Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2015

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?

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! Wnt (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Done. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:D161:D53:C855:F657 (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 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. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:3D77:629D:9935:2A11 (talk) 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 the Washington Post.  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? [sic]” 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. Wnt (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 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" (example) -- 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). --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:CCE6:210C:E6DD:F5DA (talk) 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 Saturday Night Live, Jamie Foxx joked about being excited "to kill all the white people in the movie" reference. Is that a real knee-slapper, or what? --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:CCE6:210C:E6DD:F5DA (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To other editors: that editor only created a username today to edit only this page. This makes it hard to take their comments seriously. I will wait until another editor gets back to me with suggestions. For example, User:Wnt, why did you remove "racial remarks"? Until you respond, I have added it back, as it correlates with the lead/introduction section.Zigzig20s (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 12:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why is it significant that she fired a PR guy?Zigzig20s (talk) 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. Wnt (talk) 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 Wikipedia than the independent sources do. I think we should remain neutral, as I am. It is Wikipedia 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...Zigzig20s (talk) 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 IPv6 address. Wnt (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I think we should always remain neutral when editing/improving Wikipedia. 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 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.  --162.206.169.121 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 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 WP:BLP. Quoting clearly biased 'sources' is also not helping your case, which is clearly in the minority. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:5D4E:ABF7:402D:EC4E (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * A "consensus" of TWO users who admit to being biased and want to make Pascal sound better on Wikipedia 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 reverted an edit that renamed the subhead from "racial" to "racist," back to "racial." 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 Wikipedia is about.Zigzig20s (talk) 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 WP:BLP 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. Wnt (talk) 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 WP:BLP), 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 gossip...which would only continue a pattern of WP:BLP violation. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:5D4E:ABF7:402D:EC4E (talk) 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 Wikipedia article. It's just not an honest approach. Whether User:Wnt 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 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 WP:BLP-violating content on Wikipedia.  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. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:5D4E:ABF7:402D:EC4E (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I let stand "racist" in this revision per the headlines citing it. Wnt (talk) 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?Zigzig20s (talk) 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 Wikipedia such unfounded name-calling is a violation of WP:BLP. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia...and win a large dollar award...would you be willing to cut the check on Wikipedia'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 WP:BLP exists. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:71C8:155E:BDD4:C3F1 (talk) 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 Donald Sterling'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.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


 * That didn't take long: Mr/Ms Zigzig...meet Mr. David Boies by way of his demand letter to the media on behalf of his client, Sony Pictures Entertainment. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:299E:8C8:CBF0:D4F2 (talk) 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 Wikipedia 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.  --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:7DFF:CA8D:82F2:435E (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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'? --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:D173:26BB:5D49:BAC9 (talk) 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 WP:SUMMARY. WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP applies; (b) The lede was written in Wikipedia's voice, without attribution, failing WP:V and WP:NPOV. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  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 WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN would be a better idea than an RFC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 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. Coretheapple (talk) 17:30, 30 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 Wikipedia's own BLP policy. legal threat removed WP:NLT Igor the bunny (talk) 03:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC) --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:243E:6737:97B3:E953 (talk) 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."Zigzig20s (talk) 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. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:847:F156:FE5D:4B4F (talk) 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 WP:NLT territory; I'd like us to be reasonable without a gun to our heads. Wnt (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's BLP policy excerpt, which clearly points out the on-going violations taking place in this article by Zigzig20s and others (emphasis: Wikipedia'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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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." --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:38A5:6AAC:BC57:94FD (talk) 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 . -   Cwobeel   (talk)  23:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


 * At issue is the use in this Wikipedia 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. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:38A5:6AAC:BC57:94FD (talk) 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. -   Cwobeel   (talk)  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. --2602:30A:2CEA:9790:38A5:6AAC:BC57:94FD (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please consider WP:RECENT. It's entirely possible that given hours/weeks/days, all that will be relevant is something like a one-line "Pascal was co-Chair of Sony Pictures Entertainment during the late-2014 Sony Pictures Entertainment hack." While we cannot foresee the future, I suspect that the rest of the content under discussion will become irrelevant. —Sladen (talk) 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 User:Cwobeel 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that your idea of expanding the other sections. Using the phrase "wouldn't hurt", because this is something we should hold in mind generally when writing WP:BLP.  —Sladen (talk) 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 Simon Wiesenthal Center (one of my favorite charities), but I haven't been able to find an interview or article about it beyond the honorary committee webpage.Zigzig20s (talk) 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 Starz in Black and Encore Black, not to mention the names of HBO Latino and MAX Latino (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! Wnt (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

