Talk:Carly Fiorina/Archive 15

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs following the 2002 merger between HP and Compaq, without the lead providing well-sourced context, such as that by 2004 the number of HP employees was about the same as the pre-merger total of HP and Compaq combined?05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. A prior stable version of the lead used to provide well-sourced context about the 30,000 figure, and it would not be neutral or fair to present the 30,000 figure in the lead without such context. Per WP:BLP, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". It would be much better to leave the 30,000 figure out of the lead if no context is provided. My preference would be to leave all of these statistics for the main body of the article, but if the 30,000 figure is in the lead then it must be accompanied by a minimal amount of context.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. It's clear from reading the sources that the point is not the net change in the number of global jobs, but the number of jobs that left the USA and went elsewhere. The point is that Fiorina, who is running for office in the USA, sent tens of thousands of jobs to other countries. Such a move might be considered beneficial in the multi-national corporate world, but it does not sit well with political constituents. The sources are crystal clear that Fiorina in 2015 is being judged as a potential president of the USA rather than as a multi-national corporate CEO. The net jobs delta is negative for USA voters, and thus it is an important issue for her political aspirations. Binksternet (talk) 06:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• Yes - There are numerous available sources to support the significance of laying off 30,000 employees: Boston Globe, Washington Post, CNBC, New York Times, The Guardian, Politifact, International Business Times, San Jose Mercury News which I believe makes this fact lead-worthy, however the vast majority of sources do not juxtapose the layoffs with the net employee head count resulting from mergers and normal hiring, for good reason. We can't rightfully do that either without violating WP:SYNTH. Anythingyouwant's desire to balance the lead by adding false balance not found in the most of our sources is misguided and against policy. Our goal should be to represent sources faithfully, not to achieve a false balance that seems to emanate from Fiorina's self-serving comments regarding her record of RIFing and offshoring: "It is also true that, net-net, we created jobs,...". However, our sources are not buying it, nor should we.- MrX 14:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Of course. We should follow the sources, and avoid creating a false balance by the juxtaposition Fiorina's campaign talking points in defense of her business record. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• No Context is needed.CFredkin (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes We need to make sure we are properly reflecting the weight our sources have been giving this issue. They think it's important enough to warrant continued coverage, the article should give it that same continued weight. Immortal Horrors or Everlasting Splendors 17:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• No - what the heck is that job figure doing in the lead in the first place? If it stays it needs the balance/context of other items lest it seem non-neutral. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Per MrX's reasoning.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - I do think it was a major event in her business career that had enduring salience on her political career. Neutrality^talk 00:11, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• No - The entire paragraph in the lead about the firings and employee counts should be removed. Erniecohen (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• No per Anythingyouwant, CFredkin, and Fyunck. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. As I said at WP:NOR: Using a source to draw the conclusion that that source explicitly states is not WP:SYNTH; but pulling a fact out of a source and using it to imply a conclusion that isn't in the source is WP:SYNTH. Therefore, we can cite the Politifact and WaPo sources to conclude that Fiorina fudged the numbers to make misleading claims about her business record and that she fired large numbers of people during her tenure; we cannot cite them (as this RFC requests) to make a statement that seems to imply "it was fine, the number of employees was about the same as the pre-merger total." That technically repeats a fact from the sources, but alters its context in a way that changes the meaning. That would be WP:SYNTH. You say in the talk page that this "seems simply to be a situation where some editors would like the lead to proclaim that she fired thousands of people while deliberately omitting that she also hired thousands." But what the sources say is that she actually merged companies (acquiring the people who already worked there) and then fired people as a result, not that she hired people; taking that out of context to say "look, she hired people!!" is clear WP:SYNTH. If you want a source extolling her virtue for hiring people, you need to find one that says it explicitly rather than trying to read it into sources that are unequivocally saying the opposite; but as it stands, with the sources we have, we absolutely cannot juxtapose the hired / fired numbers in the way Anythingyouwant is requesting. We have many sources explicitly stating that she fudged the numbers on hiring and highlighting the 30,000 people who were fired as a result of those mergers as a problem for her campaign, so we must cover it from that aspect; we cannot go with a version that reads as "she fired 30,000 people, but also hired a bunch of people." I also take heavy issue with the wording of this RFC, which is clearly not neutral as required by the RFC guidelines. The question of whether Anythingyouwant's preferred version provides "well-sourced context" or whether it is just a mess of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR is the entire question at issue here, so assuming it in the head of the RFC clearly invalidates the whole issue... especially when we have another (much more neutrally-worded) straw poll, just above this one, on whether the firing figures themselves should be included irrespective of other considerations (which means that the only question here ought to be whether we include the figures that Anythingyouwant asserts give it context.) --Aquillion (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
• figure not in lead at all and in the body it should include the balancing info. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gaijin42: I interpret this as a "no" to the question "Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs....?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• Wrong question. The lead needs to provide some sort of synopsis of Fiorina's tenure at HP (which could charitably be described as "rocky"), particularly since Fiorina is running largely on her business record and since her campaign is working very hard to "redefine" it (e.g. "As Profile Rises, Carly Fiorina Aims to Redefine Record as a C.E.O.", New York Times). But focusing on job numbers isn't really the right way to go about this. The numbers could be spun a variety of ways, as this RfC already demonstrates, and they constitute a level of detail best reserved for the body. But some sort of summary of Fiorina's record is appropriate for the lead, and frankly the recent wordings all strike me as apologetics written by someone trying very hard to burnish Fiorina's record by trying to cherry-pick as many favorable factoids from the generally unfavorable reliably-sourced coverage as possible. MastCell ^Talk 15:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: I interpret this as a "no" to the question "Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs....?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

