Talk:Ellen Pao - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) at 02:55, 1 July 2015 (Undid revision 669425855 by 169.57.0.214 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:55, 1 July 2015 by TheRedPenOfDoom (talk | contribs) (Undid revision 669425855 by 169.57.0.214 (talk))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ellen Pao article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ellen Pao was copied or moved into Pao v. Kleiner Perkins with this edit on 28 March 2015. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Business

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Law

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Private Equity

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Private Equity, a collaborative effort to improve the depth of quality and coverage of the private equity and venture capital industry and related topics in Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

This project seeks to collaborate with the following WikiProjects:

Private EquityWikipedia:WikiProject Private EquityTemplate:WikiProject Private EquityPrivate Equity

Feminism

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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. Ottawahitech (talk)

Week four Re/code bloggers

Liz Gannes and Nellie Bowles of Re/code:

inb4 BLP violations on this talk page.

Don't post defamatory content here, it'll get removed. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) 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). Wallamander (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fphfphfphfph (talk • contribs) 07:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

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. 74.128.43.180 (talk) 11:18, 11 June 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 KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 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. TheCascadian 19:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

This 'controversy' (if we must use that term), is already mentioned on Reddit and Controversial Reddit communities where it belongs. I don't think it's sufficiently relevant to Pao directly to mention here, unless reliable sources say otherwise. Yishan Wong doesn't mention any of the various 'controversies' on Reddit that took place under his tenure, nor does Alexis Ohanian. Robofish (talk) 23:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Yes, the Yishan Wong 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, Mz7 (talk) 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. Robofish (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Your cautiousness makes sense. I wouldn't support anything more than a sentence or two per WP:UNDUE. Best, Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your 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. 104.156.228.91 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: I would like to see a consensus on this talk page first for removing the statement outright, as at the moment, it's properly sourced, neutral, and not original research. I could add "This has been referred to as the "Pao effect" by Fortune" to the statement instead. Mz7 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

No criticism allowed?

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.136.18 (talk) 08:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

She is certainly not privileged, and this article is definitely not exempt from our policies and guidelines. 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 reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources—see Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view. 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 Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons 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 reliable sources that links Pao to the controversy. Including recent controversy on reddit is being discussed right now in a section above. Best, Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

BIASED ARTICLE

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.168.80 (talk) 19:39, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome to discuss specific changes to the article here. Deli nk (talk) 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 neutral point of view. If there is a significant viewpoint that we're omitting, please let us know here and we'll discuss it. Remember, Misplaced Pages is not a publisher of original thought—information presented here should represent what has been written about Pao in published, reliable sources. If you are recommending a viewpoint be included, it is important you provide these sources. The reason the article is temporarily protected at the moment is because we have seen a wave of bad-faith edits, such as this one, that disrupted Misplaced Pages. Best, Mz7 (talk) 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.168.80 (talk) 14:32, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

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! MarkBernstein (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You're very enthusiastic about this claim, but your accusations need sourcing. --j0eg0d (talk) 09:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

^ sourced. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

"Intense Criticism"

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? Kodra22 (talk) 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. Wugapodes (talk) 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. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 03:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I was the one who wrote "intense criticism". I would support following the lead of reliable sources, but it is difficult because we have to balance this with WP:NPOV. Saying this is "harassment" is arguably taking up a viewpoint (violating WP:IMPARTIAL). That being said, so would saying it's "criticism". I suppose we could go with "~~intense~~ 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 ~~intense~~ harassment...", although that's slightly awkward. —Mz7 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC) Update: If we're following RS coverage, we should strike "intense". Mz7 (talk) 18:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I would also agree with striking intense, for the reasons stated above. Plus it reads a bit awkwardly Kodra22 (talk) 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 SOURCE 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 Gender Discrimination and Ellen Pao is not a victim. So why debate that fact? --j0eg0d (talk) 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. Kodra22 (talk) 16:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Information not supported by source

"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. 199.91.141.248 (talk) 18:47, 30 June 2015 (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. --Fixuture (talk) 19:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

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. 199.91.141.248 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure if Breitbart is a RS. I removed it as of now.

>My point is that the source supporting that sentence refers to 'it' implying things not actually mentioned in that article.

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". --Fixuture (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Brietbart is most certainly NOT a reliable source. it has a reputation for being a non reliable source - doctoring videos etc. unacceptable for almost anything, but absolutely unacceptable for anything close to a WP:BLP. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:20, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2015/06/11/redditors-harass-ceo-ellen-pao-after-site-cracks-down-on-harassment/

Categories: