Talk:Ellen Pao

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


 * Yes, if you think about it, the "unpaid" seems unnecessary if "users" is already there. But I'm hesitant to remove it because that's the point of the sentence: that the enforcement of a company's rules is primarily carried out by people who are not paid by that company—its users. Mz7 (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * There are a few examples like YouTube. Connor Behan (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "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!   ·  &#9993;  20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 . 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)
 * 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)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 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 ).

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

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)

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) 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? 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).
 * Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 260 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.

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
 * The addition of the section was contested at least three separate times by (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.