No, that interpretation is incorrect. I think this entire drawn-out fight over HP job numbers in the lead is ridiculous, and speaks poorly of the primary editors of this article. It's clear that the job number is just a political football for heavily partisan editors who are dominating this article and this discussion. If we are summarizing Fiorina's HP career in one or two sentences, then counting up jobs is a silly way to do it. No actual reliable source or reputable reference work would approach it like this.

We can in fact summarize Fiorina's career neutrally and in line with reliable sources: I took a stab at it here. My edit was reverted because it included "subjective" details—which is particularly laughable since the job numbers are obviously even more subjective. I notice that others who have come to this RfC from outside this bubble are telling you the same thing (see comments from User:JzG, User:Wikidemon, and User:Gandydancer, below). I would urge you not to shoehorn this feedback into a binary "yes" or "no" and instead listen to it and consider it. MastCell ^Talk 17:29, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that I have been saying since before you came to this page that job numbers should not be in the lead. The best solution is not to include them in the lead with or without context. But if they must be included in the lead then context is necessary. You may wish to portray that as a "heavily partisan" position on my part, but your portrayal skills don't make it true.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Mixed. Per MastCell and others, the lede as it stands gives undue attention to counting jobs, something that is a political talking point but not a primary biographical detail of a businessperson. For one, the business world does not attribute the company's entire performance or company decisions to the CEO, nor does a CEO "create" or destroy jobs as such. They and the board make decisions, those decisions get implemented, the company may shrink or grow, or outsource work as a result. The more relevant summary of her time as CEO is that it was marked by an acquisition she forced through that the company and most observers regard as a corporate disaster, and that her time there overall is generally considered a failure. That can all be said in 1-2 sentences in the lede, perhaps mentioning contrary opinions if there are any of weight, and treated in far more detail in the body. So in short I would remove most of the job discussion from the lede. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wikidemon: I interpret this as a "no" to the question "Should the lead mention that Fiorina cut 30,000 jobs....?"Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

