| Revision as of 03:38, 15 February 2015 editElinruby (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users106,685 edits →RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM: opined← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 01:25, 14 February 2024 edit undoQwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs)Bots, Mass message senders4,012,035 edits Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion |
| (143 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |living=yes |class=C |a&e-work-group=yes |listas=Pascal, Amy}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|blp=yes|listas=Pascal, Amy| |
|
{{WikiProject California|class=c|importance=low|la=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography|filmbio-work-group=Yes|filmbio-priority=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business |class=C}} |
|
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|class=c|importance=low}} |
|
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|la=Yes|la-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Discrimination|importance=Low}} |
|
| blp=yes |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Judaism|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish culture|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Jewish Women|importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=low}} |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{reqphoto|people of California}} |
|
{{Image requested|people of California}} |
|
|
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|archiveprefix=Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/|format=Y|age=26297|index=yes|archivebox=yes|box-advert=yes}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== In regards to Spider-Man no way home == |
|
== Aren't there any sources defending Pascal??? == |
|
|
I know our articles have to follow the sources, but good God am I disappointed with the news media this time. They are painting this woman as a ''racist'' because she suggested that a black VIP might appreciate films with some black actors. Despite the fact that anybody with cable can go in and see a ''channel listing'' with things like "Starz in Black" on it, dedicated to the idea of serving black films to a black audience! How can cable providers have a full-on ''segregated'' video feed as their routine practice all over the U.S., yet when one woman suggests doing that same thing in a single instance in an email we should never have seen anyway, that's supposed to be a scandal? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thousands of people are upset about the ending of this. We do understand though how there had to be an a plot twist but how do you forget about a person that you go to school with there should have been that chance of redemption but because of this y'all really lost interest of a lot of fans ] (]) 02:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC) |
|
Anyway, count this as a request for some sensibility here. And if you see a sane source somewhere, for the love of God add it! ] (]) 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Done. --] (]) 09:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The "defence" sounds sycophantic and raises POV issues IMO. Doesn't it? What do other editors think? It is hard (impossible?) to "defend" racial remarks in our day and age thankfully.] (]) 14:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Meh. Similar, inverted arguments could be used to say that Sharpton's comments are POV, reactionary, not of any particularly special provenance or merit, and/or that he's overreacting intentionally in order to simply gain space in the media. It's a big world out there as regards commentaries. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::Substance matters; Pascal was clearly joking (inappropriately, but privately...as people are wont to do)...not calling for a KKK meeting on the subject. --] (]) 21:24, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I think in BLP controversies it's always important to go back to the original primary source. In this case the closest I found quickly was , which is referred (via a Buzzfeed intermediate link) from . What she said was ''“What should I ask the president at this stupid Jeffrey breakfast?” ... “I doubt it. Should I ask him if he liked DJANGO?” ... “Or the butler. Or think like a man? ”'' That's ''it''. Her entire end of the 'controversial' conversation! Now how can it be that cable channels are ''segregated'' with the notion that black people want to watch black movies, yet it is verboten for a woman in private to suggest that Obama might like one of three well-known movies that happen to have largely black casts??? |
|
|
