This is an archive of past discussions about Carly Fiorina. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a bio, but we have a political positions section, in which we report on the subjects' viewpoints, including comments that have been debunked or fact checked. Deleting material that describe this person's views, is not what these sections are about - Cwobeel(talk)15:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It is not undue to present the viewpoint of a LP in his bio, and fact checking related to the viewpoint as reported in reliable sources. That is what that section is about. - Cwobeel(talk)15:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
There is nothing undue here and deleting well-sourced material, widely discussed in the media, such deletion based on a specious BLP justification, is apt to lead to Arbcom Enforcement in these politics-related BLPs. SPECIFICOtalk18:12, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
According to expert testimony,
there were 6937 community banks in 2010, and that number declined 12% in the next four years. So, 832 community banks closed in the four years from 2010 to 2014. I do not support mentioning this fact in the present BLP, because our "political positions" section ought to describe her political positions, and that does not include describing opinions, critiques, counterarguments, or partisan hatchet jobs that support her positions or oppose her positions. User:CFredkin is entirely correct here, IMHO. For us to say or imply or cite some source as saying that 543 banks have failed since 2008 is not only probably wrong, but it is also completely inappropriate for the BLP of Fiorinia. Please put it in the article about community banks or something like that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
All candidates make claims that turn out to be exaggerated or incorrect. Unless this misstatement received widespread on-going coverage, it should not be mentioned. TFD (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It has been covered, and she has made the same claims multiple times. If we had a separate article on political positions, that material will remain. Th fact that we have a section and not an article does not mean that the material is not relevant. - Cwobeel(talk)21:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is unresponsive to the expert testimony that I provided. Moreover, per instructions:
“
You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:
[1]There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.
[2]It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.
[3]In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.
”
Per [2], it is not clear what the neutrality issue is here. We are seeking to neutrally describe her political position, not neutrally describe the political issue that she was addressing, and, even if we were trying to do the latter, why ignore expert testimony?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the last warning I'm going to post here: Revert-warring with with an unsupported "BLP" or "per talk" justification is directly in violation of Arbcom sanctions concerning American Politics. As to the substance of this article content, TFD is absolutely correct we may only include what secondary RS identify and document as noteworthy. Original Research as to percentages without RS that relates it to Fiorina's musrepresentations as they relate to her campaign positions, is irrelevant and useless to this discussion. SPECIFICOtalk21:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If that "last warning" is directed at me, please kindly note that I have edited this article once and only once during the past 24 hours, and that edit included an extensive edit summary: "Per discussion at talk page, this is not the place for data about community bank failures, or for political positions opposing Fiorina's." So if your "last warning" is directed at me, it is extremely inappropriate. Perhaps you meant to give a "last warning" to Cwobeel, who has edited this article five times in the last 24 hours.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Cwobel, rather than say it has received on-going coverage, could you please provide a reliable source that says that. TFD (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The 1,700 closed community banks is something that Fiorina keeps repeating: And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers. That is an argument borrowed from the conservative leaning Mercatus center.[1] Sources abound.- Cwobeel(talk)22:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
These deregulatory actions [Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, the Riegle-Neale Act of 1994, which expanded interstate banking, and the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999] eliminated rules that had kept the financial industry relatively stable over the previous seventy years. Republicans tend to ignore this history, and point solely to Dodd-Frank, the regulatory legislation introduced in 2010 to crack down on risky behavior in the financial industry, as the main killer of small community banks over the past few years - Cwobeel(talk)22:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
As best I can tell, your WSJ link does not mention Fiorina, much less quote her. And, your Salon link quotes her about community banks, and then merely says that Republicans believe Dodd-Frank was "the main killer of small community banks over the past few years" without taking issue with Fiorina's stats about how many community banks have failed. Your two links are thus very unhelpful (at best), it seems to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not a complicated issue: the section is for neutral statements of Fiorina's political positions; NOT for critiques of those positions. It isn't difficult to distinguish between the two. Eclipsoid (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Apparently it is difficult, for some of us. To wit: if one of Fiorina's positions is based on faulty, incorrect, or misleading claims, then a neutral description of her position should include that context. This is the difference between an encyclopedia and a campaign website. MastCellTalk21:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