• No - summoned by bot, this version of the lead covers things appropriately. As per Anythingyouwant and Winkelvi. Flat Out (talk) 00:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes summoned by bot, although I've been at this page before anyhow the NPOV policy is pretty clear on this sort of thing; we present reliable sources, duly weighted. The "context" as some editors call it has nowhere near the same coverage as the point about layoffs, and is thus undue weight in the lead. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• No - No it should not be included since the jobs created did not go to American workers. I agree with MastCell's viewpoint as well. Gandydancer (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Um. I don't think this belongs in the lede, because it just becomes a tennis match between boosters and knockers as to whether HP shed more or grew more under her tenure (the industry consensus as I see it, being an insider of sorts, is that it became weaker and lost net skills, but that's not really the question). The question of layoffs is more complex than can be covered in a single sentence and has to be viewed in the context of the whole industry, HP's place in the industry, and the nature of the people laid off (i.e. was it a net downsize, a "terk er jerbz", or what?). I think the lede should say that her tenure was a turbulent time for HP and undoubtedly we should note that she was pushed rather than jumping. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• No This number should be completely left out of the lede. It works well in political adds, but has far too complex of a context for the lede. It can be mentioned in the article as it has a significant place in the Fiorina-Boxer race. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Wrong Question and Yes per MastCell and Binksternet. The encyclopedia should not focus unduly on the framework of the current political campaign, but her record as a corporate manager is central to her biography and notability. SPECIFICO talk 15:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in those words: It just should mention that she cut jobs, and leave the specific number to the body. pbp 00:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is an example of a neutral and fair presentation:

It's amazing to me that "yes" !voters in this RfC apparently don't even want to allow a statement about how many employees HP had.

It's amazing to me that the number of times that our WP:SYNTH and WP:FALSEBALANCE have been cited, that there is still insistence that we should bend the rules in the name of fairness. That's simply not how it works. As prominently explained in MOS:INTRO: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." - MrX 15:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Per WP:BLP, "Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times." It seems egregiously unfair to say that a BLP subject got rid of tens of thousands of jobs, without mentioning that that same person also created tens of thousands of jobs. Per WP:NOR, "Best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words, with each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly." Thus, we should not blindly add up sources that mention the "30,000" layoffs without context, and compare that sum to the sources that provide context; best practice is instead to look at the most reliable sources that consider the employment data in depth, such as the ones cited above. Per WP:Lead, "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies" (emphasis added). Leaving out the context in this instance would be a mistake.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• Disagree. The sources don't support the idea that she created tens of thousands of jobs; the sources say that there were mergers and layoffs and that as a result of these, she fired 30,000 people. Parsing the numbers to say "oh she actually created jobs" is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH; it's distorting what the sources say, not providing context. --Aquillion (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

