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 sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article 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
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
"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
Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn 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.
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).
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 threeseparatetimes 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.
.jpg){kind=small}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.