And, if a bunch of Democratic Party officials accuse Fiorina of having a position that is faulty or incorrect then we have to include reports about it in reliable sources? I think not. That info can go in the Wikipedia articles about the accusing parties. We can give a factual, encyclopedic, and concise summary of Fiorina's political positions without including all the fluff and hype on her website, and without including the counterattacks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Since no one has proposed using "a bunch of Democratic Party officials" as a source, your comment is unhelpful at best and intentionally misleading at worst. MastCellTalk22:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I personally don't think I should be topic-banned for mentioning that the members of one party very often assert that members of the opposing party have political positions that are faulty or incorrect, and reliable sources often report about it. But that's just me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
It appears that sources vary pretty widely in their estimates of how many community banks failed over the last several years. Here's one that estimates over 1,000.CFredkin (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume you're referring to the following, which doesn't seem like a strong dismissal of her claim: "the American Banker recently reported that community banks have been closing for decades, and there appear to be a number of interrelated factors hitting the industry, with Dodd-Frank being one among many."CFredkin (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Mastcell, how do you know that Fiorina's position that Dodd Frank should be repealed is based on her belief that it led to 1,590 community banks closing? The Politico source does not say that. Maybe you have it the wrong way around, that her belief Dodd Frank should be repealed is the reason she made the claim about the failures. But that is all conjecture and requires reliable secondary sources. Beyond that, you need to show that this observation has itself received coverage.
While my reply may appear strict, all articles must reflect subjects as they are normally described in reliable sources. RS of course may provide unfair emphasis or neglect of important aspects of a subject, but is consistent with neutrality.
Fiorina's stump speech: And 1,700 community banks went out of business and are still going out of business. And 1,700 community banks going out of business is really bad for the communities of America because community banks are where farmers, small-business owners, or a family get their loan. And so what happened with Dodd-Frank? What happens with each one of these things? The big get bigger, the powerful get more powerful, the wealthy and the well-connected use their wealth and connections for lobbying, for accountants, for lawyers. [4] 22:43, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Fox News: Fiorina said Dodd-Frank resulted in ten "too big to fail" banks becoming five even bigger banks. She noted that it also destroyed nearly 1,600 community banks.[5] - Cwobeel(talk)22:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Washington Examiner: Fiorina faulted the Dodd-Frank financial reform law for leading to consolidation in the banking industry and regulatory burdens that have hurt community banks. The increase in the size of the give biggest banks is "crony capitalism," she said. [6] - Cwobeel(talk)22:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
So Fiorina was using stats and opinions from the Mercatus Center. They define community banks as having less than $10 billion in assets and of course many if not most of those banks disappear through acquisitions by larger banks, not bankruptcy. And it's not enough to present evidence that Fiorina said was reported, you need to show the sources reported it as incorrect. TFD (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
One of the sources was in the original edit: During the Dodd-Frank portion of the GOP debate (where a few candidates made hazy claims of their own), Fiorina threw out the figure that 1,590 community banks have gone out of business. Not quite! According to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which tracks banks’ demise across the country, just 543 banks have failed since 2008. The latest one occurred on Oct. 2 in Washington state, when the Hometown National Bank closed its doors.[7] - Cwobeel(talk)22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, I don't object to summarizing her position about Dodd Frank and community banks, in this BLP. What I object to is adding an assertion that she is wrong. I don't think we have the necessary sources to say so, and I also don't think it's practical for Wikipedia editors to basically decide whether or not to include condemnations of political platforms within BLPs of candidates.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If a politician or anybody else repeatedly asserts as fact that elephants can fly faster than carrier pigeons, then it is not "condemnation" to cite RS which explain that the assertion is not true. SPECIFICOtalk23:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
As CFredkin said above, "sources vary pretty widely in their estimates of how many community banks failed over the last several years." It's not our job to cherry-pick the sources that make Fiorina look worst. There's simply not enough space in a BLP to discuss every notable opinion about her positions, so we ought not even try.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:V and WP:OR and see comments above by TFD and myself. And please don't again raise the straw-man issue as to statistics concerning bank consolidations or refer to cherry-picking when that is not what's being discussed here. SPECIFICOtalk23:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
The edit that this whole discussion is about involves statistics concerning bank failures, so I disagree with you that those statistics are inappropriate topics of discussion here. Anyway, I'm done here for the day. Cheers!Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@Anythingyouwant:This thread is not about statistics at all. This thread is about whether RS discuss the statistics and Fiorina's misrepresentation of them in the context of presenting her political positions and finally whether the RS present this matter as a noteworthy and significant aspect of her political stance. SPECIFICOtalk23:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If you don't understand the words of several editors who have explained the issue here, please don't make snide and unconstructive remarks. SPECIFICOtalk00:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Cwobell, banks going out of business and failure are not the same thing. The failed banks were insolvent, placed into receivership, the FDIC paid their depositors and they were sold to other banks. TFD (talk) 02:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Just that Fiorina is arguing that closure is related to the Dodd-Frank legislation, and she presented inaccurate data to make a political; point. That is what is presented in the references. - Cwobeel(talk)04:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, RS point out that Dodd Frank did not take effect instantaneously as of the trough of the crisis and then even after passage was phased-in across many dimensions. We don't need to belabor it by providing all the detail recited in RS examinations of this -- that would be undue -- but there's no question as to the mainstream view of the facts surrounding her statements and inferences. SPECIFICOtalk04:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