now leaving in May not March Suggestion
Don't know if the date was originally misreported or the date was changed for PR reasons, but the source for the new date uis the LA Times, and that's pretty good when it comes to Hpllywood, so I made the change and added the reference. This section needs to berewritten anyway -- please review the sources and remove the ones with the inorrect date, Elinruby (talk)!

WP:BRD February 2015
I seem to recall that it is extremely rare to encounter full wholesale reverts on Wikipedia, in this case with a WP:REVERT made with the summary "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:
 * 1)  "/* top */ WP:TENSE"
 * 2)  "/* Sony */ WP:NPOV; WP:TENSE. Tonnes of this could do with culling..."
 * 3)  "/* Sony Pictures Entertainment hack */ WP:NPOV, WP:TENSE; however not sure that it should even be here"
 * 4)  "/* Sony Pictures Entertainment hack */ replace tabloid phasing with '…' conjunction"
 * 5)  "Dating maintenance tags:"

As the suggestion has been made that these edits were "unconstructive", I hope that will be able to assist us with pin-pointing which particular word changes were "unconstructive". Looking at the full forward WP:DIFF the precise changes were: Per WP:BRD, now it's your turn to help the rest of us understand precisely: which part(s) are unconstructive, andwhich part(s) are implementing censor[ship]. —Sladen (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Since you're editing again, it would be great if you could reply here… —Sladen (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * 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 "explain on talkpage"—presumably per WP:BRD.  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 Manual of Style, hopefully avoiding too many additional direct or indirect reverts going forward.  Once again, thank you for taking the time to reply.  —Sladen (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:50, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Excellent, thank you for confirming that →"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 censor[ship], then I hope a self-revert can now occur.  —Sladen (talk) 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.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , 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 censor[ship] and which be considered unconstructive.  This will allow focusing the discussion, and re-applying the remainder.  —Sladen (talk) 11:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

wholesale reverts, including the above (reliably referenced) edit for fact Suggestion
I'd have to say that yes, you does have a balance and an ownership and an edit warring problem,. If I am missing something here,, please feel free to speak up....why to you want the articlke to say that she got the book early when the LA Times says otherwise? To be precise, it says it was wrong when it said she was leaving in March, and she is in fact leaving in May. Why would you revert that? Let's start there. Meanwhile, I can only suggest to other editord that this is a matter for the noticeboards, where I cannot be of assistance as I have already pointed out here that she wasn't just fired for saying mean things about Obama, she was in charge when a MAJOR BREACH OF DATA SECURITY supposedly factored in a FOREIGN FREAKING GOVERNMENT threatening the US government. That's slightly more important that the opinion of a starlet who once appeared in Friends, Obama just signed an executive order over this very breach and you are concerned with whether she made racist jokes. I don't have to excuse the racist jokes to think a little perspective is in order here and perhaps you should be banned from this article. Elinruby 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ The wholesale revert was performed using WP:ROLLBACK, which I have now reverted, and (hopefully) corrected any syntax errors remaining.. —Sladen (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * EC


 * Elinruby, I was asked to look at the above paragraph. I find it really difficult to understand but it seems to me the main complaint is over her leaving in March or May. The original source was Amy Pascal Steps Down as Head of Sony’s Film Business in the Wall Street Journal. In the second paragraph it states "Amy Pascal, who has run Sony Corp.’s movie business for more than a decade and worked at the studio for nearly 20 years, will step down in May as Sony Pictures co-chairman." The source replacing that is Sony co-chair Amy Pascal steps down after hacking scandal in the LA Times. It says she is stepping down with no date given. The only mentions of May are "Pascal will begin her new role in May, the company said." and "An earlier version of this post said Amy Pascal's transition to a producer role will take place in March. She will transition in May." It seems to me that the Wall Street Journal is a better source for her stepping down in May. The LA Times source is not so clear as to when she is stepping down as "transition" is not identical to "stepping down". I see the previous post by Elinruby seems to say that Pascal was fired but I don't see any source for that at all. Nor a source for the claim that Pascal was "a starlet who once appeared in Friends". That makes both of those claims possible BLP violations. Also you need to leave out words like "libel suit" as people get the wrong idea that you are making legal threats and nobody is getting banned right now.