:::: Of course, I can't -- ''alas'' -- spout off my 'original research' reaction in the article. But whatever we can do to be fair, we should. ] (]) 23:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I don't know her, so I don't know if she was joking or not, but I know she sounds very unprofessional in those business/work e-mails. Suggesting the president will enjoy films about slavery and being a butler just because his father was African is not very funny to me. In any case, I don't see why the section subhead was changed from "racial remarks" to "Guardian of Peace hack." The section, is, well, about the "racial" (or unprofessional if you want) remarks she made. I think calling it something else makes her sound less "racially insensitive" than she is--or that she clearly was in those supposed "jokes." I don't think Al Sharpton's comments are an overreacction--he is calling for more civil rights for the people she has offended; the Hollywood Reporter journalist however is saying she wouldn't hurt a fly...which is very vague and a little off topic. If the HR reporter journalist was making a real point, showing that she donated to African American schools for example, then it should be included. But his remarks are so vague that I don't think they should be. But again, what do other editors (who have not responded yet) think? I think we should be able to reach a more balanced, collaborative decision.] (]) 01:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::To be frank, I don't sense an honest dialogue on your part here, Zigzig. Your arguments and inability to see Pascal's humor strike me as specious posturing, not honest talk. Regardless, but not taking the bait, here is a Cliff Notes version from many posts: President Obama, in concert with his Attorney General, are widely viewed by many people as being "racist" () -- whatever that nondescript term means on the part of the beholder. This being the case, note that the first movie Pascal refers to is "Django" -- in which severe violence is brought upon the white slaveholders by revenge-seeking blacks. The inside joke being: given his prejudicial stance on any number of relevant news topics (Trayvon Martin, New Black Panther voter intimidation, Henry Louis Gates, Jeremiah Wright (Obama's 20-yr pastor, who officiated at his wedding), Michael Brown...et al) this sort of cinematic retaliation on whites would seem to be what might please Obama in a night at the flicks (all said in a flash by Pascal in a half-joking fashion). --] (]) 03:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::P.S. You might want to ask yourself, how do Pascal's brief & arguably vague comments compare to this: "While hosting NBC's '']'', Jamie Foxx joked about being excited "to kill all the white people in the movie" . Is that a real knee-slapper, or what? --] (]) 03:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:To other editors: that editor only created a username today to edit . This makes it hard to take their comments seriously. I will wait until another editor gets back to me with suggestions. For example, ], why did you ? Until you respond, I have added it back, as it correlates with the lead/introduction section.] (]) 04:17, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::To be clear, I intended to retitle the section in the preceding edit, but had an edit conflict and copy-pasted my previous text during which I missed the old header. Now as for intent, it is clear that the looting of the company by North Korean hackers is the broader topic - under that there are at least three Amy Pascal related bits of news: the comments, her reported status as the only woman in the 17 top wage earners there, and the story about how she fired a PR guy because he didn't get her into an important meeting. You could subsection the "racial" bit under that, but it seems excessively fine-grained to do so. ] (]) 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Why is it significant that she fired a PR guy?] (]) 12:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As I said before, I think the ''primary source'' is vital for trying to keep the spin from carrying this away. The version I found just now gave Pascal credit for suggesting "12 Years a Slave" even though that wasn't even her suggestion! When you have what amounts to no more than one of my typical sentences' worth of text, why not quote it so that people can see how small and trivial a thing this really is? I think the way she is being treated in the press is cyberbullying, pure and simple, like some industrial strength Gamergate, and all over ''nothing''. |
|
|
:: Honestly, I don't know why it's significant she fired the PR guy, but it was in the source; it's one of the things leaked about her; if the data is true (which with hackers we ought not to be so sure about!) it did show that her husband had a role in a decision that cost a guy a $500,000 a year job, and ... it seems more important ''to me'' than the email exchange about movies Obama might like. ] (]) 13:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Your opinion is irrelevant. You have just demonstrated that you are biased and would like to portray Pascal in a better light on Misplaced Pages than the independent sources do. I think we should remain neutral, as I am. It is Misplaced Pages policy to use third-party sources, not primary sources, whenever possible. She acknowledged the e-mails, so their veracity cannot be questioned. The PR incident sounds like a non-story and a distraction away from her racial remarks. The section should not be about the hackers, but about her racial remarks. We should stick to what is relevant to this person. I think her generous paycheck could be moved to her "career" section, while the "racial remarks" section just focus on just that. Being a woman does not mean her racial remarks are somehow no longer racially insensitive or "racist," as some have suggested...] (]) 13:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I don't conceal my bias, but I believe we all have biases on any issue - and indeed, we have a bias, and our actions are affected by it, even before we know what that bias ''is''. To say "I am neutral" is bravado, no matter who says it or where they say it. |
