Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Relation to Morris Fiorina?

Is she related to Morris Fiorina - a famous political scientist? It mentions she has two siblings, but not their names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.75.87.50 (talk) 22:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The possible names of her siblings are mentioned here; no idea if he's related in some other way. Kuru ^talk 03:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Condé Nast

19th worst CEO ever, according to business magazine Condé Nast Portfolio. [1] Info worth adding, I suppose.

A consummate self-promoter, Fiorina was busy pontificating on the lecture circuit and posing for magazine covers while her company floundered. She paid herself handsome bonuses and perks while laying off thousands of employees to cut costs. The merger Fiorina orchestrated with Compaq in 2002 was widely seen as a failure. She was ousted in 2005.

Ouch. -- Stormwatch (talk) 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The Condé Nast "info" was a photo caption, the entirety of which you just quoted. Source reliability "depends on context" and opinion pieces (which that would be, at best) are "not [reliable] for statements of fact" (both from wp:rs). And then there's wp:blp, which has an entire section dismissing exactly that sort of source material.   user:j    (aka justen)   12:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "photo caption" and an "opinion piece" are inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

Same list was worth a mention in the Kenneth Lay article. Also, as explained here, they consulted a panel of experts to determine these ranks. So it's not a single writer's opinion. -- Stormwatch (talk) 15:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

No cherry picking please, in either direction. If it's already being used as a reliable source elsewhere, I don't see why we would choose to exclude it here unless that choice is based on the content (which is cherry picking, of course)... //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(←) I don't know about our "cherry picking" policy, but I do know that other stuff exists, and the argument(s) above don't give the Condé Nast "list" a leg to stand on here. (To clarify, while wp:wax is a deletion discussion "argument to avoid," the core principle is that you have to make a convincing case for your assertions. In this case, pointing to the fact that an unreliable source made it into another wp:blp doesn't advance your argument, it just highlights an issue with another article.) If I had the Ken Lay article on my watchlist, I'd have raised the same points I made above over there. It's simply not a reliable source for a wp:blp.   user:j    (aka justen)   17:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I made and make no other assertions beyond the point that one can't contextually award a qualification of reliability within the same genre -- a source is either reliable within a field, or it's not. If it's been judged to be reliable within the subject of the business world, then it can't be deemed unreliable here simply because it says something negative about the subject. My assertion is one of principle generally, and does not specifically address this source; nor does it preclude the fact that there may be other reasons to exclude this information (for now). I would posit that it's probably a moot discussion, unless there are mentions of this issue in multiple independent secondary sources. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue is that we cannot assume, especially when it comes to a wp:blp, that simply because a source is used in another article somewhere else that it has automatically been vetted and determined to be reliable. Indeed, I can't find any discussion of the reliability of the source on the talk page for the Ken Lay article. Moreover, the presentation in that article was factually inaccurate and wp:undue. In any event, I've removed it over there and explained why on that talk page.   user:j    (aka justen)   18:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clearly citable; the article is currently quoting (mostly positive) opinions from unnamed AP and NYT writers; Conde' Nast is of equal import and heritage. WP:BLP does not prohibit citing analysis and opinion about the subject. I've cleaned up the statement a bit and moved it out of the lead to the HP section (since that is the subject of the item). Jgm (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly being listed among the worst CEOs ever is just a relevant and just as citable as being listed among the "most powerful women in business". So the options are deleting both or including both. Rvcx (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

One is not reliably sourced, the other is quite notably and very reliably sourced. Also, your ultimatum view of how to enforce your opinion of balance in the article is really not in line with wp:undue. Please take a look at that to get a better sense of how to address your concerns. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be misunderstanding what "source" means. There is no citation whatsoever given for Fiorina's ranking by Forbes. None. There are now two sources given which prove beyond question that Portfolio did in fact include her in their list. There is no dispute over whether she actually is/was powerful or whether she was the worst CEO: the article only asserts that she was included in these lists. Rvcx (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing content per wp:blp

I have removed material from this article that does not comply with our policy on the biographies of living persons. Biographical material must always be referenced from reliable sources, especially negative material. Negative material that does not comply with that must be immediately removed. Note that the removal does not imply that the information is either true or false.

Please do not reinsert this material unless you can provide reliable citations, and can ensure it is written in a neutral tone. Please review the relevant policies before editing in this regard. Editors should note that failure to follow this policy may result in the removal of editing privileges. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Specifically:

• "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." (per wp:blp)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "poorly sourced" is inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

• "Is it important to the article, and has it been published by [multiple] third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out, or stick to the facts." (per wp:blp)

• "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it is about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page." (per wp:rs)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "poorly sourced" is inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

• "In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached." (per wp:arbcom)

Do not reinsert the content without multiple "high quality references" supporting the opinion. If you believe I am incorrect in my assessment that the defunct Condé Nast photo caption is a poorly source, gain a consensus supporting that position before reinserting. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Carly Fiorina was listed by Conde Nast as the 19th-worst CEO in history is, in fact, very reliably sourced. This material should be put back, and your continued deletion of it on dubious grounds unsupported by any other editor is a violation of consensus. Rvcx (talk) 14:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't reliably sourced. It was a photo caption. Please see wp:blp for the definition of why there's a higher standard for sourcing content for biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "photo caption" is inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

First, it was not a caption. It was commentary which appeared alongside a photo. The entire piece was titled "Worst CEOs", and it included a large picture of her, with the number 19 next to it, and some commentary. I have trouble understanding any interpretation under which Portfolio did *not* list her as the 19th-worst CEO. Sources don't get any more rock-solid than this. Rvcx (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

This article reads like a press release. Selectively including repeated mentions of various "most powerful woman in business" awards isn't appropriate if none of the criticism appears here. Rvcx (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel the article is lacking in its criticism of the subject. As you can see from the talk archives, there are a lot of folks with varying viewpoints of Carly Fiorina who have worked together to put together an article that stays within wp:blp while highlighting both the achievements and failures of her career. Much of the material you removed was (quite) reliably sourced, and your assertions, for example, that you were "removing meaningless [...] business-speak," doesn't jive with the chunks of the article you were actually deleting. If there are specific sections you'd like to see removed, I'd suggest you itemize them here and build consensus for their removal. user:J aka justen (talk) 11:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I did actually cite reasons for each change, and I suggest you actually comment on those reasons before reverting a half-dozen edits. Citing a face-saving press release from HP about Carly while ignoring the many many articles pointing out why she was fired is not NPOV.