 * User:Zigzig20s, as User:Gilliam said this is not a good use of rollback. Those edits were not obvious vandalism. That isn't really a legal threat.


 * And ping all involved, User:Elinruby, User:Zigzig20s and User:Sladen. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 15:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I expect the "a starlet who once appeared in Friends" is a reference to Lisa Kudrow. Based on the context of the rest of the Talk:Amy Pascal page above, the comparison is likely highlighting the relative notability of reported comments made by Lisa Kudrow with the executive actions and comment of eg. Barack Obama.  —Sladen (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * read "transition" as weasel words for "step down". But will take another look when I have more time than I do now. Leaving as is meanwhile. Thank you for looking into my concern. Elinruby (talk) 01:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Lisa Kudrow is a producer like Pascal now, not a "starlet."Zigzig20s (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The countless global media coverage of Amy Pascal does not portray her as a security expert at all. They focus on the fact that she "joked" that President Obama, who is black, would only enjoy films about slavery. Do not re-write history on Wikipedia, with the "chilling effect" of a threatening tone.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Notability establishment
A series of edits were made to attempt to establish notability in the WP:LEAD. This introduced a link to North Korea–United States relations for high-level context (significance) per WP:MOSINTRO, as had been suggested during the latest RfC. The changes have been wholesale reverted (the revert diff re-introduced end-of-line whitespace that had been removed). , as you feel strongly about this article, please could you suggest an alternative wording that would help us to establish context and significance? —Sladen (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you are calling "wholesale reversion" at this point because I went through the trouble of looking at the edit history and finding the right passage again. I have not looked at all of your misleading edits yet and reverted everything that is untrue. Perhaps you just want NONE of your edits to be reverted--sorry, that is not what the collaborative process of Wikipedia is about! She might be notable for making "racially insensitive" or "racist" (insert references in the global press) remarks, which led to her dismissal (insert multiple references). She is not notable for standing up to North Korea, or being co-Chairman when this happened. It would be a misleading PR rewriting of history, not backed up by the majority of references, which focus on the fact that she thought President Obama, who is black, would only like films about slavery. Thus I suggest leaving this out. She was just co-Chairman for several years, made strange remarks, and now perhaps she ought to do more charity work.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * per the D in WP:BRD, please could you suggest an appropriate wording. —Sladen (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, either say that she made "racially insensitive" or "racist" (insert multiple references) remarks and then was fired (insert multiple references) in the lead, or leave it out. That is what she is notable for. That is her claim to fame. Just google her and look at all the third-party references.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , thank you for responding. If She is notable for having been in charge of Sony Pictures Entertainment in late-2014 during the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack and following major international diplomatic incident in North Korea–United States relations. remains unsuitable, please suggest a precise improved wording (nothing more, nothing less).  —Sladen (talk) 22:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "She is not notable." Leads don't usually have the word "notable" in them. Or, reread the reasons for her claim to fame above.Zigzig20s (talk) 22:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "Notable" frequently appears in the opening sentences of WP:BLP articles because the wording comes from WP:LEAD + WP:LEAD should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable … notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences … notable material should neither be suppressed nor allowed to overwhelm … most recent is not necessarily what is most notable; and MOS:BLPLEAD notable positions the person held, activities they took part in or roles they played; … Why the person is notable. If it is the word notable that remains problematic, I'm sure we can find an alternative.  Again, please suggest a wording.  —Sladen (talk) 23:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * NO, I am not at your beck and call. I have replied multiple times. Stop harassing me. The lead is fine and does not need to be expanded. She is not notable at all beyond the fact that she was co-Chairman for a couple of years, as the lead already suggests. The lead in Donald Sterling's article uses the word "racist," but I think it is better to leave it out, as her remarks are already fully explained with multiple references in the article. This is boring.Zigzig20s (talk) 23:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely inappropriate, non-standard and tacky to say how much she made per year in the lead. You're also making multiple consecutive edits in the lead, which makes it much harder to revert them.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved her salary back to the career section, as appropriate. If Pascal is looking for a new job and hoping to get paid as much, she should not be using Wikipedia as a resume. This page needs to remain encyclopaedic.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not sure about this edit. The problem is that, by adding that she was co-Chairman during this debacle, it would be hard not to add a note about her remarks. My suggestion would be to leave both out of the lead, unless you want to go the Donald Sterling way.Zigzig20s (talk) 00:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I am have not looked at the new version yet. However the movies produced during her tenure are nototable. The emails are not her sole claim to fame. I would say she held her post from date x to date y and in that time period the following movies were made. (Should The Interview not be on that list btw?) Also during that period there was a major data breach. Then do a section on the movies, the philanthophy section, a section on the breach, a subsection in that on the emails, bla bla whatever I am forgetting gord next. Just a suggestion. Elinruby (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot spell. But as I argued a while ago, "it probably wouldn't hurt to expand the 'career' section with more of her career achievements." I even added the two-line philanthropy section after I searched high and low for some references about her charity work. The problem is we can't find more third-party references about her career so far. We rely on third-party references on Wikipedia. There are plenty of third-party references about her "racially insensitive" remarks, however. We would like find more third-party references about her career achievements and philanthropic work, but she is a bit of a mystery woman, so it's not easy.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem isn't references it's content. You could pull some in from any one of the wikilinked pages or from the referenced articles for that matter. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Or, just a thought, you could build out the significance of the data breach with the reference I listed further up this talk page. Then have your email section as a subsection of that. Elinruby (talk) 01:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's the problem. We can't do original research on Wikipedia. This can't be an essay, or a resume. It has to come from third-party references about this woman, and be fully cited. I think someone with archival access to old LATimes articles or Variety, with articles published before the "racial remarks" debacle, is what is required. Also someone with a lot of time on their hands... Finally, focusing on the crazy dictatorship on the other side of the world would be utterly irrelevant to the topic at stake--this woman and her career achievements.