It is certainly true that Dodd Frank did not stop 1,700 banks (approximately) from going out of business, which is what Fiorina said. She did not say in the debate that Dodd Frank caused them to go out of business. TFD (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually, she did say exactly that. She said Dodd-Frank is "how socialism begins" favoring large powerful interests over widespread smaller ones, concentrating power, etc. She cites the reduced number of small banks as an instance of that process. It's been reported in Reuters and elsewhere. I believe she said in the recent debate. I haven't looked for a citation because I think that would be undue detail, but she does blame Dodd Frank for the reduced number of small banks. SPECIFICOtalk19:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Rather than debate what Fiornia may have said, here's the transcript from the WaPost
FIORINA: Can I just -- could I just say, as a chief executive who's had to make tough calls to save jobs and to grow jobs, I think what's interesting about Dodd-Frank is it's a great example of how socialism starts.
Socialism starts when government creates a problem, and then government steps in to solve the problem. Government created the problem.
(APPLAUSE)
Government created the problem of a real estate boom. How did we create it? Under Republican and Democrats alike, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, everybody gathered together, Republicans and Democrats, and said, "home ownership is part of the American dream. Let's create a bubble," and then government stepped in -- by the way, under president George W. Bush, banks were told -- encouraged -- told, really -- to buy other banks, to take money.
And now what do we have with Dodd-Frank? The classic of crony capitalism. The big have gotten bigger, 1,590 community banks have gone out of business, and on top of all that, we've created something called the Consumer Financial Production Bureau, a vast bureaucracy with no congressional oversight that's digging through hundreds of millions of your credit records to detect fraud.
This is how socialism starts, ladies and gentlemen. We must take our government back. Activist (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
t looks like she says that Dodd Frank is a continuation of Bush's policies where large banks were encouraged to acquire smaller ones. It seems like a fair comment, rather than (as Politico said) a mistaken belief that 1,700 banks had failed. To be fair, it is hard to understand what she is saying. I do not understand her seque from socialism to crony capitalism and back again. I note too that Factcheck.org did not comment on her remarks. TFD (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that FactCheck analyzes every statement made by every candidate. Of the 12 candidates that night, they only commented on statements made by eight of them. Christie, Kasich, Santorum and Fiorina were exempted from scrutiny entirely. You likely didn't understand what Fiorina was saying because she does not necessarily make sense. FactCheck did take Cruz to particular task over falsehoods ("Whopper") in his tax plan and his oft repeated claim about ostensible congressional staff health exemptions. They also questioned the basis of Trump's quote about the magnitude of Eisenhower's deportations. For many decades I've always assume the original claim was correct, since I've never seen it challenged before and, excepting his statements about the U-2, he always seemed honest. Apparently, the deportation numbers may have been dubious. Activist (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
If she did not make the top 8 of the evening, then it fails significance. And Politico was inaccurate to say that she said the banks failed. Furthermore, you need to establish significance with a secondary source. For example, a news article could say, "Fiorina has been roundly criticized for factual inaccuracies in the debate." Neutrality requires that we reflect aspects of each subject according to how they are presented in reliable sources, not that we present everything ever said about them. TFD (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
This is a case in point that demonstrates why we need secondary RS to characterize and assess her statement. The statement is remarkable in that it cannot be paraphrased into anything shorter than the original without losing the essence of it. Of itself, the statement apparently was not important enough to draw extensive comment by RS. SPECIFICOtalk18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Red Pic (June 2015)
Blue Pic (October 2015)
Which pic is best at the top?03:45, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Red. The Blue photo is of such poor technical quality it borders on a BLP violation. It's out of focus, it's dark, it lacks contrast. No competent photo editor would publish that. SPECIFICOtalk04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
note The "red" image should not be cropped, because the context is given by the full image which shows us that Ms. Fiorina is speaking to a sizable audience situated beneath her. Crop away the mike and the angle and the photo loses its meaning. SPECIFICOtalk22:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Red - The blue photo is poor quality. It's badly out of focus, poorly lit, low contrast, has blotchy yellow skin tones, dull overall color and a cluttered background. It makes the subject look like she has racoon eyes and snaggleteeth, to the point of being nearly unrecognizable. Apologies to the photographer for being so critical, but this is really not a keeper.- MrX00:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Red — definitely, but: (a) what happened to the old blue one, was that retouched too much?, (b) per a suggestion in the old RFC, could this be more of a head shot? It's a nice dress and she's smartly dressed and in good shape, but putting too much emphasis on her body and clothing is not appropriate to the subject of business and politics, and (c) could we encourage somebody to take a new picture at one of her events, or ask her campaign to release an appropriate picture to the public domain? Anyway, between these two choices, definitely red. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