The claim that Calry was "reinventing" by both "ushing the company into new markets" and "solidifying the company's leadership in existing markets" is utterly meaningless drivel, beyond the fact that it is unsourced.

There is no evidence that HP had "the top spot in the computing industry". What they had was the greatest market share (and *not* the most profits) in the PC hardware market (which is decidedly not the same thing as the computing industry). But no source for this is provided either (thus the "citation needed" template).

It is *not* the opinion of the New York Times that Carly did a good job at HP; the selective quotation to that effect is particularly egregious.

The fact that some people credit her with doing a good job is completely irrelevant. Just as many people blame her for HP's woes. Selectively citing one opinion but not the other is inappropriate. Rvcx (talk) 13:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The main point here is that all critical opinions have been expunged from this article (primarily by user:J aka justen (talk)). In that case, supportive opinions must be expunged as well. NPOV requires a consistent standard within an article. Rvcx (talk) 13:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? You came to the article this morning with the statement that the article wasn't critical enough of Carly Fiorina. If you have reliably sourced criticism, include it or propose its inclusion here. Don't delete any fair or "supportive" content wholesale to try to enforce what you believe to be balance. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Editors are not obliged to add content to restore NPOV, and given the extensive history of you deleting any criticism of Fiorina that avenue for NPOV seems problematic. Further, your reversions have eliminated changes which are not even directly related to NPOV, including the ridiculous assertion that HP was "the top of the computing industry" (which was repaired in a separate edit from all other changes). I strongly suggest that you discuss your desire to add commentary supportive of Fiorina here before editing the page. Rvcx (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not "adding" anything, I was restoring the wholesale deletion of any, in your words, "supportive" content. The burden is on you to build consensus for your removal of the content, see wp:brd if you need clarification on how that process is supposed to work. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Appearance in lists

So Fiorina has appeared in several lists: one by Forbes (for which no reference has ever been proffered), one by Time (Fiorina was named to the Time 100 in 2004.), and one by Portfolio (the Conde Nast discussion, above). Clearly, if inclusion of any of these lists is a violation of WP:BLP then they all are, so we need to get consensus on whether or not they are appropriate. Rvcx (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you're quite clearly veering into the trolling category now. The Condé Nast piece is poorly sourced and controversial. The past efforts by one or two editors to include it both resulted in the article being fully-protected for some time. The Time and Forbes lists are not controversial in the least. If you can't understand the difference between the two, you really don't need to be editing biographies of living people. user:J aka justen (talk) 14:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "poorly sourced" is inaccurate, and his claim that it is "controversial" unsubstantiated (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

Your definition of "controversial" as "embarassing to Fiorina" betrays your prejudices on this topic. There is no controversy whatsoever that she appears on all three of these lists. Rvcx (talk) 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As I said, if you can't see how there would be any controversy around the Condé Nast piece, then we have a problem. Your retaliatory (there's no other definition, that's what it was) removal of the Time and Forbes list is quite a remarkable example of edit warring. I won't go to war with you over the article, you're not interested in editing the article in the spirit of wp:brd, and you've clearly shown you have no regard for wp:3rr. I'll wait for an administrator to deal with the situation and go from there. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Do see the previous discussion of the Conde' Nast list and J's ongoing efforts to be Fiorina's Wiki-Knight-In-Shining Armor. Good luck, but be warned that he will sic his pet admin on you if you try to stick to your guns. Jgm (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take that as a compliment. In all actuality, I don't have any "pet admin[istrators]" at the moment. The last several I adopted weren't tame and I had to release them back into the wild. user:J aka justen (talk) 02:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Mess

Between the dozen or so edits by User:Rvcx today, a significant portion of reliably sourced and notable content was cut from the article inappropriately. This sort of a hatchet job on a long stable article, though, isn't easy to deal with, as there have been intervening edits (my own included), all of which have to be preserved individually. I'm going to try to sit down tonight or tomorrow and go through the revisions to restore the article to a point that satisfies wp:blp and wp:undue. In the meantime, if anybody wants to beat me to it, you'd make my day.  :) user:J aka justen (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of it deserves to be out -- regardless of whether it was sourced, it was puffery. The article as it stands now looks reasonably neutral. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Just at first glance, the bit about EDS (one of her two "big" proposed strategic moves while in charge of HP), the sourcing of HP becoming the top PC maker (by units), and the fact that many analysts say she took the right steps at HP have all been removed. It's a little shocking to me that someone comes to the article, says the article needs to be much more critical, declares his intention to remove any "supportive" content -- and then does so, and the most concrete response is "Oh, well, that's reasonable." Oh, yeah, and he's blocked for putting on one of the most aggressive, blatant displays of edit warring I've seen in quite a while. Really disappointing. And, when he's unblocked, I hope you'll stick around, because what you just said will undoubtedly provide him further cover to move the article more and more towards an wp:undue state it's been free from for quite some time now. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

For the record: regarding the inclusion of the "Worst CEO" commentary in this page, Stormwatch (talk), /Blaxthos ( t / c ), Jgm (talk), and Rvcx (talk) all argued that the information was well-sourced, easily verifiable, and directly relevant. Only user:J aka justen (talk) doesn't want it included, calling it "controversial" on the grounds that it is embarrassing to Fiorina. This is not the only topic on which most editors supported the inclusion of material unflattering to Fiorina, only to have it vetoed by user:J aka justen (talk). The prevailing opinion of most editors seems to be that this article had stopped being objective and become a biased publicity piece for Fiorina. Rvcx (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Other editors, here and at wp:blp, agreed that the content was poorly sourced. But wp:blp is not about a vote. Nobody has been able to address the fact that the content was poorly sourced and not notable. However, wp:blp is clear: you do not reinsert the material until there is a current consensus for its inclusion. Which you do not have. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

If there was a discussion on another notice board, please point at it. If anyone else endorses the view that the current sources are insufficient (for the fact that Fiorina was included in the list, not a bare assertion that she really is among the "worst CEOs of all time"), please point to their comments. Waving WP:BLP as an excuse to delete anything you don't like is an obvious misinterpretation of the policy. Rvcx (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Consider this a WP:3O. You're both at 3RR. I'll report you both for edit warring, so knock it off. I found this mess from AN/I, and looking at this diff, I'm with J right down to the line 166/168 schism, where I favor rvck' version. Incorporate any parts from above the 166/168 which bolster the lousy job rating she received from Conde Nast into the J side of that material, put in the material BELOW the 166/168 as written by RVCX, and call it closer to balanced. We need more about the declining value of shares during her tenure, however, otherwise the Conde Nast piece looks like it has less foundation. ThuranX (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think a reckless, guns-a-blazing, one minute review of an issue that goes back months was exactly what we all needed... Geez. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I remind you that WP:NPA is a policy here. Refactor your cheap shot above, or strike it through entirely. ThuranX (talk) 16:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I was not attacking you, I was expressing my disappointment with your initial comment here, which I stand by. When an edit warrior with two blocks in his recent history returns to edit warring on an article, the idea should generally not be to attack the one person who has stood by the article for years. Just my thoughts. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be more productive if user:J aka justen (talk) would not resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone, including me. This comment is not the first of his comments on this page to ignore the substance of the disagreement and focus instead on assumptions of bad faith. I freely admit that I've been dragged into an edit war with him (and him with me); I am frustrated that there has been little success engaging in productive discussion here. Rvcx (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You did make a Personal Attack at me. You can either revert it, strike it through, or I can bring it to the AN/I as evidence that you're acting even more irrationally now, and ask for a block against you, since you are demonstrating a lack of the capacity to work towards resolution on this talk page, and an escalation of the edit warring behaviors you modeled which got this page locked down. ThuranX (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment was on your post, not you as a person. You may want to review wp:npa if you're still unclear as to why that is not a personal attack. My edit history speaks for itself. I have never engaged in edit warring, although I have gone to great lengths to protect this and other wp:blp articles, and I make no apologies for doing so. That being said, I care very much about constructive editing, and I found it very disappointing that you, barely a day after being blocked for edit warring, came to the defense of another edit warrior editor with a recent history of edit warring also fresh off a 48h block by accusing me of edit warring... I welcome your contributions here, but I encourage you to more thoroughly review the history of the article and this talk page more before coming to a talk page warning that you'll be asking for blocks of editors who have gone to great lengths to encourage constructive editing. It simply was not cautious, and I stand by my statement that it was not constructive. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Beyond your absurd claim that you "never engage in edit warring" (what other editor was warring with me?), I ask you to strike or delete your repeated name-calling. Labeling other editors "edit warriors" is a clear violation of WP:NPA and you have done it twice in two messages. Rvcx (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, the term is pejorative and I have corrected it to reflect my comment is about the behaviour, not the person. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

You're an obvious part of an edit war, User:J, and every time you persist in these cheap shot personal attacks, I will take them to AN/I. ThuranX (talk) 18:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you've had a chance by now to review the responses to your first three "reports" to wp:an/i, and you can see that there is no corroboration of your view that you have been personally attacked. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it just wasn't and is not the case. In any event, can we please get back to constructive work, rather than this metadrama? Thanks. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

And since you asked for an even more critical review, I would point out that in the above diff, line 83 should favor the RVCX edit, since that decision also shows up later on in the article. Including it in the timeline properly provides greater context. Otherwise, I stand by my earlier assertion. J's writing, one the left in the diff, is generally better than what's o nthe right. However, the version on the right at line 83 provides more context to later statements, and at line 168 provides a well sourced negative critique of the woman's tenure with the company, and both are needed for a stronger article. ThuranX (talk) 16:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the best thing at this point is to work on improving segments of the article in a sandbox and posting them here for review and {{editprotected}} with consensus. I will, however, work on an {{editprotected}} request for the wp:blp issue. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of substance, what's the rationale for restoring the "Fiorina set us up for success in the future" press release from HP? It obviously doesn't provide any factual content, and it's meaningless as commentary, since every company says the exact same thing when they fire the CEO---claiming that you haven't been "set up for success in the future" is begging for a major stock decline. It's like bolstering the argument that someone is a nice by including a quote from their mother (that is, a quote with no supportive anecdote). Rvcx (talk) 17:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

It was the only jointly-issued statement on her resignation. Did both issue it to save face? Probably. But that doesn't undermine the fact that it's reliable and that it says something about what both parties were saying at the time. For what it's worth, I always included that statement as a hook for the potential inclusion of reliably sourced commentary that speculates that she was "fired," something along the lines of:

Fiorina stepped down from Hewlett-Packard in 2005, with the company stating that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." Nevertheless, her departure was widely characterized as "sudden" and came about due to "disagreement[s] on how to best execute the company's strategy."