|
|
:::: I continue to believe that the primary source is the one fixed anchor point in a sea of rhetoric. |
|
|
:::: I should add that 2601: ... ... ... is not an account created today; that's an ] address. ] (]) 13:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No, I think we should always remain neutral when editing/improving Misplaced Pages. I will add more referenced info if other people condone her racial remarks publically and that is reported in the press. I will also try to find more info about her career--clearly she has achieved a lot in spite of those unprofessional work e-mails--her page could probably reach B status fairly easily.] (]) 14:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Thank you, Wnt for pointing out to Zigzag what have should have been obvious: I'm editing from an IP address -- which is perfectly acceptable, or otherwise I wouldn't be able to do it. Am reverting Zigzig's edits until he/she has worked more successfully in forming a consensus. At the moment, Zigzag is a minority of 1. --] (]) 18:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The problem is neither of you are neutral. Both of you apparently want to make Pascal sound better on Misplaced Pages than third party sources do. That's not encyclopedic. Besides, I have reverted your edits because you removed some important referenced information I added, about Lisa Kudrow's reaction, and about newspapers calling Pascal's remarks not just "racial," but "racist." Please don't revert or remove this referenced info again until more editors, who are neutral, respond. I don't want to revert your reversion again, so we should wait until others tell us what they think. Thank you.] (]) 18:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Your edits are non-consensus, Zigzig...and you know that. Please stop edit warring and put your energies into forming a consensus on the talk page. As is, you are insisting on labeling Pascal's comments as "racist," and this violates ]. Quoting clearly biased 'sources' is also not helping your case, which is clearly in the minority. --] (]) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::A "consensus" of TWO users who admit to being biased and want to make Pascal sound better on Misplaced Pages than the third-party sources suggest, is not a good consensus at all. It's ridiculous. I really hope more editors comment on this thread. As I said, I won't revert your reversion again, so I cannot be accused of "edit-warring." And no, I have NOT called her anything at all. I have added referenced info that show that widely read newspapers have called her remarks "racist." I personally have not called her anything at all because I am a neutral editor. Also note that I Here are two questions: 1)Why did you remove the referenced info about Lisa Kudrow's reaction? Why did you remove referenced info about newspapers calling her comments "racist? Removing relevant referenced info to suit your "bias" is not what Misplaced Pages is about.] (]) 20:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::As I said, I believe we all have biases whether we know it or not. I don't intend to let bias drive my contributions or overwhelm the truth, and I feel my edits were evidence of that. I allowed your "racist" to stand, since you had references for it, no matter how awful I think it is to say that. ''But'', I think that if we're going to have a paragraph about a few words by the subject, we might as well let people see what those words were, how much and how little, because it is a ''fixed anchor point'' which no amount of spin can make any better or worse than it is. And I don't think that we need to center our section headings around the most obnoxious aspect of the claim; I think we can write about the leak as the lead and organize things under that. There's all this stuff in ] about being "sensitive" and writing "responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone"; usually I'm not a great fan of it but... these news articles are unbelievable. It's like they are written by moon men, so far divorced do they seem from the day to day reality of life. ] (]) 20:49, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
At the end of the day, what needs to be done here is "the right thing." My observation is that contributor Wnt has absolutely done the right (and encyclopedic) thing by quoting Pascal's extremely brief remarks in full. This allows the reader to interpret this action on Pascal's part for themselves, without unprofessional/unqualified labeling on the part of anyone else as them being "racist," which is fundamentally non-quantifiable. While remaining highly pejorative (again, see ]), the term "racist" itself lacks for a clear definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Running counter to Wnt's approach, Kudrow's off-hand labelling of Pascal's extremely brief remarks as "racist" is not encyclopedic; rather, it falls in the category of ]...which would only continue a pattern of ] violation. --] (]) 20:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Let us be very clear here: I have NEVER called her "racist." Actually, no one has. However, many widely read newspapers have called her remarks "racist." That is a fact. It is unfair to censor this from this Misplaced Pages