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually reading what you are citing is not original research. Acknowledging that other stuff also happened than the one thing you seem to want to include is not original research. She was in charge when the breach occured therefore it is material. Far more material than Donald Trump's opinion of some of the content it revealed. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find third-party references saying that she was a maven in charge during the hack, do let us know. Otherwise, it is original research. All the third-party references we've found so far only talk about her "racially insensitive" remarks. I don't want to include anything at all--stop assuming you know what I want to do. I am neutral and only looking at references objectively. Editing Wikipedia is completely and utterly IMPERSONAL!! Zigzig20s (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * —Sladen (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This article from my list above specifically mentions her http://time.com/3625392/the-7-most-outrageous-things-we-learned-from-the-sony-hack/Elinruby (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences? It is fine to add a few sentences about this (and other relevant topics) if there are clear in-line references; I don't think anyone would object to that as long as it is not biased or a PR rewriting of history, and it would flesh out the article a bit. What would make no sense whatsoever would be to portray her as a security expert, which is what one edit of the lead once sounded like. But I really think we should be trying to flesh out her pre-"racially insensitive" remarks career. There must be references from back then. One may also want to add referenced info for her decision to underpay female actors.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're not not doing any good for your portrayal of yourself as objective. Elinruby (talk) 04:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You should STOP PERSONALIZING THIS. We will never know each other and it is utterly nonsensical to personalise this. It is also extremely creepy. I am trying to focus on the work. How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences? I don't see where this is going.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * , please remain WP:CIVIL and focus on the content. Nothing more, nothing less.  —Sladen (talk) 08:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. It is not civil at all to personalize this thread. So stop it. Don't accuse others of what you are doing. I've asked the content-related question, "How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences?" twice, here's the third time...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is about  (being in-charge/maven/co-chair of one of the entities related to internationally significant diplomatic incident). The concern asked above If you can find third-party references saying that she was a maven in charge during the hack, do let us know.  Some references have now been found, therefore per How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences? the suggestion would be use the references found to support/disproved references to support the significance/notability.  Would you like to have a go at using the references to do this in the WP:LEAD?  —Sladen (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe this is sufficiently significant to be in the lead, because the overwhelming amount of third-party references about the "racially insensitive" remarks completely overshadows those three references you have found. If you are able to find roughly the same number of third-party references about her role during the diplomatic incident, then sure, we could add both. But that's not the case so far. I suggest leaving either from the lead, unless you want to end up having a controversial lead like Donald Sterling's, where the word "racist" is repeated several times (which seems inappropriate IMO). However, I do believe you could add one sentence or two with those references you've found, in the career section. By the way, no one has questioned her notability by suggesting her page for deletion; she used to be a co-Chairman and thus relatively notable for her past.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. It is not civil at all to personalize this thread. So stop it. Don't accuse others of what you are doing. I've asked the content-related question, "How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences?" twice, here's the third time...Zigzig20s (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * This section is about  (being in-charge/maven/co-chair of one of the entities related to internationally significant diplomatic incident). The concern asked above If you can find third-party references saying that she was a maven in charge during the hack, do let us know.  Some references have now been found, therefore per How would you like to use those third-party references in sentences? the suggestion would be use the references found to support/disproved references to support the significance/notability.  Would you like to have a go at using the references to do this in the WP:LEAD?  —Sladen (talk) 14:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe this is sufficiently significant to be in the lead, because the overwhelming amount of third-party references about the "racially insensitive" remarks completely overshadows those three references you have found. If you are able to find roughly the same number of third-party references about her role during the diplomatic incident, then sure, we could add both. But that's not the case so far. I suggest leaving either from the lead, unless you want to end up having a controversial lead like Donald Sterling's, where the word "racist" is repeated several times (which seems inappropriate IMO). However, I do believe you could add one sentence or two with those references you've found, in the career section. By the way, no one has questioned her notability by suggesting her page for deletion; she used to be a co-Chairman and thus relatively notable for her past.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Parentheses
User:Doncram: Why do you think this edit is an improvement? It doesn't seem as good grammatically to me. Do you prefer it because of the addition of the word "movies"?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for asking here. This about current version: "...suggested the president, who is black, would enjoy Django Unchained and The Butler (movies which deal with slavery in the United States and the pre-civil rights era).[44][45]".  I think the added word "movies" helps mildly, either way, with use of just a comma before it or with use of parentheses.  Without the word movies and the parentheses, it seemed to me that it was suggesting that Pascal herself explained that django unchanged and The Butler are about slavery in the U.S. and the pre-civil rights era, maybe especially because the footnotes are attached to the end of the phrase.  With parentheses, it is clear that the phrase is an aside, an explanation to the reader.  I dunno, maybe if the footnotes were moved up to follow The Butler, that would help clarify that she didn't say the phrase, instead. -- do  ncr  am  19:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine if you want to edit it your way here, User:Doncram. Different editors have different styles.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Doncram: If you are able to find more references to flesh out her 'career' section (before the "racially insensitive" remarks debacle), that would be great. I think it would be good to add two more paragraphs to that section at least. I'd also like to find out more about her philanthropic work.Zigzig20s (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