A Draw - I think either photo would be fine; I'm not able to narrow it down to one or the other. (But if the red one is chosen, it could probably use a bit of cropping.) Richard27182 (talk) 10:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Red - Blue photo is poorly lit, has poor contrast, a distracting background, and "racoon eyes". It's an amateurish snapshot, not fit for inclusion. Eclipsoid (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Red - The blue photo has horrible lighting, is out of focus and has low contrast. It should not be used, especially not in a BLP, as it doesn't depict the subject properly. The red photo is very clear, focused, bright, and shows her in a professional setting. I also agree with cropping the red version to make it a little more centered around her face. Cheers, ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro16:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Red - This image is much more professional. The blue one looks more like a crappy Facebook profile pic someone took with their old iPhone or something. Sergecross73msg me15:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Red The red image is by far the better choice. As others have stated above: the red image is more clear, professional, and just better overall. I'm actually surprised this is even up for discussion. Arguments supporting the blue image, I'd like to hear what you think makes it look "more like Fiorina". Meatsgains (talk) 20:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Note - I just sharpened, brightened and made the blue pic smaller. It can easily be reverted back at commons if anyone objects. I don't particularly like either pic, but at least I think the blue one is better than it was. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
@Fyunck(click): I appreciate the effort, but I don't think that we should do heroic retouching of photos, particularly of Living Persons. Moreover, it's certainly not appropriate to change the image after the RfC is underway. Please undo your revision of the photo. SPECIFICOtalk13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey, just trying to help. One thing though... we retouch living person photos all the time here. Rarely is the original good enough, so this is one of thousands. Does everyone else agree that the original should be put back? Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Never doubted how helpful you are, but let's not discuss whether to ruin the RfC. We have a dozen+ who have responded on the originals. Please undo your change. Thanks. SPECIFICOtalk22:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Specifico. This is a survey about the uncropped red photo and the unretouched blue photo. If another photo is better than both of those, then nothing in this RFC will prevent its use.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
Red - Both images are useful for identification,but the Redpic is clearly superior in basic photographic qualities like brightness, color, shape, and detail. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:38, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
This is the second RfC here in which an editor has changed the photo with an edit comment anticipating the outcome or justifying the change "per talk." The purpose of an RfC is to arrive at an orderly consensus. Changes during the RfC are disruptive, particularly with an edit comment which appears to suggest consensus on talk rather than the comments of a minority of the editors here. Now that this RfC has been launched, for better or for worse, it needs to run its course. SPECIFICOtalk22:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
This RFC is only about two particular pics: an uncropped red one, and an unretouched blue one. If there is a pic that's better than those two, nothing in this RFC prevents or delays its use in the article. I wouldn't say that suggesting otherwise is "disruptive" or nasty or anything like that, but it does seem incorrect.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
better version of existing file. I reverted my brightness correction as asked. However I do think that my version (right) is a better blue pic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Speaking of picture quality, has anyone noticed that the red picture as it appears at the top of this RfC contains very noticeable data compression error, especially in her face and around her neck? I've noticed that the version of the same photo at: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Carly_Fiorina_by_Gage_Skidmore_3.jpg contains virtually no noticeable compression error. In the event that the red photo is the one selected for use, which version would actually be placed in the article; the one with the noticeable JPEG error or the one without? Richard27182 (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I am not going to actually vote since I very much dislike this woman and I don't think I can be objective. However, I think the following observations are relatively fact-based. I think the retouched image in the blue outfit is in fact a better image. I also think the blue outfit suits her better; this is true of most blondes, that blue is a better color than red. It is true that red makes clear that she is a candidate but it also captures the passive-aggressive little smile that makes me grind my teeth. I'd actually say this is the more accurate image. But if we are looking for the kindest and most flattering, we want the blue Elinruby (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The line referencing that she laid off 30'000 people to make HP more compeditive and safeguard the remaining 80'000 jobs is extremely subjective and the source comes from her own "Secretary to CEO" website. I'm sure there are many reasons for laying off 30'000 people and maybe it did save the other 80'000 jobs but there's no real evidence offered. I believe the line should be removed completely.