article. It's just not an honest approach. Whether ] likes the media interpretations of her behaviour or not is irrelevant. As editors, we must not engage in "original research," which is what Wnt apparently would like to do, by reinterpreting her behaviour. We must let third-party sources speak for themselves. And you don't see dialogues in encyclopedias; it's just not part of their stylistic mode (take a look at Britannica). We are not here to change people's minds about Pascal, which seems to be what you want to do. Now, why would Lisa Kudrow's reaction be "gossip" and not Aaron Sorkin's? That would be very curious.] (]) 21:08, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Actually, you have time and again tried to label Pascal's remarks as racist. The fact that you are using the media to fling this pejorative doesn't change that fact any more than the fact that the media has no implicit authorization for applying this ]-violating content on Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, I don't see Aaron Sorkin calling anyone a racist. I think we're done pointing out the obvious here and should await the input of others, but as it stands your minority opinion stands starkly for what it is. --] (]) 21:14, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Wrong; I have called them "racial" and even reverted an edit from a user trying to rename the subhead "racist," back to "racial." On Misplaced Pages, we use in-line references, which often come from media sources. We are not supposed to reinterpret third-party sources, as that then becomes original research. You are welcome to go and publish an op ed somewhere, but not here. Did you censor Lisa Kudrow's reaction because she criticized Pascal instead of being sycophantic? Btw, I don't have an opinion. I am only trying to channel what the vast majority of third-party sources are saying. Which you are removing/censoring.] (]) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I let stand "racist" in per the headlines citing it. ] (]) 22:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::But now it's been removed/censored, even though it was fully referenced! Why was it removed? Why should it not be added back?] (]) 22:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
If you refuse to listen, Zigzig, it's going to be difficult to have a conversation. Any number of 'news' media outlets may feel that they are at liberty to label an extremely short, arguably merely 'racially-tinged' text/email dialogue as "racist," but here on Misplaced Pages such unfounded name-calling is a violation of ]. Misplaced Pages does not rubber stamp pejorative labels for living persons merely because someone in the so-called 'media' has chosen to cast aspersions. It's really that simple, but to enhance your understanding: should Ms. Pascal choose one day to file a libel case against Misplaced Pages...and win a large dollar award...would you be willing to cut the check on Misplaced Pages's behalf? Of course not...even if you were perhaps the one person that could be most causative in that very possible sequence of events. That lack of responsibility is precisely why ] exists. --] (]) 02:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:No, I am not a lawyer, but I don't believe she could sue, as long as there are clear in-line references and that that qualifier is under inverted commas, as it was. She is welcome to sue the newspapers that used that term if she wants, but that's not our problem. (There are MANY newspapers btw. Google it. I don't think so many newspapers would print that word if they thought she could sue.) Besides, for the third time, I have reverted an edit which named the subsection "racist remarks" back to "racial remarks" (which you then changed again to a very vague title), just to make it sound more neutral. Lastly, I have not reinserted the qualifier in the article, even though I don't believe it should have been removed, as it was clearly referenced. (Also note that that same word is used five times--including twice in the lead--in ]'s article (perhaps unfairly so); Sterling is a lawyer, which makes it worse, but nobody seems to have been concerned about it.) You also did not explain why you believe Lisa Kudrow's reaction would be "gossip" in your opinion but not Aaron Sorkin's. How about I suggest Aaron Sorkin's words are "gossip"? The section must be fair and balanced, showing both sides of the argument. I really hope other editors will respond now.] (]) 02:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::That didn't take long: Mr/Ms Zigzig...meet Mr. ] by way of his on behalf of his client, ]. --] (]) 03:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::As Zigzig went against the current consensus by way of posting a (inappropriate) "Facts in dispute" tag, I'm reaching out to the Misplaced Pages community for comments by listing an RFC tag on this talk page. Cheers to all, and thanks in advance for weighing in regardless of how this plays out. --] (]) 01:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Continuing the conversation - a prediction: if people insist on trying to throw the 'racist' word in this article -- directly or indirectly via the 'media' -- you will eventually wake one day to find that the entire article has disappeared. Mark my words. Her lawyers will simply write to Misplaced Pages, or call, and that will be the end of it. Fault: yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
