Revision as of 02:55, 1 July 2015 edit169.57.0.214 (talk) Undid revision 669425814 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) Reverting topic ban violation← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:14, 4 March 2024 edit undoDreamy Jazz Bot (talk | contribs)Bots106,824 editsm Replacing Template:Ds/talk notice with Template:Contentious topics/talk notice. BRFA. |
(204 intermediate revisions by 60 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{skip to TOC}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Pao effect|Pao effect|30 September 2015}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|blp=yes|collapsed=yes|class=B|listas=Pao, Ellen|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California |importance=Low |sfba=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Private Equity}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Internet culture |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Finance & Investment |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women }} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New Jersey |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women scientists |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Women in Business|importance=mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Press|author=Connie Guglielmo|title=Ellen Pao is moving on and hoping to set the record straight|org=]|url=https://www.cnet.com/videos/ellen-pao-is-moving-on-and-hoping-to-set-the-record-straight/|date=September 5, 2016}} |
|
{{Copied |from=Ellen Pao|from_oldid=653825730|to=Pao v. Kleiner Perkins |to_oldid=653827745|date=28 March 2015}} |
|
{{Copied |from=Ellen Pao|from_oldid=653825730|to=Pao v. Kleiner Perkins |to_oldid=653827745|date=28 March 2015}} |
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography|living=yes|needs-photo=Yes|class=Start|listas=Pao, Ellen}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Business|class=Start|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Law|class=Start|importance=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Venture Capital}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Feminism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject California|sfba=yes}} |
|
|
| blp=yes |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
Line 19: |
Line 28: |
|
|archive = Talk:Ellen Pao/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Ellen Pao/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Broken anchors|links= |
|
{{discretionary sanctions|topic=blp|style=long}} |
|
|
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Aspen Global Leadership Network) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Aspen Global Leadership Network","appear":{"revid":98031131,"parentid":98030174,"timestamp":"2007-01-02T22:18:50Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":816546507,"parentid":816346607,"timestamp":"2017-12-22T01:39:05Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== Can't post more links today == |
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like an article I started about the judge in the case has just been nominated for deletion. I don't have the time to work both angles, sorry. ] (]) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Week four Re/code bloggers== |
|
|
Liz Gannes and Nellie Bowles of ]: |
|
|
*http://recode.net/tag/pao-trial/ |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
* |
|
|
|
|
|
== inb4 BLP violations on this talk page. == |
|
|
|
|
|
Don't post defamatory content here, it'll get removed. Grognard Extraordinaire ] ] Ping when replying 01:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For any editors who might get confused about what's going on: Reddit recently banned some subreddits, one of which had about 150,000 users. Predictably, the users got mad about it and decided to vent by vandalizing this page (among other things). ] (]) 03:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Recent censorship by Ellen Pao on reddit== |
|
|
|
|
|
More should be written about her recent action of censorship on reddit that is breaking the site and saw several subreddits banned, comments removed and posts deleted, even a comic that criticizes her. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 07:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you believe its noteworthy, then by all means follow the guidelines set up by wikipedia for matters like these and work to get such information up. ] (]) 11:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== "unpaid users"? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
What website pays it users? I would love to join it! ] (]) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
IMHO it should have at least some mention and a stub tag already. This is absolutely significant, all negative connotations aside. June 12 07:03 |
|
|
: Better yet, why don't we write about all the butt-hurt reddeditors that are vandalizing this page because their sub-reddit's got shut down :P <span style="font face="Papyrus" size="4" font-weight:bold">] ]</span> 16:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Because that isn't notable. I would think that the controversy itself is notable though given the extent of the news coverage. <span style="border:2px solid #0918E8;background:#067D06;">]''']'''</span> 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This 'controversy' (if we must use that term), is already mentioned on ] and ] where it belongs. I don't think it's sufficiently relevant to Pao directly to mention here, unless reliable sources say otherwise. ] doesn't mention any of the various 'controversies' on Reddit that took place under his tenure, nor does ]. ] (]) 23:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I disagree. Yes, the ] article doesn't mention any controversies on Reddit, but as a stub, the article really doesn't say much about anything. It could be possible that there are controversies that are worth discussing in the article that just haven't been written about yet. Also, reliable sources have discussed Pao in connection with the recent Reddit controversy. What's particularly notable