It doesn’t take much, Skald, since Faye has actually explicitly employed the actual term “Chinese wall” to describe her situation in at least one episode, maybe two. 
Actually, now that I think about it, the other possible Chinese wall that was breached was the one that resulted in Ken’s learning of the Lucky Strikes situation. Lee Garner Jr. promised Roger 30 days to break it to his firm, and I’m pretty sure that American Tobacco would have asked B.B.D.O. to keep the whole thing quiet until they were ready to go live.
That one’s much more of a Chinese wall than Roger’s just trying to avoid breaking unpleasant news to his colleagues.
WHAT DID I JUST SAY?
And why do you force me to hurt you?
The concept of walls and barriers was very prominent in this episode.
First, there’s the two breaches of the Chinese wall that’s already been mentioned. Faye gives Don vital information about Heinz’s dissatisfaction. Ken learning about Lucky Strike’s defection from the account guy at BBDO.
Other walls are constantly being breached in this episode as well. Don breaches the wall between his professional and private lives again by sleeping with his secretary again. Peggy and Abe breaks down the wall that had been built-up after their last disastrous meeting. Roger attempts to get back into the good graces of Joan and physically enters her apartment only to have her shut him down again.
Then again, there’s the barriers between family life and work life that shouldn’t exist, and yet are frustratingly present. Pete’s physically barred from seeing his wife. His presence is barely tolerated by the mother-in-law and he’s pushed back to work time and again. Roger has such a divide between his family and work life that his wife appears obliviously cheerful at the end of the episode to give Roger the gift of his failed work life.
Backtracking to the lipstick, I’m surprised that Harry didn’t take her aside and tell her. Is he such a moron he didn’t notice it?
I’m not surprised. Harry’s idiocy was key in the fiasco that led to losing Sal. After Sal turned him down, Lee Jr called Harry & told him to take Sal off the account. Harry did nothing. The next day, Sal was sitting there at the next meeting, leading Lee Jr to flip out–although he never explained his problem with Sal. So Big Man Roger fired Sal. Who finally went to Don & explained what had happened–but Don let him stay fired.
And he didn’t keep Joan on to read scripts, although she was great. (Actually, Roger suggested he hire a guy to take that job. Harry thought that was a fine idea.)
Well, maybe Harry’s constant trips Out West mean he actually has some connections that can help SCDP in its hour of need.
As much as I loved Sal, I can’t see him coming back to work at SCDP. For one thing–the company is hardly hiring, right now. I’d love to see him next season, shooting commercials & doing well at another firm. Still married to Kitty? Darn–she was supposed to marry Ken. Who is now marrying into a very scary family.
Speaking of Twin Peaks–maybe Megan has an evil twin? That literary, arty, actressy, I-wanna-write-copy but Let’s Do It Right Now chick was very different from the Megan we’d seen in earlier episodes.
Whoa, I don’t remember anything about Kitty seeing Ken. 
Did they even meet before Sal invited Ken over for dinner? Sal & Kitty probally aren’t still married either. We saw Kitty gradually picking up on clues and Weiner even menioned in the commentary the Sal reenacting Ann-Margeret’s Bye Bye Birdie in their bedroom was a moment of revelation for her. Even in 1965 a good Catholic girl like her had the option of getting an annulment under those circumstances.
I very, very much doubt that Kitty and Sal would ever divorce. Sal is - sadly - probably going to go to the grave denying that he’s gay and would, in my estimation, go to great and terrible lengths in order to keep up his charade with Kitty. If he was ever seriously exposed I bet he’d kill himself.
All that said, I doubt we’ll ever see the character on the show again, and I hope we don’t. His story has been told; bringing him back would be contrived.
I thought the last time we saw Sal, he was in a phonebooth calling Kitty… in a low-rent district that looked like a hook-up spot for guys. I certainly was left with the impression that his sexless days were over, whether or not he’d let Kitty in on what was going on.
I think there have been just about enough “returns” – Joan, Freddie, Ken – that any more will be pushing verisimilitude too much. It would be fine to see Sal or Paul at another firm – like we did with Smitty – but no more than that. After all, Weiner did say that he wanted there to be consequences to decisions. That precludes endless reunions.
Joan wasn’t a return, she was needed for the start up team. Freddy was kind of a waste. But Sal? I’ve seen lots of media clamoring for more Sal. IMO, he was the biggest character who didn’t return. I wouldn’t be disappointed with Weiner if he came back, either.
That counts as a return to me. She retired and they found a way to bring her back.
And the fact that so many people are clamoring for it is a count against it. Good art is never create through democracy. Weber should ignore such calls and stick to his artistic instincts. It proves the point that this would just bs fanservice.
Of course I also believe that the “Office”'s Jim-Pam engagement, weren’t, pregnancy discovery, and delivery should all have happens off screen. Nonmercy to the squee-ers.
She never left the opening credits. She appeared in at least two episodes after resigning and before the startup. In no way is she a returning character.
Don’t quibble with me about opening credits and contracts. I’m talking about the story. From the point of view of the story, she left and came back. That’s a return. In exactly the same way that Freddie left and came back. In exactly the same way that Ken left and came back. She left the firm that is the center of the plotlines and the storyline found a way to bring her back into another firm that is again the center of the plotlines. She was working in a department store, and now she’s back at the workplace that’s the focus of the story. That’s a return. Her character was clearly on the way out of the lives of the rest of the major characters and then events conspired to bring her back. In an interview after Joan’s exit, Weiner was answering questions about “Will Joan come back?” (because she left) and he implied, no, that she wouldn’t. But she did. That’s a return.
If someone at your office quits and takes a job at another company, have they left? If they then get hired back, have they returned? Yep. That’s what Joan did.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that she never left Sterling Cooper. However, the character never left Mad Men and continued to be a part of the show even while working elsewhere.
Sal hasn’t been a part of the show for over a season. Freddy is really the only comparison for someone who went away completely and then reemerged.
Oh, balls. SHE DIDN’T LEAVE THE STORY. She left the agency but continued to appear. She didn’t appear in every episode, but so what? NOBODY does except Don. Even Peggy & Pete are occasionally absent.
ETA: And who said anything about contracts? Not I.
Then there’s no argument. Because this is the crux of the verisimilitude problem. As I said before, I’d have no problem seeing Sal or Paul at a different firm, as we did with Smitty, because, there’s nothing implausible about that. They’re all working in a relatively small professional world. But bringing Sal back – that is, making a member of the staff again – violates verisimilitude, especially because of the number of returns already depicted. It all adds up to a “getting the band back together” vibe for the purposes of satisfying fanboys.
Verisimilitude – as defined by Weiner himself – includes the proposition that actions have consequences. For example, when you fire a guy because he’s gay, you are likely never to hire him again. Or if you don’t take a guy with you to your new firm because you don’t think he’s good enough, then chances are he’s not going to become good enough a couple of years later.
I really don’t see how this is relevant to the question.
When did I say anything about appearing in every episode? IN THE STORY, SHE LEFT THE FIRM. NOW SHE’S BACK IN THE FIRM. THAT’S A RETURN.
I ask again – If your colleague quits his job and takes a job elsewhere, but you still see him occasionally, has he LEFT YOUR COMPANY? And if he’s then hired back HAS HE RETURNED? Or because you never completely lost contact with him do you think that he never left?
Oh, I agree completely and already said that Sal should remain gone. I just didn’t think Joan was a very good comparison.