• If we say "Following HP's gain in market share as a result of the 2002 merger, Fiorina laid off 30,000 U.S. employees", then we are implying to the reader that Fiorina laid off those people only because the merger was successful with regard to the metric of market share. The sources don't connect those two things, so we should not either. Instead, we should tell the reader that Fiorina laid off thousands of US workers in order to move those jobs to other countries, which was all part of the merger plan in the first place, with Fiorina intending in September 2001 to slash 15,000 additional jobs, more than were earlier announced, to make the merger work. Let's not gloss over this layoff issue with misdirection and prestidigitation. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • According to Politifact, "It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq...."[1] I don't see any problem with providing this chronological information. However, this is mostly a side issue, not part of the RfC question.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The comment accompanying Aquillion’s !vote above mentioned me, so I’ll respond briefly now. According to Aquillion, the sources do not say "that she hired people". But Aquillion is just flat wrong. We all know that soon after the Compaq merger in 2002 she fired 30,000 people. But then what happened? Here’s what: "it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger" (says Politifact). Other sources confirm that she hired loads of people subsequent to firing the 30,000. Maybe a lot of those hires were in other countries rather than the U.S., but the fact remains she very clearly hired tens of thousands of additional people after the initial firing of 30,000.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Could you quote the parts you feel indicate she hired people? "Ended up with more employees after a merge" is very different from "hired people", and the precise wording matters, especially if we're going to focus on exact numbers. You also need to provide a cite that those numbers matter -- eg. the sources you linked are very clear that the number of people she fired is a major issue ("She axed tens of thousands of jobs", "Her record of layoffs and aggressive outsourcing", etc. Even her own wording is extremely cautious (she uses the unusual phrasing of "grew jobs" rather than "hired people"), and even that vague statement is disputed by all the sources we have. I may have missed something, but I see no support for your assertion that she hired people. We can note her own statement that she "grew jobs", but only in the context of making it clear that it was widely disputed as false. Either way, the overarching coverage of her tenure clearly focuses on firing and outsourcing, and we need to cover that; your preferred wording, which downplays the issues raised by the sources you linked, simply does not work. (Even the LA Times coverage -- which talks about "both sides" of the issue -- does not present her supporters as saying that she created jobs or hired people; they say, in very vague terms, that her plans were to "breathe life into a stodgy, decentralized technology giant.") Basically, every source that discusses her jobs is clear that it is a negative for her, a political vulnerability due to firings and outsourcing; we need to accurately present that, we can't do our own WP:OR and say "well, if we look at the numbers like this, then it's fine, right?" That's part of why we rely on secondary sources like these instead of primary ones -- their interpretation and analysis is extremely important when dealing with raw figures like these, which are otherwise complicated and hard to interpret. The interpretation here is universally "she fired people and outsourced jobs and this is a problem." If you have sources that interpret things differently, cite them! But right now it feels like you're trying to make the argument yourself using the numbers, which doesn't work. --Aquillion (talk) 02:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Aquillion, I already inserted detailed and lengthy quotes in the footnotes above.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those quotes say she hired people. In fact, most of them seem to specifically say she didn't and that those numbers have been deceptively used to imply that she had; all of the ones that do any sort of analysis are extremely negative, indicating that the total upshot of the numbers are that many people were fired and many jobs were outsourced as a result of the mergers. My point is, you're committing WP:OR by trying to use those numbers to imply that she hired people, and WP:SYNTH by trying to use this as a "rebuttal" to the number of people she fired. The whole point of most of those (the very thing they're saying) is that because of the mergers, it the company ended up with more total people working for it without significant hiring -- that's why I asked you for a quote on the term "hiring" specifically, because that characterization is part of what's at issue here. Now, I'll give you one piece of advice: What you could do is find the statements that those sources are rebutting (the places where she implies that she created jobs or hired people), and cite those, with in-text attributions. But our coverage, I think, would have to read something like "Fiorina claimed XYZ, but this has been disputed by numerous publications, such as XYZ, XYZ, and XYZ, who said..." What we can't do is just say or imply "oh yes she created jobs" or "oh yes she hired people" with those sources, because that's the exact opposite of what they say. --Aquillion (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Aquillion:The math in those footnotes makes clear that she must have hired tens of thousands more people after firing 30,000. In any event, see this: Goldman, David. "Behind Carly Fiorina's 30,000 HP layoffs", CNN Money (September 21, 2015): "She has also noted -- correctly -- that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired."Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