Survey About New Picture
New picNew pic lighting correctedNew pic lighting corrected version 2 - slightly darkerCurrent top pic
At right is a recently-uploaded picture, and below that is the current top picture. Which would be better atop the article?
That picture has already been considered many times and overwhelmingly rejected (not by me though). I think we need to focus on the new picture versus the picture that was most favored (i.e. the current top picture).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
New picture version 2 I have taken the new one (which I like very much) but have brought the lighting up a bit more. Skidmore's photos often are too dark, especially for infobox photos. I think the lighting correction makes the picture even more appealing. -- WV ● ✉✓23:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant: I can, and will if others agree with your analysis. But I do have to wonder if your computer monitor settings are off a bit. I looked at the photo on four different screens (two cell phones, my computer, and my tablet) and all four showed a natural lighting, and definitely not a pale skin tone. -- WV ● ✉✓00:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I will go ahead and upload another, and see what you think. Not trying to be difficult, but seriously -- it doesn't look "chalky" or pale to me or anyone else I've had look at it. -- WV ● ✉✓00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
First off, you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia. Second the one with the mike has been stable for a long time and it shows her in the context of her political activities (or previous marketing activities, which have always been her strong point.) There are many other ways to improve this article. SPECIFICOtalk00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
"you can't be practicing your retouching skills on a BLP photo, or really any photo in an encyclopedia" I don't know where you've gotten the impression that photos can't be changed, updated, or even retouched in Wikipedia. They can and it happens all the time. The new photo is infinitely better than the one that's currently there. And the one that's currently there is the best of many we've had to choose from. Getting the best photo possible should be the goal, just as writing the article to be the best it can be should be the goal. -- WV ● ✉✓00:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
This is not the place for amateur photoshop heroics, nor is it the place to reassert your view without addressing the issue of encyclopedic and factual accuracy. Why not ask her for a freely shareable photo? Then you'll have a real option worth the discussion. SPECIFICOtalk03:55, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Really not understanding your problem with editors doing what editors do at Wikimedia Commons: make images better to improve Wikipedia. If you don't like any of the options, don't vote. If you have nothing good to say about the options, why comment at all? Begone, Debbie Downer. -- WV ● ✉✓04:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The image proposed by User:Itsyoungrapper is the best available in my opinion. I'm not sure why it has been rejected. Too real perhaps? Nevertheless, if consensus favors the NFRW 2015 pic (which is much better than the contorted face image currently being used), the original should be used rather than any of the poorly done washed out versions by Winkelvi.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Can most of us agree on the original NFRW 2015 pic as an improvement upon what's used now? I agree that it is. So let's install it, and discuss brightened versions later.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No. You should not replace the image without consensus. It's already survived 2 RFC's and if you insist on relitigating the matter, you should post a new RFC, including the new alternative offered above, and give editors at least a month to participate. Otherwise this feels like an edit war of attrition. SPECIFICOtalk10:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
In my opinion, "Current top pic" is still the best image for this bio, because it has better lighting, contrast, color and it provides useful context. Unfortunately, the inferior lighting in the other two candidates can't be fixed by boosting luma levels. - MrX21:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
I accidentally hit "Enter" and cut off my edit summary, which was going to be, "It's current, it's flattering, it's on her campaign website (cropped and enlarged). YoPienso (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
No surprise that WP editors have preferred the most illustrative and flattering one that CF herself uses to portray her signature alertness vigor and communication skills. SPECIFICOtalk00:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I prefer the image uploaded December 16, which I don't think CF uses. If she did use it, then it might be more like an official image, but I don't see that her use or non-use of an image should decide the matter for us.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
If you're going to pursue this, please set up a proper RfC among the 3 choices and let's get as many editors as possible to assist in this matter. I suggest you leave out the retouched versions and in the event that close-up is favored by consensus, we can consider the issues concerning retouching and editing of the file. SPECIFICOtalk01:27, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
