Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2014

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."Zigzig20s (talk) 03:48, 20 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 sexism), 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 Wikipedia 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: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here.Zigzig20s (talk) 03:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * "In other news, IPv6 discovered by Wikipedia counter-consensus 'writer' Zigzig20s. Film at 11." --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:CEC:B152:4EFE:4796 (talk) 04:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * What? Now, this is making no sense.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Undoubtedly. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:243E:6737:97B3:E953 (talk) 15:19, 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 media response 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 Wikipedia would censor clear in-line referenced info from The Financial Times, Variety, The Daily Mail, The Huffington Post, The Detroit News, etc. Further, they have removed actress Lisa Kudrow'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.Zigzig20s (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2014 (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. Coretheapple (talk) 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 User:Sladen 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah this may be one of those "easier said than done" situations. Coretheapple (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)