My point is that you can't just "do the math" when those sources specifically state that the math is misleading. Even if it were uncontroversial, relying on your own math and deductions from the numbers would tread dangerously close to WP:SYNTH; when we have multiple sources straight-out saying that the conclusion you're trying to draw is wrong, you definitely can't do that. Now, the source you just linked to is a bit better, in that it does what I said you should do above and cites her directly (and even notes that she's technically correct, though it appends a "but...") But that source also says that her numbers don't change the fact that it's one of the biggest problems she faces or that her heavy downsizing caused a lot of pain while she was being highly compensated herself; if you look at the weight of its coverage, it devotes one sentence to her defense, and massive paragraphs to the number of layoffs, the suffering they caused, and so on, so it's clearly WP:UNDUE to pull her defense out and use it uncritically, weighted equally to absolutely every other aspect of the topic. Nor does it change the fact that many other sources specifically say that she's abusing the numbers to imply something that isn't true -- we can't uncritically repeat her claims about her history when so many reliable sources have called them into question, and we certainly can't uncritically state them as fact without even attributing them to her. The correct thing to do (if you want to go into more detail) is to describe how she's been criticized for heavy layoffs, describe her defense of hiring people (explicitly attributing it to her rather than just stating it as if it is an uncontroversial fact), then describe and cite the more significant bits of mainstream coverage that have questioned the way she presented the numbers in that defense. --Aquillion (talk) 01:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The correct thing to do would be to move the layoff info out of the lead, and instead discuss it in detail in the corresponding section. But since people insist on having in the lead that she fired 30,000 it's impossible to maintain NPOV without also mentioning that she hired tens of thousands, per CNN Money, et cetera. Ultimately, we'll probably need an article like Business career of Mitt Romney, which was boring as hell for me to write, but probably necessary for Fiorina too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. This talk page is filled with more partisan on selective sourcing, and just because something is factual, doesn't mean it's in context. Giving a detail on her career by selective editing in the lead, but intentionally omitting anything positive has never been allowed on Wiki (though I do concede that there have been lengthy discussions like this talk page on insisting it happens, the end result is always the same). We have had precedent for years that no matter how much arguing goes back and forth, the lead on any bio has never been specifics of a portion of a portion (in this case, Fiorina's business career which was at the time at the company which then is further defined by a single detail). In music, an artist may be noted as a "platinum sales" artist, but doesn't generally note a specific song on a specific album in a lengthy career and it's sales for a specific month (barring one hit wonder which is the basis for the bio). A section specified for business and then information in context can be expanded upon, whether negative or positive. It should have facts on dates of employment, and then - if by consensus - include op-eds on both sides. Otherwise, all op-eds should be unusable in this situation. We can quote op-eds back and forth, with or without basis or partisan bickering or willful or unintentional blindness, but consensus needs to be formed to even decide to USE those op-eds. Once that is determined, then reputable sources can be used to present various aspects. "Lists of best" and "lists of worst" are still opinion. Given the plethora of "well, this op-ed says this" bickering, I personally think only hard facts and figures should be used since it will be unlikely that consensus on allowed sources will emerge either. It would behoove all the editors on this page to get down to minimizing the lead to general information, then making tiered decisions on a section-by-section basis. Seola (talk) 13:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

NOTE: Several days after this RFC began, the following news report became available: Goldman, David. "Behind Carly Fiorina's 30,000 HP layoffs", CNN Money (September 21, 2015): "She has also noted -- correctly — that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired."Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, other sources have also covered this, post-RfC:

• USA Today: "During Fiorina's reign, about 30,000 jobs were axed."
• CNN: "When you examine her record and the fact that she shipped 30,000 jobs overseas and forced those beautiful employees to even train their foreign replacements,..."
• Huffington Post: "She led the company when it laid off 30,000 employees."
• The Daily Beast: "By the time Fiorina was pushed out of HP three years after the Compaq deal, and given a $21 million severance package, HP had laid off 30,000 workers."
• Christian Science Monitor: "But despite Fiorina's efforts to cut costs by slashing 30,000 jobs, HP's stock fell 50 percent, lagging behind rivals IBM and Dell."
• Washington Post: "Trump criticized her stewardship of HP, which fired her in 2005 and suffered 30,000 layoffs on her watch."
• Politico: "Exhibit No. 1 in the case against Fiorina, rival campaigns assert, will be her stewardship of Hewlett Packard, which laid off around 30,000 workers during her tenure as chief executive officer."

These should be taken into account, along with any other reliable sources that have covered the subject.- MrX 14:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

None of those sources contradicts the info from CNN Money and other sources indicating the extent of hiring she did. There is lots of info in this BLP that is supported by only one source, never mind the many sources about the extent of hiring that she did. While her political opponents may wish to emphasize the firing and deny the hiring, we have a policy on neutrality, and a BLP policy that requires fairness to living people.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