What do you think? user:J aka justen (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no controversy at all that she was asked to leave; her own quote in the very same press release ("I respect their decision") confirms it. Using the "stepped down" euphemism in the lede is a way of avoiding the subtleties of executive personnel changes (where nobody ever really gets "fired") in that part of the article. Framing the situation as though there is any dispute over the circumstances of her departure is inaccurate. Rvcx (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you make your viewpoint into a proposal? I didn't develop the "subtleties of executive personnel changes," but it was considerably more widely reported (here versus here) that she "resigned" rather than that she was "fired." Including the statement, from the company, of what the company believed her accomplishments to be during her tenure is important, however. I was simply trying to work in more of what I guess you'd prefer; if I'm off the mark, please help with a proposal of your own for that segment and we can go from there. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Your own links there betray you. For all incidents FOLLOWING her firing, the use of Fired occurs more, it only looks like more if you pay attention to those tallies in years before her firing. This means that the reality of the situation, a firing, be it through requested or pressured resignation, is what has outlasted Recentism problems. She was fired, she did not voluntarily choose to resign.ThuranX (talk) 18:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with ThuranX's point, but use of the term "fired" is technically inaccurate. While it's used informally in the business press to mean "asked to leave", it seems safer to avoid the term and either explicitly spell out that she was asked to leave, or leave it at the "stepped down" euphemism. Rvcx (talk) 18:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hell has frozen over, and I concur. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Euphemisms are not good encyclopedic writing. We don't write that Eric Rudolph protested the American Government with a poorly constructed fireworks display, we don't write that Timothy McVeigh engaged in unsolicited redecoration of the OKC Federal Building, we don't write in euphemisms because it's cheap and condescending. She was fired. She may well have been fired by being 'asked to tender a resignation', but we can include that only if it's cited. There seems no contention here that she left in a thoroughly voluntary manner; she was told it's over, and that was that. Saying she 'Stepped down' leaves it wide open to the idea she did so of her own, uninfluenced volition, to pursue other things; that's not the case. She was shown the door, and given a choice of wlaking out it, or being thrown out it. We report the truth, not pallatives. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Legally, she resigned. That's not a euphemism. "Fired" would mean her employment was formally terminated, which was not the case according to every reliable source I've seen. There's a distinction, and it's an important one. I should further clarify that a number of reliable sources have reported, based on "insider information," that she had the option to remain as chief executive officer but to give up some level of operations control prior to her being asked to resign; she refused, and it has been speculated that this led to her ouster. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest "was forced to resign" as compromise wording here. "Was fired" is perhaps too informal and not reflective of the way things work at the executive level; "was asked to resign" implies that she had a choice, and "resigned" implies she initiated the change. "Was forced to" is accurate, encyclopedic, and backed by the citations given. Jgm (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, with the statement from the press release cited above. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I believe "asked to resign" is more accurate. HP could not "force" her to resign (their only recourse if she had refused would have been to terminate her, I don't believe it's arguable that they had any legal right to compel, à la "force," her to resign). user:J aka justen (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

"Forced to Resign" is acceptable, as that's far less euphemistic than the whitewash proposed before. ThuranX (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

So, based on some of the recommendations above:

Fiorina was asked to resign as chairman and chief executive officer from Hewlett-Packard in early 2005, with the company stating that Fiorina had put in place "a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." Her departure was widely characterized as "sudden" and came about due to "disagreement[s] on how to best execute the company's strategy."

Suggestions? user:J aka justen (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, go back to the 'Forced to resign' proposed by Rvcx that you agreed to above, and further agreed to by me. ThuranX (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The dispute over "stepped down" has no bearing on my view that including a positive statement from a press release is nothing but an attempt to inject positive commentary into an otherwise objective description of the events. Nothing after "...in early 2005" adds anything to the article, and is a silly distraction in the lede. Rvcx (talk) 19:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What you call "positive" content isn't against any Wikipedia policy, if it can be reliably sourced and is notable and relevant. That joint statement between the company and Carly Fiorina is reliably sourced, it is notable, and it is relevant. Wikipedia doesn't have a position on excluding any and every piece of reliably sourced content that can be claimed to be "positive" (or "negative," for that matter). I think this particular reliably sourced content helps ensure that paragraph, and the lede as a whole, are not wp:undue. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The policy is WP:UNDUE, which I suggest you review. This material contributes no new facts; only commentary. And not even forthright commentary, at that---every indication is that the company didn't really believe what they said. I can't see any reason to include this material other than to push a particular POV. Rvcx (talk) 20:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rvcx. In light of the fact that she was forced to resign, a polite letter that she was forced to resign despite her great contributions sounds hypocritical, and will confuse the reader. Since it's stated somewhere in the morass above that every company does it, then it's fairly hollow and useless here. ThuranX (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The company issued a statement saying she had developed a strategy that they were going to follow. That's not commentary, that's fact, straight from the horse's mouth. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The company did not say that she had developed a strategy they agree with. They did not say that they were going to continue with the direction she has set. What they said was that whatever the hell she had been doing during her tenure, at the time the press release was issued HP had "the capabilities to compete and win." In other words, she hasn't screwed things up so badly we need to shut down the company and return the stockholders' money. Rvcx (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the source? "Carly Fiorina [...] had a strategic vision and put in place a plan that has given HP the capabilities to compete and win." They, indeed, did say that she developed a strategy they agree with, and that they were going to execute on it. If you disagree with that interpretation based on an actual reading of the source itself, that's really a gap I can't bridge. The source says what it says. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This is just going in circles. She had a vision. She put in place a plan. There is no commitment to either of those. The result of them, however, is a company that retains the ability to compete and win. Not necessarily by executing on the vision. Not necessarily by implementing the plan. Maybe the vision and plan were brilliant, but only useful for the duration of her tenure. Maybe they were lousy; if so, they weren't lousy enough to completely sabotage the company's future ability to compete and win. This is completely boilerplate corporate PR-speak for "nothing to see here; the company's doing fine." Rvcx (talk) 21:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. That's your opinion. It's not, at all, what the source itself says word for word. The source says, once again: "[She] had a strategic vision and put in place a plan that has given [the company] the capabilities to compete and win." If you don't recognize the primacy of what the source says over your interpretation of what the source meant to say, then we really are going to get nowhere. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I was brought here from the most recent AN/I thread, which someone linked me to. I agree mostly with ThuranX. For the same diff he viewed, I agree with Rvcx's additions on line 83, as it puts things in chronological order. I also agree with the relocation of information from 157/159 to 166/168, although why is Wayman not mentioned in the new prose as having been implicated? This may be a simple answer, but I'm asking honestly. The discussion on this page seems to continually degenerate, which is doing nothing to help the subject. What is "embarrassing" for Fiorina is irrelevant. Upholding NPOV is a matter of making considerations for UNDUE and weighing sources against RS. As long as that is done, BLP should be satisfied. Lara 19:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