is her direct relationship with the Reddit community as a result of actions performed under her tenure: . Reliable sources have also discussed other internal changes Pao has made to Reddit during her term as CEO: . All of this can be discussed in the "Career" section, after the sentence about her joining Reddit. Respectfully, ] (]) 23:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::OK, fair enough. I'm still not convinced it's all that significant in the course of her overall career, but if you disagree, feel free to add a sentence to the article. My own feeling is that it would be a bit recentist - it might be better to wait a little while and see how this 'controversy' pans out. ] (]) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks. Your cautiousness makes sense. I wouldn't support anything more than a sentence or two per ]. Best, ] (]) 01:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Yes, if you think about it, the "unpaid" seems unnecessary if "users" is already there. But I'm hesitant to remove it because that's the point of the sentence: that the enforcement of a company's rules is primarily carried out by people who are not paid by that company—its users. ] (]) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::There are a few examples like YouTube. ] (]) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
|
{{edit semi-protected|Ellen Pao|answered=yes}} |
|
|
|
:::"Unpaid volunteers" might be more accurate with regards to the context. Kinda like Misplaced Pages: all "users" are unpaid, but talking about unpaid editors makes more sense than talking about unpaid readers... <span style="font-size:10pt;color:white;background:black;padding:0 3px;"><big>☺</big> · ] · ]</span> 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC) |
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
Remove Pao effect article - one journal source does not a movement make, and it does not add anything to the ongoing legal battle between Pao and Kline. |
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> I would like to see a ] on this talk page first for removing the statement outright, as at the moment, it's ], ], and ]. I could add "This has been referred to as the "Pao effect" {{tq|by '']''}}" to the statement instead. ] (]) 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Mentioning the loss of her lawsuit in the lead == |
|
== No criticism allowed? == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has been some back and forth regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the bare fact that Pao lost her celebrated lawsuit, with {{ping|Connor Behan}} on the side of exclusion of this fact from the lead, with their latest edit summary stating, "I'd be perfectly happy to make this article even more upfront about the result but that requires a more drastic rewrite of the prose". |
|
I'm curious as to why there isn't a Criticism/Controversy subject in Pao's article, as several thousand other articles do have said subject. It's irrefutable that she has generated a lot of it (some warranted, some not). Am I missing something? Or is her article exempt from the universal practices and standards that have been implemented on this website for years? It feels and reads like a whitewash effort. Is she, dare I say, privileged? <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
I'm unclear as to why a "drastic rewrite" is required. Why does the simple bare fact that it was a loss require a "drastic rewrite"? That it was in fact a loss is a highly salient point to the event and her career. Why is not simply adding that it was in fact a loss sufficient? I'm not understanding your point at all. ] (]) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
:It's really the only thing that makes her notable, frankly. She accomplished nothing but destruction at Kleiner Perkins, grasped at a straw when she was dismissed for cause, and got Reddit tossed to her as some kind of show of solidarity for overprivileged women, like Obama's great dereliction of duty in giving Hillary Clinton the Department of State. ] (]) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not sure it's ''that'' notable since the majority of gender discrimination suits result in losses. But of course I'm not against including this fact. It's just that the current paragraph is such that all "minors ways" to add it make the wording less precise. If we say "filing an unsuccessful suit", this needs to be taken with a grain of salt, since some companies have made new policies and data releases as a direct response to it. If we say "having become widely known for filing and losing... in 2012", that's wrong because the loss was in 2015. It's also mainly the filing that made Pao newsworthy as pointed out by {{ping|Clpo13}}. Trying even more ways to work it in is an option. But there is now enough information on what she's been doing in 2016 that the lead needs to be rewritten anyway. I will get to it later this summer if no one else does. ] (]) 11:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your edit summary: {{tq|Choice between an awkward sentence and having to click to learn something|}} because those are not the only choices. First off, as per ] a lead section "... should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic". Compelling reader to "click to learn something" is not "standing on its own". Additionally, I think you are advocating a "newspaper style" lead which is explicitly not what encyclopedic leads are to be (also as per the style guide). A newspaper lead gives the reader the main idea of the story, but Misplaced Pages leads should be able to stand alone. And not having the outcome of the case in the lead is most certainly not "standing alone". Regarding any awkwardness, well, perhaps I'll get cracking on coming up with a "most less awkward" alternative. Because something as seminal as the outcome of her case certainly belongs in the lead, and should not be teased and require the reader to "click to learn". ] (]) 09:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== External links modified == |
|