We should definitely be fair in how we treat Mrs. Fiorina in this article. This will be achieved by basing content in this article on information consistent across a broad selection of reputable sources, as opposed to hand-selecting content that unduly portrays the subject in an overly-flattering light.- MrX 15:24, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead at present is fair. It boggles my mind that anyone could think it "overly flattering" to mention the number of people she hired. Do you really think it's overly flattering for the lead to say (as it now does) that, "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired, including employees outside the United States."?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I agree, the current lead is pretty fair. I have no objection the the lead whatsoever. I can't speak for anyone else, but this is probably about as close to a perfect lead as we will see until there is new, significant information.- MrX 15:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that this text is completely misleading: "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired, including employees outside the United States." - Cwobeel (talk) 14:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a somewhat euphemistic way of saying that jobs were offshored. Other than that, what about it do you find misleading?- MrX 14:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Because it is. Most of the gains in hires during her tenure were abroad or via acquisitions. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not remotely suggest the contrary.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Acquisitions is not hiring, so that shouldn't be part of the "hiring more people than were fired" at all. The question is, did HP hire at least 30,001 people under her leadership. If the answer is yes, then the wording above is accurate. If there are sources that say that most of those jobs were in other countries, then we can change the wording to: "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired, most outside the United States." - MrX 15:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is the math: After merger HP had 145,000 employees, and when Fiorina was fired, HP had 150,000. If you compute that 8,000 of these employees were from acquisitions, how can we say "hiring more people than were fired" with a straight face? - Cwobeel (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

For many reasons. First, CNN says so. Second, your figures do not address anything that happened before the merger. Third, your 145,000 is ambiguous, given that the layoffs resulting from the Conpaq merger occurred in part after the merger.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You are not making any sense. The math is clear and undisputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

"After the merger" is not the same as "the beginning of Fiorina's tenure as CEO. The relevant sentence in the body of the article states: "In 1999, when Fiorina became CEO of HP, the company had 84,800 employees. After the merger with Compaq, the company had a total of 145,000 employees worldwide. At the time of her resignation in 2005, after HP had acquired several other companies, HP had about 150,000 employees."

That's a net gain of 65,200 employees. The lead can't very well say something that contradicts the body of the article.- MrX 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

But "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired, " is factually incorrect if you do the math and include the fact that the increase in headcount was due to acquisitions, not hires. What you may be able to say is that the number of employees worldwide did not change much, but you can't say the Hp "hired" more than fired. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that CNN is wrong?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

And when we know that a source has a fact wrong, we can just present the data. So what we can say is there was no change in headcount during her tenure, that she fired 30,000 and leave it at that. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that sources sometimes get it wrong, however your math makes some bold assumptions, for example, that no one was hired or fired from the time she joined the company to when the merger was consummated. Are there any sources that explicitly contradict CNN? - MrX 15:47, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What I am saying is that we can't say that HP hired more people that they fired during Fiorina's tenure. That calculation does not require any bold assumptions. - Cwobeel (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Even if there are sources that explicitly contradict CNN (I'm not aware of any), we should not be picking one source over another source we like better. I've already said that the best solution here would be to get this layoff stuff out of the lead. Several other editors have agreed.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no contradiction of sources. The facts are undisputed. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• CNN: She has also noted -- correctly — that despite bruising layoffs, she hired more people than she fired. HP and Compaq had a combined 148,100 employees just before she was hired in 1999, and 150,000 by the time she was fired in 2005.

• Politifact: According to SEC filings, HP had 84,400 employees worldwide in 2001, the year before the merger. In 2001, Compaq had 63,700 full-time employees. That comes to a total of 148,100 workers. In 2005, just after her departure, HP's worldwide workforce reached 150,000. Net gain? In the Los Angeles Times story, reporter Robin Abcarian said that claim is dubious, because 'in that same period, HP bought more than a dozen other U.S. companies with at least 8,000 employees, according to company filings, press releases and news reports.'….It's clear that Fiorina laid off 30,000 workers as a result of the merger with Compaq, as she said in the interview with InformationWeek. And it's clear that by October 2005 the merged company employed more workers than the two separate companies had pre-merger (Fiorina had been forced out seven months earlier in February 2005). But some of those jobs may have resulted from acquisitions, and some may have been abroad.