wording about Kudrow and Trump comments
I find the sentences now in the article, stating what Lisa Kudrow and Donald Trump said, to be jarring, not adequately supported as being relevant to an article about Amy Pascal. So what, about what they say? Perhaps the point is that the comments extended the media coverage about Amy Pascal? I do recall seeing coverage of Kudrow's and Trump's comments in the news, and I believe it is fair to say they were widely reported and that they extended (or were used by the media to extend) the news coverage. How about wording change (with bolded additions and struck-out deletions ) as follows? Note also there was a word missing for the NYT item (does "columnist" properly describe Sorkin? which is what i insert): "Civil rights leader Al Sharpton suggested the apology was not sufficient, compared her to Donald Sterling, and called for more diversity in Sony's hiring pool. A New York Times columnist denounced the media's focus on Pascal's communications and many other emails released by the hack as "Giving Material Aid to Criminals", saying "at least the hackers are doing it for a cause. The press is doing it for a nickel." Popular coverage of the story was extended with A ctress and producer Lisa Kudrow suggest ed ing Pascal should have known better, adding, "Don’t write anything you don’t want broadcast." , and even later when b''' B illionaire real estate investor Donald Trump suggested she should resign "for stupidity reasons.""

I think that is a bit better, giving the Kudrow and Trump comments less importance. Also, as far as I can figure from dates in cited sources, the timeline of event was: On the other hand, these changes require some more words. Just a suggestion. -- do ncr  am  18:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dec 9 breakin / hack
 * Dec ??? publication of the emails
 * Dec 10 commentary/response
 * Dec 11 Amy Pascal apology reported
 * Dec 11 Al Sharpton comments
 * Dec 13 Lisa Kudrow comment reported
 * Dec 14 Al Sorkin comments in New York Times
 * Dec 18 Donald Trump comment reported

Or leave the wording as is, except briefly convey the fact of story extension by prefacing the last sentence: A week after Pascal's apology, billionaire real estate broker Donald Trump....? Or Seven days after Pascal's apology,, if that is correct (i'm not positive on how many days it was). -- do ncr  am  18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I think your first rewording above is fine, if you like long sentences. Usually encyclopaedias don't have long or "verbose" sentences, but that's a purely stylistic matter. I don't have an objection to it. However, I think it may sound too heavy-handed to add the exact number of days after this happened. We also know she apologized once; no need to be redundant and say it several times. Besides, she only apologized once through a PR statement, didn't she?Zigzig20s (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just one thing (but this is really a detail): instead of "popular coverage", "media coverage" may make more sense I think. Don't you? I think what you're trying to say is, "in the popular press", which is correct (the statements have not yet been analyzed in academic journals).Zigzig20s (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