:She is certainly not privileged, and this article is definitely not exempt from our ]. In particular, a core content policy on Misplaced Pages is that information presented in the article must fairly represent all ''significant'' viewpoints that have been published by ], in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources—see ]. Also, because Pao is a living person, we must take extra caution in making sure this article follows the core content policies, as we would do on ''any'' biography on a living person. 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. Please read ] for more information. If there is any significant controversy/viewpoint regarding Pao we are omitting, please let us know and we can discuss it. Make sure you provide evidence in the form of ] that links Pao to the controversy. Including recent controversy on reddit is being discussed right now in a section above. Best, ] (]) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians, |
|
== BIASED ARTICLE == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have just modified {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: |
|
The page looks incredibly biased, putting everything Pao did (even a fraudolent lawsuit!) in a positive light and omitting important details. Please allow it to be edited. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150808183215/http://gawker.com/reddit-in-chaos-after-allegedly-firing-ama-coordinator-1715556970 to http://gawker.com/reddit-in-chaos-after-allegedly-firing-ama-coordinator-1715556970 |
|
:You are welcome to discuss specific changes to the article here. ] (]) 19:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:Our goal isn't to cast anyone in a positive or negative light. Rather, we want to present what has been said about a topic from a ]. If there is a ] that we're omitting, please let us know here and we'll discuss it. Remember, ]—information presented here should represent what has been written about Pao in published, ] sources. If you are recommending a viewpoint be included, it is important you provide these sources. The reason the article is ] at the moment is because we have seen a wave of ], such as , that disrupted Misplaced Pages. Best, ] (]) 22:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I've got my reliable sources ready to be cited in the article, but I'd rather write it myself than telling someone else what to do, I guess I'll wait for the disruption to calm down <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}). |
|
'''Look Out Below!''' Editors who frequent this page may be interested to learn that Twitter chatter today indicates that this BLP is the target of a new Gamergate operation. Note, too, that Gamergate is currently fond of using IP accounts to supplement its roster of zombies and newbies. Good luck, folks! ] (]) 16:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{sourcecheck|checked=true}} |
|
: You're very enthusiastic about this claim, but your accusations need sourcing. --] (]) 09:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::^ sourced. -- ] 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
|
== "Intense Criticism" == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Undergraduate major inconsistency == |
|
The "intense criticism" I see is mostly derogatory and degrading memes about Pao. Can we follow the Washington Post's lead and refer to it as harassment? <ref>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/11/redditors-harass-ceo-ellen-pao-after-site-cracks-down-on-harassment/</ref>] (]) 21:46, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
* I would support such a change, however I'd like to see more of a consensus first. Of the 4 articles cited, 3 talk about the response of reddit (Salon being the exception). Of those 3, one (Think Progress) has no more than a sentence ("Reddit’s homepage quickly filled with comparisons of Pao to Nazis along with calls for her immediate resignation."); the second (Express) talks only of the petition and calls for resignation but does not characterize it as "criticism" and it is only a paragraph or two in a larger article; the third is the WaPo article which characterizes it as "harassment" and is entirely about the actual response of the community to the move. As such, characterizing it as harassment is verifiable and not original research (and describing it as "intense criticism" is actually not verified by the sources). However, because of the connotations of "harassment" I'm not sure how neutral such a move would be, and would prefer to see more of a consensus first. ] (]) 23:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:I also support this proposed change, and I've gone ahead and implemented it. Let's see if anyone objects. <small>] has made ] outside this topic.</small> 03:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
::I was the one who wrote "intense criticism". I would support following the lead of ], but it is difficult because we have to balance this with ]. Saying this is "harassment" is arguably taking up a viewpoint (violating ]). That being said, so would saying it's "criticism". I suppose we could go with "<s>intense</s> harassment" for now, but I have a small feeling it might be a bit inappropriate. We could instead say: "Pao was subject to what has been described as <s>intense</s> harassment...", although that's slightly ]. —] (]) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Update: If we're following RS coverage, we should strike "intense". ] (]) 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I would also agree with striking intense, for the reasons stated above. Plus it reads a bit awkwardly ] (]) 21:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