It goes without saying that you are free to do whatever you please. I'm just trying to help you to avoid disappointment. If you rush things or don't seek broad consensus the current image will not ultimately be replaced. I'm just suggesting you not waste a lot of time effort and false expectation that a change cam be made without due process. I wouldn't advise you to omit that photo, especially since it received lots of support in the past and current go-rounds. Another good way to avoid disappointment and an inconclusive outcome would be to ping each of the editors who participated in the previous discussions of various images. SPECIFICOtalk02:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Prefer"New Pic Lighting Corrected" image. Second choice IMO is "New Pic Lighting Corrected Version 2 -- slightly darker.". CometEncke (talk) 09:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not SPECIFICO, but I found that there were some problems with your version. For example, "On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept money from researchers for fetal body parts." while technically consistent with the Fox News source, is overly sensationalist wording. Later in the source, Fox News actually quotes PP as saying "...our Federation has decided, going forward, that any Planned Parenthood health center that is involved in donating tissue after an abortion for medical research will…accept no reimbursement for its reasonable expenses".
I have no problem with changing "body parts" to "tissue" in that edit. That change could have been made without reverting any, much less all 8, of my edits.CFredkin (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
You also changed "A grand jury later concluded that Planned Parenthood had not committed any wrongdoing,..." to "A grand jury later declined to charge Planned Parenthood of a crime,...", which of course implies that crime may have been committed.- MrX00:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The language I used is consistent with the role of a grand jury. To say that they ruled on whether there was "wrongdoing" implies to me that they are making some sort of value judgement regarding what PP was doing, which is not the case. That being said, I'm open to suggestions regarding potential alternative wording.
In any case, the content that was restored contains factual inaccuracies and NPOV language. In addition, well-sourced content was removed. I'm restoring those edits (with the first change above), while we continue to discuss the second issue.CFredkin (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The other issue is that Planned Parenthood did not sell tissues. we are supposed to report the facts, not put a particular candidate's spin on them. TFD (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
See "Planned Parenthood ends fetal tissue payments: how did we get here?" in The Guardian, which addresses your opinion.[10]TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
See the following sources which confirm that PP was accepting payment for fetal tissue: [11][12][13][14][15]CFredkin (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC) If you accept payment for something, that's not a donation. Try doing that on your tax forms and it will be rejected by the IRS.CFredkin (talk) 01:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Your first source, Fox News, says, "Planned Parenthood has maintained it only recoups its own expenses for harvesting and donating fetal tissue, the actual sale of which is barred by federal law." Their view is accepted in reliable sources and a grand jury today agreed with them.[16] Note also BLP prevents us from making false accusations against living people. BTW, did you read The Guardian article? TFD (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The fact that PP calls what they were doing "donating" isn't authoritative. The grand jury ruled that they didn't break the law. The Guardian article says they didn't break the law. However, that's irrelevant, because I'm not claiming that they broke the law. My edit states that they were "selling" fetal tissue. We can debate whether other language would be more appropriate. But it's not accurate to say that they were "donating" the tissue. That's not supported by the facts or the sources.CFredkin (talk) 01:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
CFredkin, The Guardian article does not say they did not break the law, it said they did not sell tissues. Again, could you please read the article, and also the link it provides which explains why it is inaccurate to say they sold tissues. If you do not have time, I will briefly explain it: They donate the tissues, but receive compensation for preparing them. That is standard, accepted and legal practice. TFD (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Where exactly does it say that? And, once again, I'm not wedded to the use of the term "sell". My objection is to the use of the term "donate".CFredkin (talk) 01:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Sources also refer to what PP was distributing as "body parts", but we've agreed not to use that term here because there are better, more appropriate terms. Similarly, the fact that the term "fetal tissue donation" appears in some sources, doesn't mean we need to refer to what they were doing as "donating" the fetal tissue. That's particulary true since they weren't actually donating it in at least some instances.CFredkin (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Would the following language be acceptable:
"In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which in some cases is reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue."CFredkin (talk) 01:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