 * , an excellent set of suggestions which give better context. The final comma should probably go before the reference.  I think when is correct, although it stuck out upon first-reading (compare to after).  Per  suggestion what about In the popular press coverage of the story was extended with … ?  Date wise, the salary list was leaked c.1 December 2014 ; with the hack pegged as c.22 November 2014, and by 25 November 2014 a claim that Sony's internal data including secrets and top secrets had been obtained .  —Sladen (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But this page is about Amy Pascal, not about the hack. There is already another article about the hack (which I have zero interest in). Don't go off topic. Besides the "racially insensitive" remarks, one should add referenced info about her decision to underpay female actors. I am looking forward to reading what feminist academics have to say about this in academic journals in the next few months--there may not be much analysis of this yet. Perhaps this is one way to expand her 'career' section, as she was doing this way before her "jokes" were revealed.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If there's no-more suggestions about the wording, lets try the proposed wording we've got so far. —Sladen (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ —Sladen (talk) 14:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Updated philanthropy section
I have added more referenced info about the Creative Community for Peace petition to the "philanthropy" section. It would be great to find some articles about her 2008 Humanitarian Award from the Simon Wiesenthal Center to flesh it out.Zigzig20s (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now added a bit more about the Simon Wiesenthal Center fundraiser.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested expert attention from WP Feminism about underpaying female actors
I have requested expert attention from editors at WP Feminism about her admission that she paid female actors less than their male counterparts as business strategy, to save money.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot sent me to the RfC above, but I'd rather respond here. I certainly think that a summary of her reasoning explained in should be included in the article. It's vital to understanding Pascal's standpoint on the much larger issue of gender-based wage discrimination, showing that she was blaming women for not negotiating aggressively while absolving herself of all blame for failing to take any steps to counter wage discrimination. That's probably a very pervasive, and in my opinion disgusting, character trait of CEOs, and it should be in the article. Women who negotiate too aggressively are often unsuccessful and considered too greedy to keep on the payroll. What if she had said, "The problem is I run a business. If parents want to send their 8 year olds to my sweatshops, then I pay their 8 year olds in my sweatshops"? EllenCT (talk) 06:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
 * User:EllenCT: Thank you for your feedback. It is great to see more editors paying attention to this article. I wanted to diversify the number of editors, to make sure there is a broad consensus. I would suggest you add a paragraph about her 'views on female employees', as it seems like an important part of her corporate philosophy, and she is not shy about it. There are a number of references over at WP Feminism, and you may be able to find more. Perhaps a subsection after the hack section and before the philanthropy section would be a good place. Let us know how it goes. Thank you.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * are you able to help by suggesting an initial wording that you think might work? —Sladen (talk) 12:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether or not the BLP policy would allow a discussion of the implications of the pervasiveness of her attitude, so I just quoted exactly what she said. I am interested in others' views on whether it would be appropriate to point out that the way society has been dealing with the gender pay gap has generally been by committing to steps to equalize pay instead of leveraging women's negotiating styles to maximize profit by institutionalizing discrimination. EllenCT (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * We're not in the habit of having long quotes like this. Why did you not use all the third-party references from the press reporting and commenting on her remarks? That would be a good place to start. If you're suggesting original research, no, that wouldn't be allowed here. That will probably be done in feminist academic journals in the next few months, however. But reporting what the press has said is completely appropriate. Again, if Pascal is not happy, she can sue every single newspaper; that's not our problem: we're not making stuff up. So no need to live/edit in fear, or in censorship (that's what happens in North Korea apparently, but not in our free societies). I'd like to remove the long quote and instead try to work on a paragraph with in-line third-party references, like the rest of the article, and basically most articles on Wikipedia.