All the sources I found indicated that Wayman was not implicated; including his name really could be a WP:BLP violation. Keep in mind that the others were actually indicted---I worry that throwing "implicated" around to mean "suspected" is a bit dangerous. If there are sources that detail Wayman's involvement then fine, but we already have another whole page on the spying scandal. If we're not going to link it to Fiorina with a "she set up a particularly distrustful climate..." allegation then it doesn't seem directly relevant to her, and a link to the other article is sufficient. Rvcx (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

editprotected

{{editprotected}}

Just prior to the article being locked, a small blurb of controversial content was reinserted to the article, in the last paragraph of the Hewlett-Packard section. The segment is not a statement of fact, is contentious, and is poorly sourced, and needs to be removed (and it has been removed repeatedly in the past by administrators and other editors alike). This is the text:

In April of 2009, however, the business magazine web site Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.

Per wp:blp, the assertion is poorly sourced, contentious opinion. You can see above for past discussion on the issue, the fact that it has long been controversial, and the fact that the repeated attempts to include it previously led to the article being locked for over a month (a situation the article again finds itself in). In summary, the listing was not notable and received no reliable coverage itself. Under wp:blp, contentious material that doesn't stick to the facts should be removed, and a defunct publication calling someone one of the "worst chief executive officers" ever is not a fact. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was "poorly sourced" is inaccurate, and his assertion that it was "contentious" is unsupported (beyond his own contentiousness). (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

The fact that Fiorina was included on this list is well-sourced and uncontentious. At least four editors have explicitly supported the inclusion of the content, as have two additional editors on the AN/I noticeboard. There have been repeated requests for user:J to point to comments from any editor other than himself who does not support this material; those requests remain unanswered. The article is quite clear that the placement of Fiorina on the list is just one opinion, and it is placed alongside a differing (and, frankly, much more minority) opinion that she did a good job as a CEO. The attempt to exclude any content critical of Fiorina is clear POV-pushing. Rvcx (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Unless you have some very reliable sources I'm not seeing, it is nowhere near "well sourced" or notable. Further, wp:blp is not up to a vote. Each of the four editors who have supported including the content have acknowledged having a critical viewpoint of Carly Fiorina, which I am afraid appears to cloud their judgment in the appropriateness of this in terms of wp:blp. It needs to be removed, immediately. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the links which is supposed to support this claim is not working now, so I'd be inclined to remove this sentence until better sources can be found. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

That's because the publication that published this photo caption went out of business. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "photo caption" is inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

CNBC seems to have migrated all the Portfolio content over to its site: http://www.cnbc.com/id/30502091?slide=3 I support updating the first source; the second source currently in the article is another site's summary of the Portfolio list. Yet another republishing is here. Her appearance on this list is verifiable from multiple sources. Her reputation as one of the worst CEOs of all time (independently appearing in another such list here) is one of the main sources of her notability in business circles. Rvcx (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly? I'm trying to not be incredulous here, but the indifference towards or ignorance of WP:BLP is astounding. Two blogs are nowhere near the quality of sourcing you need to support one poorly sourced photo caption opinion that she's one of the worst executives ever. user:J aka justen (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

A mirror of the photo caption doesn't cut it. To explicitly quote wp:blp:

• Be very firm about the use of high quality references.
• Contentious material about living persons that is [...] poorly sourced [...] should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.
• Biographies of living persons must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy.
• Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid paper; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives.
• The possibility of harm to living subjects is one of the important factors to be considered when exercising editorial judgment.
• The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material, and this is especially true for material regarding living persons.
• Criticism [...] needs to be presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. (A bit impossible when a defunct publication non-notably calls you one of "the worst American CEOs ever.")
• The views of a tiny minority have no place in the article. (Again, a single publication publishing a non-notable list does not a majority opinion make.)
• Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically.
• Be on the lookout for biased or malicious content about living persons.

• If someone appears to be promoting a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.

And, to further quote the Foundation Resolution on the matter:

• People sometimes make edits designed to smear others. (Note: I think it is also possible to make those sorts of edits unintentionally, simply with disregard for an objective viewpoint, for whatever reason.)
• This is difficult to identify and counteract, particularly if the malicious editor is persistent.

I hope this helps. user:J aka justen (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "photo caption", that the material was "non-notable" and that it represented "the views of a tiny minority" are inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

• Blogs are not normally considered good reliable sources. As this is a BLP, if there are criticisms to be made, then they need to be backed by solid WP:RS. Be cautious of WP:UNDUE when looking to add critical information - just to have "critical information". POV goes both way, stick to the solid sourcing. — Ched :  ?  04:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Question - Suppose a blog of marginal (or even questionable?) notability puts out a list of crappiest CEO's. Well, that in-and-of itself certainly wouldn't qualify for inclusion. Now, suppose several reliable sources in the mainstream media cite this list and highlight some of the CEO's listed. Doesn't the sourcing then become the reliable sources that covered the list? Even if the list itself is from a blog (or otherwise unreliable/non-notable source), doesn't it become notable because it got significant coverage in reliable sources? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Being covered by multiple media sources might make it notable, but not reliable. It might then be possible to say "NBC mentioned the blog in a special report", but we still couldn't cite the blog itself as a source for facts in one of our articles. Doc Tropics 05:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This theoretical conversation has nothing to do with the case under discussion. Conde Nast Portfolio is/was not a blog---it was a respected mainstream publication. And we are not even using it as a source a fact in the article; we are citing the opinion as a piece of commentary. Rvcx (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The same issues come into play, in that a single source calling someone "the worst" anything in a photo caption is not a "high quality" source sufficient for a WP:BLP. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Note that j's assertions that the subject material was a "photo caption" is inaccurate (see detailed comments at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#On_the_actual_Conde.27_Nast_source)

I have removed the section per WP:BLP. Upon procurement of a suitable reliable source for this negative information, it can be re-added. Tan | 39 15:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is yet another whitewash. Conde Nast got bought, its content absorbed. There's no problem with the sourcing. This is yet another 'No BLP shall ever criticize anyone, ever' campaign, no different than what's happening over at Glenn Beck. When famous people do stupid things, and the media covers it, we can report it here. That's how it works. It's not a BLP violation if they did it, and a reliable source publishes coverage. If Conde nast no longer qualifies as a WP:RS, then that needs to be stated at WP:RS, until then, that material should absolutely be reincluded.