"This money is usually paid by tissue procurement companies, such as StemExpress Inc, which prepare the materials for use by scientists. Planned Parenthood used the reimbursements to cover the expense of collecting and preparing such materials. The law that governs such transactions dates back to the 1990s, when the use of stem cells was widely debated." The linked article says, "[Arthur] Caplan’s ethics articles influenced a 1993 addition to title 42 of the US code, the statute cited in the videos which prohibits selling fetal tissue, but does allow for certain reimbursements based on cost." TFD (talk) 01:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, for you to continue to revert all 8 of my edits when there appears to only be a dispute about one of them, is not reasonable or in good faith.CFredkin (talk) 01:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I actually reverted one edit, your revert of SPECIFICO's revert of your 8 edits. Do you want to go over all 8? TFD (talk) 02:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
According to sources, the law states that PP is prohibited from selling fetal tissue at a profit. I'm not making that claim. My point was that when someone receives compensation for a good or service that's selling, regardless of whether it's done at a profit or a loss. But that's all beside the point. As I've stated above, my objection is to the use of th e term "donate", which I think for most people implies that PP received no compensation (or reimbursement) for the tissue they provided to researchers. That's definitely not the case. Therefore I think it's mis-leading to use the term "donate" here. I've made a good faith suggestion above of alternative language that I think is more accurate than either "sell" or "donate". If that's not acceptable, then I'd be interested to hear either an alternative proposal or an explanation as why "donate" is the best possible term here.CFredkin (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Your sources are wrong. U.S. law says "valuable consideration" not "at a profit."[20] PP received no compensation (or reimbursement) for the tissue they provided to researchers. Can you please read The Guardian article I provided. TFD (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I did read the Guardian article. It says: "On Tuesday, after multiple state and congressional investigations, Planned Parenthood announced it would stop seeking reimbursements for its fetal tissue donation program, despite insistence that its affiliates did not break the law." But you still haven't addressed my request above to respond to my alternative language and/or explained why "donate" is the best possible term to use here.CFredkin (talk) 04:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
The passage does not say Planned Parenthood sold the tissues or received money or donations for them. We need to report what sources say, not develop our own interpretations. TFD (talk) 05:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Once again, I'll propose that we instead use the following language:
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which at the time in some cases was reimbursed by researchers for providing fetal tissue.
Here's another option, which is also supported by sources:
In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization, which she claimed was providing fetal tissue to researchers at a profit.
Again, Planned Parenthood did not sell tissues, which is illegal. They did however receive compensation for the preparation of tissue samples from recipients. That is what the sources say, and that is what legal opinion says, and it is standard practice. It does not matter that the distinction escapes you. You cannot make allegations of criminality when sources contradict you. If fact the main significance of the story is that Fiorina repeated false allegations from people who are now under indictment.[21]TFD (talk) 06:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Your last post does not address my proposed language in any respect. It also does not address the concerns I've stated repeatedly here. It doesn't appear at this point that you're arguing in good faith.CFredkin (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll also re-iterate that the statement we've been discussing ("In a September 2015 Republican presidential candidates' debate on CNN, Fiorina was harshly critical of the Planned Parenthood organization for their involvement in fetal tissue donation.") is not supported by the sources provided there. That's a WP:BLP violation.CFredkin (talk) 07:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I've restored the language about "practice of selling". That much is indisputably true. As for "tissue" vs. "body parts" -- what Fiorina actually said, as far as I can find, referred to harvesting a "brain." So is a "brain" "tissue" or a "body part?" Or should we just call it a "brain"? CometEncke (talk) 10:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
It most certainly is "disputable". Let's please follow the sources and avoid doing our own research. TFD has made some very good points above. - MrX12:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
MR.X: For the umpteeenth time, the sources provided in the article do not support the statement that you just restored. If you're going to continue to insist that they do, then you need to cite here the specific content from one or more of the sources cited in the article to support the statement.CFredkin (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Removal of sourced content and restoration of POV language
What's the rationale for the reversion of this edit, which included the following:
1. The following statement, which was well-sourced and widely reported:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept money from researchers for fetal tissue.
