Talk:Ellen Pao

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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1: 30 days

Pao effect was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 September 2015 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Ellen Pao. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

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.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	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 Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force.

Law Low‑importance

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance 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 Wikipedia. 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 articles

Feminism Low‑importance

	Feminism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. 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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Finance & Investment Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

New Jersey Low‑importance

	New Jersey portal This article is part of WikiProject New Jersey, an effort to create, expand, and improve New Jersey–related articles to Wikipedia feature-quality standard. Please join in the discussion.New JerseyWikipedia:WikiProject New JerseyTemplate:WikiProject New JerseyNew Jersey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women scientists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Business Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles about women in business on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject Women in BusinessTemplate:WikiProject Women in BusinessWomen in Business articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Connie Guglielmo (September 5, 2016). "Ellen Pao is moving on and hoping to set the record straight". CNET.

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.

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 Wikipedia, 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.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Aspen Institute#Aspen Global Leadership Network|Crown Fellow]] The anchor (#Aspen Global Leadership Network) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"unpaid users"?

What website pays it users? I would love to join it! Kaldari (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Mz7 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few examples like YouTube. Connor Behan (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Unpaid volunteers" might be more accurate with regards to the context. Kinda like Wikipedia: all "users" are unpaid, but talking about unpaid editors makes more sense than talking about unpaid readers... ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the loss of her lawsuit in the lead

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)[reply]

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. 2601:647:4F00:81:2CA7:BA19:CD50:6E2A (talk) 09:56, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 @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. Connor Behan (talk) 11:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your edit summary: Choice between an awkward sentence and having to click to learn something because those are not the only choices. First off, as per WP:LEAD 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 Wikipedia 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". Marteau (talk) 09:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ellen Pao. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Undergraduate major inconsistency

The info box says electrical engineering while the body says Woodrow Wilson school. 73.138.3.167 (talk) 08:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing § Comments on Ghislaine Maxwell

I originally posted the below at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red, 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. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 09:12, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:

WP:NOTNEWS: her relation to Maxwell, if there is any at all, is tangential at best. Wikipedia 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.
The sourcing is inadequate for a BLP:

WP:RSPS says: There is consensus that Heavy.com should not be relied upon for any serious or contentious statements.
The Business Insider piece is in the tech section, not the culture one (and the content is not syndicated), so WP:BI applies: no consensus on the reliability of Insider (italics original).
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260#lawandcrime.com seems to have generated consensus in early 2019 that Lawandcrime.com is inadequate for BLP (not convinced it's good enough to be the major sources for significant BLP content and a source of entertainment content rather than a source that can be relied on for contentious claims related to living persons).
Pao's Tweet itself, which does not directly support the sentence it cites (at least, not without WP:OR): 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 at least three separate times by ReconditeRodent (and now by me). It was restored with the edit summary Sources are adequate. Confirmed by subject herself. Rationale for removal is not sourced 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, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 10:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC) and 11:01, 17 June 2023[reply]