As we all know, the word "racist" is an enormous & emotionally felt pejorative. IMHO, its use violates BLP. And yet what we all do '''not''' know is just how both powerfully undefinable and ''indefensible'' this word is, precisely because it lacks any clear definition as a word. How does one successfully defend oneself against a label that has no precise definition, despite its widely-recognized conveyance of 'hatred'? --] (]) 12:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I have trimmed the material considerably for several reasons: (1) There is a full article, and this is a bio, so ]. ] and ] applies; (b) The lede was written in Misplaced Pages's voice, without attribution, failing ] and ]. - ] ] 20:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
* '''Comment'''. Is there a specific question to be addressed by this RFC? If not, then I think a post to ] or ] would be a better idea than an RFC. ] (]) 07:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Comment''' Summoned here by bot and belatedly responding. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. Poorly drafted RfC. But I will watchlist this article. ] (]) 17:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Possible close connections == |
|
|
|
|
|
There might be a close connection with the following users, who have only ever edited this page (aside from one IP address adding content to ), and attempted to remove referenced info multiple times if they were slightly negative (while adding only positive info), which fails to keep the page fair, balanced, neutral and encyclopedic. They have also removed info with clear in-line references which showed that nobody on Misplaced Pages is calling her remarks "racist" at all, but that indeed much of the press has. It could be the same user using multiple IP addresses: , , , , , , , , , .] (]) 03:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:"In other news, ] discovered by Misplaced Pages counter-consensus 'writer' Zigzig20s. Film at 11." --] (]) 04:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::What? Now, this is making no sense.] (]) 05:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Undoubtedly. --] (]) 15:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Philanthropy == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is anyone able to find some referenced info about her possible philanthropic endeavors? Business executives usually do some of that both for the tax breaks and PR. A referenced section could be added before "personal life."] (]) 03:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Censorship of information by possible close connection == |
|
|
|
|
|
The user who may have a close connection (see above) has removed referenced info about the to Pascal's remarks; they say it is "pejorative." This article is not meant to be a fan page, but a fair and balanced encyclopedic article. I do not see why Misplaced Pages would censor clear in-line referenced info from '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', '']'', etc. Further, they actress ]'s nuanced reaction (cited from Variety, a reliable source), while leaving Sorkin's glowing reaction. For this article to be encyclopedic, we can't have only glowing representations of Pascal's remarks.] (]) 05:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Unacceptable use of pejoratives violates WP:BLP== |
|
|
As has been agreed to by consensus, attempts at applying the "racist" label to Ms. Pascal are both inappropriate for an encyclopedia and a violation of Misplaced Pages's own BLP policy. {{xt|legal threat removed ] ] (]) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)}} --] (]) 16:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Again, nobody has ever called her anything of the sort. Much of the press has described her remarks (not the person) as such though. Censoring that very fact would appear to be "unacceptable."] (]) 17:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Two British papers, one a virtual tabloid ("Daily Mail") and the Detroit Free Press hurling the racist epithet hardly constitutes "much of the press." Given what Pascal actually said, this is both childish and wrong. Expect a spanking. You've earned it. --] (]) 23:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The sourcing is a bit weak - I didn't delete the word on sight, but I'm not going to go out of my way to put it in without more than that. But citing the Sony letter that way risks veering into ] territory; I'd like us to be reasonable without a gun to our heads. ] (]) 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Misplaced Pages's BLP policy excerpt, which clearly points out the on-going violations taking place in this article by Zigzig20s and others (emphasis: Misplaced Pages's): |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"We must get the article ''right.'' Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material '''challenged or likely to be challenged''' must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material." --] (]) 22:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: You are right, but the "racial insensitivity", the characterization of her comments as "racist" , and discussions on the subject were made in a substantial number of sources. Just do a Google search . - ] ] 23:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::At issue is the use in this Misplaced Pages article of the term "racist" by way of poorly-sourced citations. Go and Google for "Amy Pascal" and "racist" yourself -- you'll see only weak citations, which alone is justification for striking this nonsense from the article '''immediately and without waiting for discussion''' per WP:BLP. --] (]) 23:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::: There are a number of reliable sources in that search, including The New York Times , Forbes , The Financial Times , Time magazine , and others. - ] ] 00:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: Again, more nonsense and cherry picking of so-called "reliable sources." The NY Times article you reference, for instance, has two uses of the word racist: |
