excessively detailed - the source material gives many details (square footage, "Poggenpohl kitchen" etc.), which I omitted.

The yacht thing is all the more substantive and important to include because it was part of a political attack - noted by the WSJ, by the California media, and ten years after the fact by Vox. Whether you think the political attack was silly or not (I, personally, believe it's an incredibly unfair line of attack), it was a significant fact in Fiorina's '10 Senate run: Boxer attacked, Fiorina responded (calling it "old-school class warfare" I think), and the media reported it. And not just the media: an academic book referred to the campaign attack (p. 158). (Peter Burrows also mentioned HP paying for the relocation of the yacht in his book on Fiorina at HP (p. 132)).

Finally, other articles go into comparable or even much more detail about homes and personal wealth and lifestyles. See, for example Larry_Ellison#Personal_life (entire sub-section on yachts and another entire sub-section on homes, with many details); Larry_Page#Personal_life (describing in detail homes and yachts ); Vince_McMahon#Wealth (describing three homes and their values, plus yachts). Neutrality^talk 18:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It may not be trivial, but without secondary RS that discusses its significance, it is synthy and should not be used in a BLP -- especially since it may appear to be motivated by her political opponents or the employees and investors who suffered as a result of her tenures at Hewlett Packard and Lucent. SPECIFICO talk

Agreed with above, as her ownership of yachts and the mansions she's lived in aren't significant enough to be mentioned here. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

"Synthy"? That's a strange thing to say. Synthesis is bringing together two sources and forming a novel conclusion from them. The text at issue does nothing of the kind - it doesn't even draw a conclusion at all. Rather, it reports factual information as the cited sources have. Read Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not.

As for BLP ... there is no discernible issue here, just as there is not for Ellison, Page, or McMahon. BLP itself directs inclusion: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." We do just that here. Neutrality^talk 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not strictly speaking SYNTH, so I'm fine with retracting that. It is OR. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

In what conceivable way is it OR? We didn't make it up - we're repeating exactly what the (multiple, reliable, third-party) sources say. Neutrality^talk 19:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I think my judgment is clouded by my support for her. I withdraw. I just think there's implied denigration as if it's a problem she owns several multi-million dollar houses, but no source actually says there's a problem. Anyway, I withdraw. Carry on. SPECIFICO talk 20:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It could possibly be appropriate to mention current property holdings. However it's definitely NOT appropriate to turn her bio into a compilation of past property owned.

In addition, mentions in local real estate rags (as is the case for the Georgetown condo) don't constitute notability.

The main arugment for inclusion seems to be that attacks by political opponents that get mentioned by reliable sources should automatically be included in the target's bio. Hillary's political opponents routinely call her a "liar" in reliable sources and the subject of her veracity has become a significant element of her current presidential campaign. However, I don't see anyone arguing that this should be included in her bio.CFredkin (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

CFredkin, such content should be added to Hilary's article, and regardless of what is done in other articles, we have plenty of policy and precedent for inclusion of such material. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Washingtonian magazine is not a "local real estate rag" - it's comparable to the New York magazine (i.e., it does some mix of political, local news, lifestyle, and entertainment reporting. Neutrality^talk 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Most of this material should remain in the article, although it may be possible to condense the content about the three homes into a shorter paragraph. The Yacht material is very relevant, especially for someone who is still apparently in arrears from her 2010 campaign.- MrX 16:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to address the issues above by removing the references to properties not currently owned by the Fiorina's and condensing the yacht reference.CFredkin (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I object to this content. Why is property that Fiorina no longer owns relevant to her bio? Further, the content is sourced to the real estate listings of a local publication. To me, that doesn't speak to an elevated level of notability.CFredkin (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I think we're moving in the right direction, but I've made tweaks (a counter-proposal compromise). I'm willing to drop (1) the details about the two yachts; (2) the square footage; (3) some duplication in valuation (i.e., the 2015 value of the Virginia property vs. the purchase price several years prior, which are not that far off from each other); and (4) the label "mansion" in reference to her California property. (Those facts are well-sourced and I think noteworthy, but I'm willing to yield on them).

I do want to include (now-condensed) language on the DC condo and the where they lived in California. These were widely reported, particular the California one, which was her primary residence when she went to the Senate. To omit even the town in which she lived in Calif. would do a disservice to readers; I think this is the sort of biographical data that people expect. The DC condo is worth the brief mention that we give it as well: the Washington Post mentioned it ('06, saying she spent roughly half the year there]) and so did the LA Times ('10). I will update the refs with these so that the content is not supported solely by the Washingtonian.

As to the fact that they no longer live there: I don't think that's relevant, since this is a biography and not a newspaper article. We deal with the past by the very nature of being a biography. Neutrality^talk 23:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a very unfortunate reference to Mrs. Clinton and not an apt comparison. Calling somebody a liar is a matter of opinion. Documenting a specific "lie" (willful misrepresentation of fact) would be a different matter, although the label "liar" is almost always a derogatory rather than descriptive term. On WP, Reliable Source does not mean that a published opinion is converted to fact. Newspapers which in their journalistic content may rigorously check and accurately report facts can also publish opinions such as "X is a liar" but that doesn't mean that the publication of such opinion converts it to fact. SPECIFICO talk 03:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)