• WaPo: [T]he number of [HP] employees was 84,800 in 1999 and 151,000 in 2004, according to the 10-K reports. On paper, that certainly looks like an increase in jobs. But before the merger with Compaq, HP had 86,200 employees and Compaq had 63,700 employees. That adds up to 149,900. HP’s filings show that the combined company had 141,000 employees in 2002 and 142,000 employees in 2003. By 2005, the number was 150,000. In other words, the number of employees barely budged from the pre-merger total–and people lost jobs as a result. The Los Angeles Times, evaluating Fiorina’s record when she ran for the Senate in 2010, noted that during her tenure HP also acquired more than a dozen other companies with at least 8,000 employees. Indeed, Fiorina has acknowledged firing more than 30,000 workers in the wake of the Compaq merger.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that no other source is contradicting CNN's assertion that "she hired more people than she fired"?Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect:'

• "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired.

and this is correct:

• During Fiorina's tenure 30,000 U.S employees were laid off, but the total number of HP employees did not change due to acquisitions.

- Cwobeel (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Your math is wrong/misleading. 150-149k = 1k increase in employees. -8k from acquisitions = 7k net firings. 30k were laid off, but 23k were hired afterwards (excluding the non-compaq acquisitions). The net change in (global) jobs is 7k. Some/many of those jobs may be overseas, but we do not have nearly enough information to be able to tell what the net shift of US workers was. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

30k were laid off, but 23k were hired afterwards, so why are we saying in the lede that under Fiorina HP hired more than fired? - Cwobeel (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why are we talking about this in the lead at all is a better question. Presenting this information fairly and neutrally requires context that is undue for the lede. We are not going to to find a one sentence/one number version that is accurate and npov. This belongs in the body, where we have ample sourcing and space for all of the math and opinions covered. 16:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Why? Because it is the most covered aspect of this person and thus one of the most significant aspects of her bio. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

@SuperCarnivore591: please see discussion above. The tag is needed until this is resolved. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

None of this warrants a "dubious" tag; it is original research. You're suggesting that despite the fact that more people were hired than were fired during her tenure, because some of those hires were from acquisitions, they don't count as real hires. Reliable sources, including CNN, say otherwise, and that logic is original research anyway. For that reason, it is correct to say, as reported by the sources, that more people were hired than fired during Fiorina's tenure. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Original research has nothing to do with this, as the data in undisputed. Adding to your headcount by means of an acquisition, is not hiring in any book. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I will OK with stating that the number of employees did not change much during her tenure, but we can say that HP hired more than fired. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cwobeel is correct. Acquiring a company is not hiring employees. It's acquiring the employees.- MrX 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Current text in lede: During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired.
• Proposed compromise: During Fiorina's five-and-a-half years tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, but the total number of employees did not substantially change over those five-and-a-half years.

If this is not acceptable, please counter propose. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but it needs to be clarified. Something like "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, but the total number of employees did not substantially change over those five-and-a-half years."- MrX 21:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe better prose: ''During Fiorina's five-and-a-half years tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, but the total number of employees did not substantially change. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I was about to fix my wording in a similar way.- MrX 22:01, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand... I thought we had rough consensus that the lead was NPOV as currently written. What's changed?CFredkin (talk) 22:05, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

What has changed is that the research I have done shows that the statement as currently written is not factually accurate. It is rather an unattributed opinion of a CNN Money's reporter, stated as a fact in Wikipedia's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I notice the text actually says "During Fiorina's tenure, HP laid off 30,000 U.S. employees, while hiring more people than were fired, including employees outside the United States." I assume the suggested compromise would remove the "including employees outside the United States?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support - The current text is obscure. One of the sources used [2] states: "HP and Compaq had a combined 148,100 employees just before she was hired in 1999, and 150,000 by the time she was fired in 2005" - which is more accurately described by stating, but the total number of employees did not substantially change. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The number of HP employees obviously increased dramatically during her tenure, due to acquisitions plus hiring. To say the number of employees did not change would make us all look, well, either dishonest or dumb, IMHO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Then propose an alternative, because the current version is a not attributed opinion written in Wikipedia's voice. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? I used a good chunk of this talk page urging for restoration of the last stable version which I thought was appropriate and well-sourced. I also think the current version is acceptable. I have also suggested leaving the matter out of the lead. Do I have to keep suggesting alternatives until it's exactly what you want? Your proposal is grossly inaccurate, and so I'm not going to support anything similar to it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to support the current version either, so if you are unwilling to discuss, let us wait for others to weigh in and support, oppose, or counter propose. See WP:DR. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss keeping the current version, going back to the last stable version, or leaving the matter out of the lead. If someone else wants to suggest something else, I'm glad to discuss that too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The "research" that Cwobeel did is original research, and CNN, a reliable source, states otherwise, that Fiorina is correct in saying that more people were hired than were fired during her tenure. We should not be choosing WP:OR over what the source says. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