|
|
:::::::: (1) "Tyler Perry similarly told CNN that he “absolutely” did not believe that Ms. Pascal was racist." |
|
|
:::::::: (2) "...Shonda Rhimes as perhaps the most outspoken. “Calling Sony comments ‘racially insensitive remarks’ instead of ‘racist?'” Ms. Rhimes wrote on Twitter. “U can put a cherry” on excrement “but it don’t make it a sundae.”" |
|
|
:::::::: If Shonda Rhimes is your idea of a "high-quality source" per WP:BLP, I rest my case. --] (]) 00:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Please consider ]. It's entirely possible that given hours/weeks/days, all that will be ''relevant'' is something like a one-line {{xt|"Pascal was co-Chair of ] during the late-2014 ]."}}<br/>While we cannot foresee the future, I suspect that the rest of the content under discussion will become irrelevant. —] (]) 02:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:The Financial Times is very clear about the "racially insensitive" versus "racist" debate over her remarks. Clearly a very reliable source, with a very balanced article. And it is corroborated by many other newspapers, as the in-line references show and ] has highlighted again. I doubt this event in her career will be redacted in time, as she was talking about films (so it seems relevant to her professional role). I would add that it probably wouldn't hurt to expand the 'career' section with more of her career achievements and possibly add a 'philanthropy' section.] (]) 06:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yes, I agree that your idea of expanding the other sections. Using the phrase {{xt|"wouldn't hurt"}}, because this is something we should hold in mind generally when writing ]. —] (]) 14:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I have added a referenced "philanthropy" section. It would be great to find out more about her work with the ] (one of my favorite charities), but I haven't been able to find an interview or article about it beyond the honorary committee webpage.] (]) 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: I was not pleased to see , but note that it continues with the "racially insensitive" phrase that now predominates. If you want to see ''racism'', try looking at any typical U.S. channel lineup like with entries like ] and ], not to mention the names of ] and ] (the need for a Spanish-language channel is undeniable, but why name it by race, as if only Latinos would watch it, instead of "HBO en español"?). I just can't get over the way this woman is essentially being pilloried as a racist right out in front of the colored drinking fountain because she offered a black man a drink of water from it, while the rest of a segregated world goes on oblivious to the issue! ] (]) 21:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==NPOV concern== |
|
|
I'm not quite ready to slap an NPOV tag on this article, but I am worried by the space in this comparatively brief article devoted to the Sony hack. Yes, yes I realize that this is the thrust of the RS coverage. But the non-hack portions of the article need to be fleshed out, without dacapitating the hack portions or unduly censoring them as seems to be advocated above. ] (]) 18:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Yes, as I said earlier, "it probably wouldn't hurt to expand the 'career' section with more of her career achievements," and ] agreed. However, it's not easy to find much more about her career frankly. I added some referenced info about her philanthropy engagements. Let us know if you are able to find out more. She is a bit of a mystery woman.] (]) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Yeah this may be one of those "easier said than done" situations. ] (]) 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think so, yes. However, the tone of the article is completely neutral and everything has in-line references. So I don't see a neutrality issue at all. Just a "this section needs expansion" problem for her "career" section possibly.] (]) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== ] February 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
I seem to recall that it is ''extremely'' rare to encounter full wholesale reverts on Misplaced Pages, in this case with a ] made with the summary "{{!xt|reverted unconstructive edits > or, explain on talkpage. She stepped down just as her contract was going to expire and was not renewed; there's no need to censor this fact.}}". In total the full revert appears to have ''undone'' all of the following: |
|
|
# "{{xt|/* top */ ]}}" |
|
|
# "{{xt|/* Sony */ ]; ]. Tonnes of this could do with culling...}}" |
|
|