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Per Quotations, quotes are preferred when dealing with controversial subjects. "As per the WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV policy, biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. Quotations are the simplest form of attribution. Editors of controversial subject should quote the actual spoken or written words to refer to the most controversial ideas. Controversial ideas must never appear to be 'from Wikipedia.'" Do you think 149 words is excessive in this case? Which third-party references are you referring to? WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV suggests we shouldn't rely on others' interpretation of her opinion above her own words, doesn't it? EllenCT (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There are third-party references in my post at WP Feminism, and I'm sure we could find more by googling it more. We're not interpreting anything, and it is perfectly appropriate to contextualize her comments/corporate strategy by reporting what the press has said about it. I could try to post a paragraph with in-line references on this talkpage tomorrow (now I must sleep), and you could let me know what you think. Again, I don't think it's controversial--she is not shy about it. I don't think we should be censoring what she said, and how others have reacted.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Which specific references do you think portray Pascal's views more accurately than her own words? I am also interested in including some of the other instances of gender wage discrimination ("17 U.S. [Sony Pictures] employees are making $1 million or more. Only one of those is a woman. ... co-presidents of production at Sony’s Columbia Pictures division, Michael De Luca and Hannah Minghella ... have the same job [but] he’s making close to a million dollars more."), Charlize Theron's $10 million raise after she learned of her unequal pay (because Pascal's argument relies on the false assumption that women know they are being paid less), and Patricia Arquette's reaction speech at the Academy Awards. EllenCT (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we might be able to keep the quote (or at least some of it) and then add some context/in-line references about reactions from the press (including "blaming the victim"), etc. But now I must sleep; I'll respond further tomorrow. Thank you for taking an interest.Zigzig20s (talk) 01:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the quote down by at least half, I think, and added a paragraph on the rest. EllenCT (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've trimmed the quote in Amy Pascal further to exactly match that in the accompanying source—I'm sure the whole interview was considerably longer, but I couldn't find the other parts in the adjacent citation. I also removed the parts from Tina Brown which were mid-cquote and breaking it up.  Hopefully it is more precise/focused now and clearer about whom is saying what.  For the following sentences afterwards I've moved the name of the other (non-Pascal) people to the front of then sentences and tried to give more context (and considerably more Wikilinks to other articles which hopefully provide the reader access to a more-indepth article.  I've also consolidate the two duplicated mentions of Pascal being the only executive earning over $1million to a single location—it could be possible to add a few more words there, but for the moment I've left the original wording as that relates closely to the facts in the accompanying citation sources.  Do you think anything further could be tweaked/improved?  —Sladen (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The complete quote is in the video at the top of the Bloomberg ref. I think it's better the way I had it after removing all the extraneous verbiage; especially the part about how women have to know what they are worth (when they weren't being told.) EllenCT (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with User:EllenCT actually; it is easier to understand the context with the lengthier quote. Pascal's explanation can be seen and heard on youtube. I also think inserting this article from ThinkProgress, which provides some useful context, would be good. I also wonder if we could move the following sentences from the 'Activities and awards' section to this section: "In 2001, Pascal was honored with the Women in Film’s Crystal Award, which recognizes those whose work has helped to expand the role of women in the entertainment industry.[35] Pascal has been included in The Hollywood Reporter’s annual Women in Entertainment Power 100 list and Forbes’ ranking of the World’s 100 Most Powerful Women.[36][37] As of 2014, she was ranked as the 28th most powerful woman in the world by Forbes, up from 36th in 2013.[38]." It just looks like she got those awards for underpaying female actors--or am I missing something? Thoughts?Zigzig20s (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Sony CEO coverage, RS, RECENTISM