With the intent of reaching consensus, I have started this RfC as the previous infobox photo, present until recently as a result of consensus reached in July (see here - editors involved were Anythingyouwant, Spartan7W, Eclipsoid, and myself (Winkelvi). That photo in the infobox for months was agreed on by three editors and remained unchallenged. It was removed recently without discussion. A current discussion on this talk page leaves out that consensus-decided-upon photo, with only two choices. This RfC is for fairly and properly deciding on one infobox photo with all three photos available for the survey and discussion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

#1

#2

#3

Infobox images to choose from

• Support The photo not only complies with policy on infobox photos: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic; they not only should be illustrating the topic specifically, but should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see..."; "The first image in an article, regardless of whether it is placed in the lead, will be enlarged and displayed at the top of all articles viewed in the Android mobile app...When selecting images for the article, consider whether the order of the images may inadvertently produce a non-neutral, unfair, or otherwise poor educational experience for readers who use mobile devices.". Image #1, in my opinion, gives a good view of Fiorina in that it is a closeup, shows her face from a mostly frontal view, and is well lit. To quote Anythingyouwant in the previous infobox image photo discussion back in July regarding requirements for infobox photos: "...a top pic should not show the subject looking directly away from the article text, and preferably will show the subject looking more forward than to the side. Also, the pic will preferably not be an (idolizing) shot from below, it should be of top quality...". This photo meets those requirements. The other two do not meet those requirements in the least (again, in my opinion). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support Same rationale as WV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 03:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• No. She looks downright anemic, the microphone partially blocks her face, and she's "looking directly away from the article text". If the colors were better and the microphone photoshopped out, I might reconsider. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Most neutral facial expression than the others. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. This longstanding image is okay, and ought to remain until we find one that's unequivocally better.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - but it needs to be flipped so she is facing the text. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSIMAGES...."It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people ought not be reversed to make the person's face point towards the text, because faces are generally asymmetrical. Reversal may result in materially misleading the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It actually looks okay without flipping. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

• No This photo appears unnatural or retouched and at any rate we certainly should not flip an image, which misrepresents the subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• No. She looks pretty sour. There is nothing redeeming about that picture. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2d choice. I don't think she looks sour. The expression seems determined, contemplative, and attentive to me. Picture quality is good, plus not too much makeup.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2d choice per Anythingyouwant. SPECIFICO talk 18:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support, but with the caveat that it be cropped and only use the head. There is no microphone blocking her head, the colors are good, and she looks toward the text. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support - It looks more like the candidate, has more accurate skin tones, and has better lighting than both alternatives. Image #1 has flat lighting, jaundiced skin tones and the subject is gazing off into space, mouth agape.- MrX 13:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• 2nd choice - Cwobeel (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

*Support, with the caveat that it be cropped and only use the head.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support per BullRageifier, with or without cropping. I think the microphone shows her to be active and alert and engaged with the implied audience, which is good. On the other hand for a small image I think the cropping will give a better view of her face and personality. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• No Even cropped, the photo is taken from below her eye level. Further, it really almost doesn't look like her when compared with the other two. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support. Summoned by bot. Photo No. 1 shows mic in front of face, which is not optimal. This one marginally better, if cropped. Coretheapple (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support Cropped I think it looks pretty good. No. 1 and No. 2 are just awful. Gandydancer (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The previously highlighted issues in #1 makes this one better, in my opinion. I don't really care if it's cropped or not. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)