# "{{xt|/* Sony Pictures Entertainment hack */ ], ]; however not sure that it should even be here}}" |
|
|
# "{{xt|/* Sony Pictures Entertainment hack */ replace tabloid phasing with '…' conjunction}}" |
|
|
# "{{xt|Dating maintenance tags: {<!-- -->{When}<!-- -->} }}" |
|
|
|
|
|
As the suggestion has been made that these edits were "{{!xt|unconstructive}}", I hope that {{U|Zigzig20s}} will be able to assist us with pin-pointing which particular word changes were "{{!xt|unconstructive}}". Looking at the full forward ] the precise changes were: |
|
|
{| class="wikitable" |
|
|
|+ Changes subsequently reverted as being "{{!xt|unconstructive}}" |
|
|
|- |
|
|
! # !! Basis !! Microchange !! Explanation of change |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 1 || ] || '{{!xt|She}}'→'{{xt|Pascal}}' || Use Surname avoid repeated use of "She… She…" in the same paragraph |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 2 || ], ] || '{{!xt|has}}'→'{{xt|had}}' || Misplaced Pages reporting on something that ''had'' happened |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 3 || (]) || resignation vs. contract expiration ordering || Reorder February 2015 event ''before'' March 2015 event, not afterwards |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 4 || ] || "{{!xt|Her contract with Sony expires in March 2015}}" →"{{xt|Her contract with Sony had been due to expire in March 2015}} || rephrase to avoid statement being out-of-date |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 5 || ], ], ] || "{{!xt|However, she added she would}}"→"{{xt|Pascal stated an intention to}}" || Avoid repeated use '{{!xt|she}}' in same sentence; avoid stating the future (prediction vs. fact); rephrase to avoid dating either way |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 6 || ] || "{{!xt|which includes}}"→"{{xt|providing}}" || avoid vagueness, stick to singular fact |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 7 || (]) || "{{!xt|distribution coming from Sony Pictures Entertainment}}"→"{{xt|distributiong via Sony Pictures Entertainment}}" || SPE do not distribute the film to , but rather the other way around |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 8 || ], ], ] || "{{!xt|She will}}"→"{{xt|Pascal was due to}}" || Avoid repeated use of "{{!xt|She}}", avoid speculating the future; avoiding dating of the sentence |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 9 || ], ] || "{{!xt|the new ] movie and}}"→"{{xt|both a future new ] movie and"}} || plural rather than singular; rephrase to avoid piped (easter egg) link; apply correct italics per destination article |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 10 || ], ] || "{{!xt|News reports}}"→"{{xt|Some news reports}}" || precise working as only a minor of citation sources take the angle(s) being cited |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 11 || ], ] || "{{!xt|" adding "}}"→"{{xt| … }}" || avoid tabloid style by joining two parts of same quote with ellipsis ('…') instead |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 12 || ], ] || "{{!xt|Furthermore, }}"→"" || Avoid tabloid style wording |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 13 || ] || "{{xt|{{tlx|when}}}}" || tag for missing contextual date of event |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 14 || ], (]) || "{{!xt|calling for Sony to fire her}}"→"{{xt|calling upon Sony to fire Pascal from her role}}" || precision; avoid repeated use of "{{!xt|she}}"; direct toward actor (Sony) |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 15 || ], ], ], ] || "{{!xt|arguing, "Pascal’s comments are confirmation}}"→"{{xt|on the basis that it considered that "Pascal's comments <!--are-->}}" || avoid tabloid wording and be precise; adjust quote for contextual readability; replace angled with straight apostrophe |
|
|
|- |
|
|
| 16 || ], ] || "{{!xt|They added, ""We must}}"→"{{xt|And that Color of Change "<!--We-->must}}" || replace "They" with name for precision; remove extranous repeated double quote mark; streamline quote correspondingly |
|
|
|} |
|
|
Per ], now it's your turn {{U|Zigzig20s}} to help the rest of us understand ''precisely'': |
|
|
<ol type="a"><li>which part(s) are {{!xt|unconstructive}}, and</li><li>which part(s) are implementing {{!xt|censor}}.</li></ol> —] (]) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:{{U|Zigzig20s}}: Since you're ], it would be great if you could reply here… —] (]) 16:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Very creepy of you to watch my contributions, and personalize this. I am equally weirded out that you spent so much time creating a table for this. I have been harassed (swearword on my talkpage, personal threats, etc.) for editing this page in a very balanced way, even adding her limited philanthropic activities, and I am very bored with this woman at this point. I am not at anybody's beck and call to reply asap, especially for a topic that seems so personalized and leads to harassment. I found your edits unconstructive and since you made three consecutive edits, I reverted them all. We know who 'she' is and don't need to say her name all the time; 'furthermore' is quite a long word for tabloid readers; we shouldn't "streamline" the short quote from the African-American organization; that would be censorship. Moreover, by suggesting that she only stepped down, we fail to explain that her contract was not renewed and that, as The Hollywood