 * The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.  A summary of the conclusions reached follows.''
 * No specific question asked, no specific answer elicited. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

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 Amy Pascal with an eye towards WP:BLP and WP:RECENT. This article has been on my watchlist since the start of the Sony Pictures Entertainment hack 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. —Sladen (talk) 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. Coretheapple (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Reads like an indictment, kinda I also arrived here 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. Furthermore (ha), I think the discussion above gets a bit personal in places and ZigZag20s needs to chill. The user with the hex code name may be trying to speak up for the article's subject, possibly. It is true that it's a single-topic user. But while this is a red flag, this is nonetheless allowable if it is done in good faith. We all once got upset enough about some article to create an account and edit it. 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 Wikipedia globally. Sladen seems to be someone like me who copyedits random articles; can't say I see bias or conspiracy there, frankly. 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. Elinruby (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hang on, wait a sec, this is the Sony Pictures hack? I just realized what we are talking about here. Er, You don't just have a balance problem on the scale of this breach versus the rest of the woman's career. You also have a balance problem in the way you describe the breach. The remarks that were either racist or racially insensitive, ok, but what about the personal data of gajillions of employees, some of whom sued? Mention of North Korea vs disgruntled employee? This breach triggered a US government cybersecurity initiative and you're quoting some chick who was on Friends lol ;) Elinruby (talk) 12:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC) leave now, the


 * Somebody please do the world a favor and edit for the significance of the breach. I ... am feeling too sarcartic at the mo. But here is a source: http://variety.com/2015/biz/news/president-obama-cites-sony-hack-in-push-for-cybersecurity-measures-1201433677/. And another http://time.com/3625392/the-7-most-outrageous-things-we-learned-from-the-sony-hack/, And a couple more technical sources: http://www.wired.com/2014/12/sony-hack-what-we-know/ and http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/12/hackers-promise-christmas-present-sony-pictures-wont-like/. That's too much information for the article on the designated fall person, butthe article has that problem already. Maybe those sources need to be incorporated in the main artivle, and this one section rewritten to reflect that there was a lot more going on with that hack than racial insensitivity.Elinruby (talk) 12:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)


 * (summoned to RFC by a bot.) Amy Pascal has too much response to the leaked email thread, all of which basically make the same criticism. It is enough to quote from Pascal herself, and one response. I think editors should pick the most notable and relevant commentator. When the media piles on to an incident, Wikipedia does not report every single comment that was made in a reliable source, because its coverage becomes both unbalanced and unreadable. Which quote should we choose? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't think information should be censored. I believe her 'career' section should be expanded. However, it is hard to find much about her career achievements. I have added a section about her 'philanthropic' work to flesh out the page, but more info about her career prior to her 'racially insensitive' remarks would be good. To be honest, she was the butt of the joke at the Writers Guild of America Awards 2014 just a few weeks ago and as it stands, those 'racially insensitive' remarks, alongside her curious thoughts on underpaying female actors, are her legacy. I only ask that you don't censor information. What we could do, however, is move the 'racially insensitive' and 'underpaying female actors' sections to her 'career' section chronologically, as it happened before she was "fired".Zigzig20s (talk) 14:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that censorship and editing for balance and readability are quite different things. I haven't spotted any of our Good Articles or Features Articles with a comprehensive list of media quotations on each topic. The idea is to select them in a way that represents the whole of the coverage over the last three months.
 * However, I am not sure jokes are relevant at all. I never search for jokes for the articles I research, and I can't of those that would be useful even in an article about a comedian. Perhaps significant jokes from the Queen's Speech or the State of the Union address might make an encyclopedia, but surely not every joke about Vladimir Putin, Stephen Harper, Carly Fiorina or Amy Pascal deserves mention in our biographies.
 * --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not so much a joke as a way to seal her legacy I think.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - without a concrete question, this RFC will be virtually impossible to close effectively. Having said that, I am fine with the way the article is now. The woman lost her job because of an international incident which exposed more about certain aspects of the internals of modern American corporations than we have learned in decades of research. If the article is deficient at present, the ordinary course of editing and judicious application of BLP principles should correct it. EllenCT (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.