Beyond that, there's the second issue that an Admin circumvented both page protection and Consensus, and the policy on Reliable Sources, to edit to push his own POV, and ethical violation that should result in a loss of his buttons. ThuranX (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The only point of view the administrator (who, as best as I can tell, has never edited this article previously) took was that there was poorly sourced, contentious material in a biography of a living person. Our policy quite clearly says it must be removed immediately, without discussion and regardless of protection. I'm not sure how this at all relates to Glenn Beck or your battles there, so I'll leave it at that. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no opinion regarding this article. I did not circumvent anything; my actions were within policy put in place by WP:PROTECT. Post a reliable source for this material and I will replace it immediately. Consensus (if that actually exists here) does not trump WP:V or WP:BLP. If you want to call for my removal as admin, ThuranX, I suggest you start a thread at AN/I and see where that takes you. Tan | 39 17:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your sticking your neck out to enforce wp:blp. Controversial biographies of living people are particularly vulnerable to this sort of situation, which is exactly why the policy requires high quality sourcing, as you know (not just a single reliable source). I hope you'll consider taking that into account before reinserting this material, notwithstanding any angry mob with pitchforks and torches. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been raised at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Rvcx (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask something that I don't understand: Why are you so determined, wp:blp be damned, to get the exact phrase "worst American chief executive officer" into the text of her article? You can reliably source that the stock performed poorly during her tenure, you can reliably source that she laid off oodles of people, you can reliably source that she wasn't generally well liked by folks in Silicon Valley. Yet you persist in trying to magically turn very poor sourcing into reliable sourcing using blogs and so forth. You've canvassed to try to build a consensus to override wp:blp, you've searched out another forum to try to get another opinion on the same links already debunked here by three administrators. I really just don't get it, and I have to tell you, in my gut I'm afraid this sort of editing is exactly why wp:blp exists and needs to exist. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

We can also reliably source that there was significant criticism of her tenure specifically. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 17:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree (see my response to you over at wp:rs/n). Such prose should be written up, reliably sourced, and proposed for {{editprotected}} inclusion here. There's no doubt there was criticism. Poorly sourced, non-notable opinion and blogs aren't the place to source that fact to, however, especially not for a wp:blp. user:J aka justen (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• comment Like Tan, I have no interest in this particular article save the fact that I noticed it referenced elsewhere. It just seems to me that when you want to say "Worst CEO" with a "one-of" claim which seems to me to be an "WP:UNDUE effort. In other words ...

You are backing up battleship statements with rowboat references. Find better sources. — Ched :  ?  17:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that she is the worst CEO of all time; it says that opinions of her as a CEO are mixed. It quotes the title of the feature, as a quote. There is little other way to convey the opinion of the commentators---they don't just think the merger was a failure; they don't just think the stock underperformed. They think it was Fiorina's fault and that she was terrible as a CEO. We cite that as an opinion, not as a fact. Given the number of "she did a great job" and "most powerful woman in the world" commentaries already present, the refusal to include any criticism at all is absurd. Rvcx (talk) 18:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I walked into all this rather late in the game, and I haven't been party to most of the recent discussion here. It is my position that Fiorina has been the subject of significant criticisms for her terms as corporate executives, and has generated significant controversies surrounding same; as such, I believe that an article must cover those aspects as well in order to give a truly encyclopedic coverage of the subject. Furthermore, I believe that we probably should mention the coverage (in reliable sources) of her inclusion on the CN list (note: not referencing the list, but rather the coverage). Please make note of the difference between must and should when considering my input. Also, I am (always) in favor of finding a compromise on a talk page, as J suggested above. Thanks. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(in response to User:Rvcx) "Given the number of 'she did a great job' and 'most powerful woman in the world' commentaries already present, the refusal to include any criticism at all is absurd." There is not a "refusal to include any criticism at all" from anyone here that I see. The rhetoric doesn't help. Dig up reliable sourcing for criticism and we can work on prose here. user:J aka justen (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I see plenty of refusal on your part, J. Not only are you absolutely 100% unwilling to allow any criticism, including the completely properly sources Conde Nast listing, your are equally insistent that every bit of puffpiece love about Fiorina be included, arguing that it's a matter of BLP policy; BLP in fact does not require that an article be horrifically biased in favor of the subject. Your abject inability to do any amount of work towards consensus, and your efforts to keep everyone running in circles, shows that we will waste decades arguing with you, that that is your plan, and that you intend to win by attrition.YOu are refusing any criticism, it is that simple, and multiple editors here can see it. ThuranX (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I've yet to see a proposal -- any proposal -- that I could "refuse," despite begging for someone, anyone, to write something up. Any of the sources Blaxthos lists below could be used as reliable sources, it just appears as though nobody (thus far) is willing or able to actually put a neutral proposal in writing. If you'd like to propose something, that's really the only way we're ever going to start working towards a consensus for inclusion. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

NO, you saw the 'proposal', which by the way, is another vullshitting tactic designed to delay, by making us "propose" Text that you are already aware of. Then you can 'reject' it, based on the sources, we get new soures, you say not good enough ,not neough fo them, we find more, you 'forget' what we're working on, demand proposal, and so on. It's the CIVIL POV PUSH. It's about wasting our time until we give up. It's crap. You know waht we want included. ThuranX (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what is going on with you, but your comments crossed the line with your first post a few minutes ago and charged further afield with this most recent one. Please contribute constructively to this discussion or don't contribute at all. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