Reporter and The Daily Mail explain, she was asked to leave (or fired), for joking that President Obama, who is black, would only like films about slavery. As I said, this is a very tedious topic about a woman who has now become a non-entity, as she is no longer studio head. Add to this the fact that I have been harassed multiple times and you can see why I am not interested. But don't spin the page to suggest she is a politically correct saint. Stick to the truth/world coverage of what she said and did.] (]) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::{{U|Zigzig20s}}: thank you for responding. Please could you help us by ''precisely'' identifying any improvements to the changes shown above. The revert contained a request to "{{!xt|explain on talkpage}}"—presumably per ]. If the changes are now acceptable, it would be beneficial to perform a self-revert so that this is made clear in the article page history. Myself and other editors will then be able to further assist in bringing the article closer to the ], hopefully avoiding too many additional direct or indirect reverts going forward. Once again, thank you for taking the time to reply. —] (]) 00:25, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The only edit that makes sense is, "calling upon Sony to fire Pascal from her role." Otherwise I think I responded.] (]) 00:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Excellent, thank you for confirming that →"{{xt|calling upon Sony to fire Pascal from her role.}}" is a positive change. If there have been no other ''identified'' issues with the remainder of the changes above, nor a demonstration of {{!xt|censor}}, then I hope a self-revert can now occur. —] (]) 01:15, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::As I explained above, most of your edits very unconstructive and I gave specific examples/answers. I also explained why your editing amounted to censorship on two counts. I won't repeat myself.] (]) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{U|Zigzig20s}}, thank you for replying. A number column has now been added to the table above. As there appear to be outstanding concerns, it would be useful to indicate (by number) which edit or edit(s) might be introducing {{!xt|censor}} and which be considered {{!xt|unconstructive}}. This will allow focusing the discussion, and re-applying the remainder. —] (]) 11:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{rfc|bio|econ|rfcid=01045DA}} |
|
|
|
|
|
It would be great if a couple of editors could have a skim of the Talk and article page histories for the Sony co-chair ] with an eye towards ] and ]. This article has been on my watchlist since the start of the ] episode came to light in mid-December 2014—now that things are settling down, this could do with some fresh eyes that have had the benefit of being ''uninvolved''. —] (]) 19:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
*'''Comment''' Summoned by RfC bot. I'm not seeing any gross BLP or neutrality violations. Seems proportionate, though of course more non-hack details would be welcome. I agree that frequently articles tend to lean toward recentism in such situations. ] (]) 15:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*'''Reads like an indictment, kinda''' I also arrived her via the RfC bot. The lady does not sound like someone I would like, but nonetheless. I feel the need to explain that the president of the United States does not have a civil right to not have mean, cruel or possibly even racist things said about him in private emails. Now, is it material that such things were said, yeah, probably. Was the other party to the conversation also fired, incidentally? If we are going to report the incident in this sort of detail, that one should be included. I am not certain why the opinion of Lisa Kudrow and Donal Trump are given weight here. I did an edit of the article before I read the comments (fresh eyes and all) and made some changes for tone. Admitted, for one thing, and furthermore. Most of the other changes were for readability. Personally, I think that Hollywood does have a problem but this woman is at worst a symptom of it. I think the article does have balance issues -- I follow computer security topics and refuse to believe that nobody anywhere pointed out that these were private emails. |
|
|
|
|
|
I think the discussion above is a bit personal and ZigZag guy needs to chill. The user with the hex code name may be trying to speak up for the articles subject, possibly. This is allowable if it is done in good faith. Wnt I have dealt with before on some of my own edits and althought we have not always agreed I feel that he generally is working with the goal of improving Misplaced Pages globally. |
|
|
|
|
|
I can't say I care enough about this article or this woman to find some positive sources but I am sure they are out there and yes, whether the balance problem was deliberate or not -- let's assume good faith and say not -- some should be added. By someone. ] (]) 03:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC) |
|
Thousands of people are upset about the ending of this. We do understand though how there had to be an a plot twist but how do you forget about a person that you go to school with there should have been that chance of redemption but because of this y'all really lost interest of a lot of fans 71.221.210.230 (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