2. The following statement, which included an edit to address POV language by clarifying the role of the grand jury in clearing PP of "wrongdoing":
A grand jury later declined to charge Planned Parenthood with wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record.
3. The following statement, which removed WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV weasel words ("Despite this.."):
Fiorina maintained her stance that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit.
None of these edits have been addressed thus far. I'm assuming for the first edit you're referring to your repeated, nonsense claims that PP didn't receive reimbursement for fetal tissue. I've started a RfC below to address that. I'm restoring the POV tag to the section until the other 2 items are addressed.CFredkin (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
One policy we need to follow is weight. The source is investigative journalism. Do you know if the U.S. media has picked up on it? TFD (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a silly political gotcha, and in no way relevant, biographically or any other way. It is significant that she was on the Board of Directors of Merck, one of the largest companies in the world — is it significant enough to put her Board memberships here? Who knows, that's a question of weight. Is it significant that Merck used fetal stem cells in the production of some vaccines? Probably not. It does not appear in the Merck article. It is not the subject of much discussion, or protests, or any particular event. To link the two together is pointless. THere is no point going through every politican's article and mention every job or affiliation they ever had with a company that did anything legal but controversial? The only way I could see this as being worthy of inclusion would be if this becomes a primary issue in the campaign, which hasn't happened and doesn't seem likely. Even then, it would probably belong in a campaign article, not a biographical one. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the following statement be added to Carly Fiorina:
On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept reimbursement from researchers for fetal tissue. At the time of the announcement, Fiorina commented: "This organization is continuing to butcher babies for their body parts while mocking pregnancy centers and taking taxpayer dollars."[1]
in conjunction with the following statement which was recently added:
A grand jury later concluded that Planned Parenthood had not committed any wrongdoing, and instead charged two of the activists who made the video with a felony: tampering with a government record. Despite this, Fiorina held her stance, asserting that Planned Parenthood was purposely "harvesting body parts" for profit.[2]
Add. I can make arguments for either keeping, or removing, both statements. Editors here in Talk have insisted that the 2nd statement above adds important context to the article. That argument applies to the first statement as well. In addition, the first statement is supported by many reliable sources (and has been confirmed by statements from PP themselves).CFredkin (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
No. Excess detail. No need to give Fiorina another chance to state her opinion, which in this case is vitriolic and a violation of WP:TONE. I find it ironic (and tiresome) that CFredkin continues to fight so strongly to include POV language, slapping a POV tag on the section when others are fighting the POV. Binksternet (talk) 06:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
CommentI believe the Fiorina/PP feud is notable and should be covered, but we have to stop somewhere. In light of that, I would suggest simply saying "On October 13, 2015, Planned Parenthood announced that it would no longer accept reimbursement from researchers for fetal tissue" and stopping there. That's directly related to Fiorina's comments, so it's relevant. I don't think the grand jury has any relevance to Fiorina -- it was not considering whether or not she should be charged with a crime. CometEncke (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Neither. This is a campaign issue, not biographically significant to the life and times of Carly Fiorina. If her involvement in the PP fray were significant, then it would be relevant to explain her involvement, leaving the underlying substance to those appropriate articles. But it is not, it's a fairly minor to middling campaign-related event.. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
No - not based on these sources and there is too much detail. This seems to me, if included, that it would violate WP:POV. I agree with all of the above users who do not agree with the proposed addition. Cheers and good luck, ComatmebroUser talk:Comatmebro19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
PAC Make America Awesome shares connection with Fiorina
Need to consider moving toward inclusion into article as further details gell. Fiorina and Pac's smear in Utah are linked and seen as a pro Cruz maneuver by Fiorina to posture for VP.[1]
The connectivity to Make America Awesome[2][3]
The Election CFO principal, Chris Marston[4]
_(cropped).jpg)
Fiorina in May 2015
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carly_Fiorina_NFRW_2015.jpg){kind=link}