You seem intent on maintaining an act of total ignorance to what others want by demanding a new proposal, and I'm not interested in putting up with such deceptive behaviors. TThe 'proposal' is the inclusion of the conde nast material, as it was in the article, and you know that. You have been told this numerous times. You reply contiunues to be, 'oh ok... but do you have a proposal for what you would like to add to the article?' to which the same reply, 'the conde nast material previously int he article' and your say 'oh ok.... but do you have a proposal.....' That's why rvcx said above that we're going in circles. Because you kee sterring us in such. It's insulting to everyone else working on this page to be made to repeat ourselves as a delaying tactic, and we're all tired of it. That's the problem. My comments aren't crossing any lines, they're bluntly pointing out the tactics you are engaging in to obstruct progress. ThuranX (talk) 16:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. USA Today
2. LA times
3. Better USA today
4. Older but better LA times
5. CBS news

//Blaxthos ( t / c ) 18:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reset

Let's all, including myself, drop the rhetoric and hostility and work towards a solid consensus here. Here is the sentence in question:

In April of 2009, however, the business magazine web site Condé Nast Portfolio listed Fiorina as one of the "The 20 Worst American CEOs of all time," characterizing the HP-Compaq merger as "widely regarded as a failure", and citing the halving of HP's stock value under Fiorina's tenure.

What we need here is solid sourcing and a balanced statement. I have no problem with negative information, but it needs to be right. One now-defunct company calling someone "The worst [insert position] of all time" does not necessarily mean it is valid to place it in the article. From WP:UNDUE, "In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all." That all said, and given Blaxthos's references above, let's discuss this civilly and with good faith. Tan | 39 19:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then will you strike the EDS puffery, because the notion that Fiorina did a good job is a minority view? Rvcx (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, but can you please try to discuss this in a mature manner? Your baiting, snipes and sarcastic questions are not helping. Tan | 39 19:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no question of the EDS sourcing: it's The New York Times. It's not a "minority view" and it's notable to her career at HP. You've expressed here time and time again that you will not rest until anything you deem positive from the article is removed, and you've been blocked once for it already. I just don't get it. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Damnit, J, did you not read Tan's statement about civility and good faith? As far as I can tell, you're both guilty of blindly serving polar opposite viewpoints and only are continuing unproductive accusations against the other. Now, for the meat of the discussion... all the sources I've found doing a historical (read: encyclopedic) assessment have all given Fiorina a poor review for performance during her tenure there. I'm not saying that's truth, nor am I saying there aren't other viewpoints. However, to assess proper voice and weight why don't we gather references with both viewpoints, preferably those with a "looking back" perspective rather than sources covering then-contemporary events. Once we've got a good list, we can start to hammer out appropriate verbiage. Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 19:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Expressing incredulousness at User:Rvcx's continued attempts to remove anything he deems supportive from the article is about the best anybody should be able to manage at this point. That being said, there are a number of sources, including in the article and since removed by User:Rvcx, cited to the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, and Bloomberg, that clearly report on widespread opinion that time has shown Fiorina did the right things. Prose supporting that "analysts" (or whomever) were negative at the time, combined with some of the current viewpoints, is fine. Feel free to propose. user:J aka justen (talk) 19:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

J, Until you can make a reply that doesn't contain a jab at other editor, I will not engage in discussion with you. Stop with your analysis, stop with your insults, stop with your cries foul. The next step is to provide some sources. Concrete sources. No more generic statements without supporting references. In fact, no more statements at all -- gather some sources. Post them here. THEN discuss. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is you were working on proposals for prose including "critical" content. As I said, feel free to propose. user:J aka justen (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no recollection of removing any such references, so I suggest you point at the appropriate deleted references if they exist. The article includes several "most powerful woman" citations as well as the (IMO non-notable) EDS commentary already. My point has always been that if we choose to use an absurdly high standard for commentary, then all of this supportive commentary should be deleted as well. I think the article would be best served, however, by including both viewpoints. Rvcx (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Addressing notability of criticism, the fact that even a tiny blurb from the LA Times about the senate race includes

Fiorina was fired from Hewlett-Packard after a rocky tenure.

suggests that the prevailing opinion in the business community is that her run as CEO did not go well. Rvcx (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

She was asked to resign. I think we all already had some clue it didn't go well. How would you like to see it phrased in the article, however? user:J aka justen (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Horse, then cart... let's get some references, see what they say, and then start talking about how to best present it. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I think the sources you compiled in the above section are a reliable place to start. user:J aka justen (talk) 05:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, but they're all pretty critical of Fiorina's term. I figured you'd be digging up comparative source(s) that had a positive perspective on her tenure. Otherwise, based on the sources I've posted thus far, there wouldn't be much good to say.  ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

On the actual Conde' Nast source

The section above has moved to general discussion on how/what to include regarding negative commentary; I'd like to get back for the moment to the original Conde' Nast source, which is consistently and repeatedly mis-represented in the above discussions.

• Condé Nast Publications has been and remains a publishing giant; though the Portfolio.com venture did not succeed -- and nowhere in WP:RS do I see anything about a requirement for ongoing publication -- it was a high-profile, high-dollar venture run by a set of veteran business writers and reporters, including Joanne Lipman who ran the Wall Street Journal's business sections for years.
• The publication of this feature article which included photographs (often misrepresented in these discussions as a "photo caption") was also widely reported as news itself (see here, here, here, here, here, and here for non-inclusive examples), and continues to be cited by reputable publications today (see this LA Times ref among others noted above).
• The article itself was no blog-post-like musing by one person; it was (per the article introduction, which remains available [2], put together by polling a "panel of business-school professors".

In short, this is not the ill-sourced, quick-hit list by a single green author, but a well-researched article both sourced from and edited by experts in the field. It's as good or better as the other sources named recently, and should be included in the article; the fact that it has been successfully blocked from inclusion through various tactics is to Wikipedia's shame and detriment.

Jgm (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. While we can work long-term to find a way of balancing the article as a whole, the text was which deleted by administrator intervention should be restored immediately. The reliable sourcing controversy has been settled (here, many times, and again on WP:RSN). Rvcx (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The two Indian articles you linked to are solely referring to Vikram Pandit being named to the list, which might justify its mention in his article, but not here. On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times article dedicates one sentence to saying that Barbara Boxer's office is trying to use the Condé Nast piece to smear Fiorina (a potential challenger in next year's Senate race). If that doesn't illuminate the situation, I'm not sure what does. Still trying to "back up battleship claims with rowboat sources," as an administrator mentioned here earlier. In either event, none of these overcome the wp:blp and wp:undue issues that have now led to the content being removed and the article being locked twice. user:J aka justen (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Your disagree is noted, and has been many many times in the past. Rvcx (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that if other publications, like the International Business Times above, are covering the list, it's noteworthy enough to mention Fiorina's inclusion in her article, whether she's mentioned specifically in the coverage. In fact, her lack of specific mention shows that it's not a hit on Fiorina. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

They weren't covering this list. They were covering Vikram Pandit. Using a beyond-tenuous connection to try to turn this poor sourcing into reliable sourcing so as to wp:coatrack this into this article is nowhere near the "high quality" sourcing wp:blp requires. user:J aka justen (talk) 16:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

They aren't just "covering Pandit". "Business magazine Conde Nast Portfolio has named Microsoft founder Bill Gates, investment guru Warren Buffet and Apple Inc.'s Steve Jobs among the 20 best American CEOs while bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers' Dick Fuld and struggling financial giant Citigroup's Vikram Pandit have earned the dubious distinction of being called America's worst ever.... The publication, which arrived at the list with the help of a panel of professors of business schools such as MIT Solan School of Management, Tuck School of Business, Wharton School, University of Chicago Booth School of Business, Yale School of Management and Kellogg School of Management, has described Gates as a "cranky and impatient manager - an approach that helped Microsoft earn $60 billion last year." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not the first attempt to defend Conde Nast as a WP:RS on this matter, on this page, but it MUST be the last. This has been a matter of ONE editors against many for far too long. Simply put, multiple editors agree that Conde Nast is a reliable source, and that her inclusion on the list, having been reported on in other reliable sources, constitutes demonstration of notability. That a single hold-out is incapable of changing their feelings on the matter in no way obligates the rest of us to wait for them to 'come around' on the matter. There is no requirement for consensus on any issue to be unanimous. I propose that the material be restored immediately, as I count five or six editors, at least, in favor of its inclusion, based on solid policy reasoning, and one opposing on what has decayed from BLP to IDONTLIKEIT. ThuranX (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not convinced on this. Certainly CN in general is reliable, but OTOH Best of... and Worst of... lists are a dime a dozen. What makes this particular list definitive? What was the methodolgy? Yes, it was professionally done (by asking business-school professors, the very people who taught our business leaders to excel as they have... but that's another story) but ultimately, it's just an opinion piece. I'm not able to find any good mainstream coverage of the reliability of the list itself, just a lot of bloggery. Pandit seems to be covered because he is Indian, i.e. the coverage is in Indian news sources. Fuld gets covered because he's the "worst of the worst". The closest I found was this, which criticizes the list for lack of consistent criteria.

IMO, the source is barely on one side or other of both notability and reliability and as such a direct mention of "20 Worst" is best left out of the article. There is certainly no lack of other RS with criticism of Fiorina's tenure at HP (see Blaxthos's list above). Just because someone at some time or other made an arbitrary list doesn't mean it needs a mention here. What if it had been a list of the 18-worst? The strong criticism does deserve mention to balance the praise. Just not in such an OMG-the-worst! fashion. Franamax (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

...and "restored per talk". Awesome. I've had enough of this. Tan | 39 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just restored this, but Franamax's post was not here when I was reviewing this thread. I've just seen it as I returned to note the restoration. I'm sort of split in my thoughts on the matter, as I can see it from both points of view. I hold no opinion on this specific piece of information at this time, so if it is found necessary to remove the info again while discussion continues, I'm fine with that. Lara 19:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

However, the CN piece is the wedge for the entire article. Those seeking it's excision support an entire version of the article which radiates the beatific nature of the Holy Fiorina, go look at diffs linked above. If we let this part be removed, her defenders will roll on, removing all criticism and painting her as a scapegoat and martyr, not as a woman who made fundamental errors, leading to her being fired from HP. Her proponents even insist, and read above for this, that she left voluntarily, of her own accord and free will, not that she was fired. Look up above, they consider that the board asking for her resignation isn't a firing be cause she could have not given it and stayed on. They are very serious about believing that had she not tendered a letter, the board would've been powerless to outright throw her bodily from the building, and that she would still be president of HP. When you're up against editors who take some matters to a ridiculously literal end(asked to resign means leaving without duress and freely), then take others to a completely interpretive end (Conde Nast is a lib'ruhl hit piece which hurts our feelings about Carly Fiorina), what other interpretation of their actions is left other than that they will not stop at anything short of a pro-Fiorina fluff piece? If we don't stop them at the first action, we won't stop them at all. ThuranX (talk) 19:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The "first action" was long ago. Given that much of Fiorina's notability is as an historically bad CEO, the article really deserves much more thorough coverage of the criticism. But for now, a specific and well-sourced example of the criticism will stand in while we work on acceptable changes to the rest. The Portfolio piece has been covered to death at WP:RSN: the sources are reliable. The heavy coverage all over the business press makes clear that it is notable. There is clear consensus among editors. The rather slapdash behavior of admins thus far is seriously undermining confidence in the editorial process. Rvcx (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I flipped the IndianTimes ref talking about Fiorina in particular to use one that talked about the list in general, as that's a better secondary source, imho. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

...and linked to the CNBC version of the list, which is still up. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)