: There are other ways to source besides pointing to Reddit chatter. Reddit users have been very clear on their disapproval of the new CEO, it isn't an internet secret; It's global news at-this-point - with updates every few hours regarding the discrimination lawsuit. This is only 1 day old; '''Two general partners at the venture capital firm (John Doerr and Beth Seidenberg) interviews about the gender-discrimination lawsuit'''. You can add it to the WIKI. It mentions there was a very good work relation ship with Ellen Pao while she was ''Chief of Staff''. A relationship trusting enough to promote Ellen Pao to an partnership/investor. It's a situation that didn't work out and left some hurt feelings in the process. Some of you are complaining about ''"intense criticism"'' in the WIKI, but these are direct NEWS sources. A growing number of news sources, illustrating the story. I for one have to agree with the court's decision & consensus on this issue; This is obviously not ] and Ellen Pao is not a victim. So why debate that fact? --] (]) 10:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The section in which the term was used (and then updated) was specifically about the response to Reddit's decision to ban certain subreddits. The RSes cited did not classify the response as anything other than harassment. I'm not sure how that article you linked is relevant to that section. If you want to suggest an edit to another section, I say go for it. ] (]) 16:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The info box says electrical engineering while the body says Woodrow Wilson school. ] (]) 08:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
== Information not supported by source == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Removing § Comments on Ghislaine Maxwell == |
|
"Reddit users also critized her lawsuit and complained about deletions of posts about it on reddit." The context of this paragraph is about Reddit's decision to delete several subreddits. The citation supporting this statement is about a scandal involving her husband, which isn't mentioned in the article. I don't think this statement in context is supported by the cited source. ] (]) 18:47, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I originally posted the below at ], received no response, and moved it here. I saw subsequent activity on the project talk, so if I proposed something egregious, someone would have said something. I am going ahead with the content removal. ] (] '''·''' ]) 09:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC) |
|
:Ok I fixed it. But what do you mean by "the context of this paragraph is about Reddit's decision to delete several subreddits"? It's meantioned in the sentence you just cited and is set in the context of her engagement on reddit. --] (]) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
{{outdent}}Hi, and hope you're well. I wanted to ask for another opinion (from an active talk) before diving in—don't want to open a can of worms at RfC if I can help it—can I just delete ]? My reasoning is: |
|
::My point is that the source supporting that sentence refers to 'it' implying things not actually mentioned in that article. That article as a source doesn't cover anything in the entire section, so I'm not sure why it's being cited. As a comment about the new citation, I didn't think Breitbart was considered a RS. ] (]) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
*]: her relation to Maxwell, if there is any at all, is tangential at best. Misplaced Pages is not here to catalog Pao's opinion on sundry folk associated with her former employer, no matter how infamous—at least, not at Pao's article. |
|
:::Well I'm not sure if Breitbart is a RS. I removed it as of now. |
|
|
|
*The sourcing is inadequate for a BLP: |
|
:::<cite>>My point is that the source supporting that sentence refers to 'it' implying things not actually mentioned in that article.</cite> |
|
|
|
:#] says: {{tq|There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements}}. |
|
:::I think the article is clear enough: "but in recent days has seen users on her company’s hugely popular website complain that stories critical of Pao and her husband have been taken down from the site’s sub-sections". --] (]) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:#The ''Business Insider'' piece is in the tech section, not the culture one (and the content is not syndicated), so ] applies: {{tq|no consensus on the reliability of ''Insider''}} (italics original). |
|
|
:#] seems to have generated consensus in early 2019 that ] is inadequate for BLP ({{tq|not convinced it's good enough to be the major sources for significant BLP content}} and {{tq|a source of entertainment content rather than a source that can be relied on for contentious claims related to ]}}). |
|
|
:#Pao's Tweet itself, which does not directly support the sentence it cites (at least, not without ]): {{tq|Pao's Twitter account was briefly protected from public view shortly after, but the tweet was not deleted}}. |
|
|
* The addition of the section was contested <ins>at least ] ] ] by {{u|ReconditeRodent}} (and now by me)</ins>. It was ] with the edit summary <ins>{{tq|Sources are adequate. Confirmed by subject herself. Rationale for removal is not sourced}}</ins> and no further discussion showing consensus. As a contested and actually poorly sourced addition to a BLP, the restoration should not be allowed to stand. |
|
|
Did I miss anything? If not, I'm going to remove it. If I ''should'' go to RfC, please feel free to let me know. Thanks, ] (] '''·''' ]) 10:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) <ins>and 11:01, 17 June 2023</ins> |
There has been some back and forth regarding the inclusion or exclusion of the bare fact that Pao lost her celebrated lawsuit, with @Connor Behan: on the side of exclusion of this fact from the lead, with their latest edit summary stating, "I'd be perfectly happy to make this article even more upfront about the result but that requires a more drastic rewrite of the prose".
I'm unclear as to why a "drastic rewrite" is required. Why does the simple bare fact that it was a loss require a "drastic rewrite"? That it was in fact a loss is a highly salient point to the event and her career. Why is not simply adding that it was in fact a loss sufficient? I'm not understanding your point at all. Marteau (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, and hope you're well. I wanted to ask for another opinion (from an active talk) before diving in—don't want to open a can of worms at RfC if I can help it—can I just delete Ellen Pao#Comments on Ghislaine Maxwell? My reasoning is: