Talk:Google/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Proposed merge of .google into Google

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

---

Support The TLD is not notable enough to merit its own article. Aasim (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Awesome Aasim: Why not? It passes WP:GNG. Mcguy15 (talk, contribs) 01:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Support Agree with merging! Spyder212 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like it should be mentioned in this article with a short summary and should have the actual page linked, but I believe that it may be too long of a list for people to read comfortably and should only have a few notable parts listed.JPaul Getty ptoductions (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Any more or less relevant than say .apple or .toyota or others? I'd say more relevant to merge into either Sponsored top-level domain or Google Domains who owns a variety including .new, .dev, .google, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EoRdE6 (talk • contribs) 17:23, April 16, 2021 (UTC)

Need to treat all these TLD company names similarly per comment above. Either merge into company article for all of them, keep them all separate (seems least preferable option to me), or merge them all into Sponsored top-level domain article.--FeralOink (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Support Should be merged, as seems as if it is just a list TapticInfo (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think a merge makes sense here, but the list of domains should be removed from .google. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Support There's not separate notability. Wikisaurus (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose The article generally meets WP:GNG, with only some sources being primary. Also, a brand domain like .toyota is not really important, but Google's top level domain should remain a separate topic. MatEditzWiki - ^Talk!/_Contribs! 06:13, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose They would be best to keep separate. Catfurball (talk) 19:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Section about anti-racism training reverted

I have reverted an addition to this article because I believe the sourcing and writing is, at best, dubious. The Jewish Press is a conservative publication, and the specific article cited is based on no apparent original reporting - rather, it appears to be a mashup aggregated from several other sources - Among other things, the program suggests that using evidence in an argument shows white privilege, according to Fox Business, the New York Post, City Journal and multiple other media - all of which are also conservative, one of which was written by an explicit activist, Christopher Rufo. The wording of the article (GroupThink much?) is far more suggestive of opinion than of news. If we're going to discuss this issue, we should be looking for better sources and a broader range of views - not just someone rephrasing Chris Rufo's dubiously-accurate polemics. (Please note the extensive discussion in Rufo's biography of the times he has misrepresented or outright lied about the contents of such programs.} NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This was a well-sourced paragraph about Google's progressive new anti-racism training. In this long article, the deleted edit was the only mention of anti-racism. Moreover, Google's progressive anti-racism training was widely reported. This article is about a very big company, and edits about an important aspect of the company should not be deleted just because it makes a couple of editors feel uncomfortable. If other editors want to expand on this edit, or have some other information to add, please do so. It seems more like this edit was deleted because others are uncomfortable with Google's decisions, which were reported in the media, and subsequently added to Wikipedia. The input of others would be appreciated. The edit...

In 2021, Google launched an anti-racism program for employees based on the tenets of critical race theory. Google's program asserts that the United States was founded on white supremacy, and that even white people who have not engaged in white supremacy have profited from it. Employees learned that American infants are already fundamentally racist, and that only reverse discrimination against white people can rectify this. Warning signs of "covert white supremacy" include "colorblindness", "[American] exceptionalism", "Columbus Day", "weaponized whiteness", and "Make America Great Again", and former President Donald Trump's movement was a precursor to mass murder and genocide. Conservative Jewish commentator Ben Shapiro was included on a "White Supremacy Pyramid", leading Shapiro to say about Google's anti-racism training: "All it would take is one Google search to learn just how much white supremacists hate my work....The attempt to link everyone to the right of Hillary Clinton to white supremacism is disgusting, untrue, and malicious".

Magnolia677 (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the section you inserted was not well-sourced. As I noted, the Jewish Press article is an aggregated mashup with no apparent original reporting, which extensively relies upon a City Journal article written by Christopher Rufo, a polemicist with a history of misrepresenting or outright falsifying claims about what such anti-racism programs contain. The "Yahoo News" article is actually syndicated from the National Review, which is plainly stated at the top of the article - please observe the NR logo. This means that it is an opinionated source which should generally not be relied upon for claims of fact about people and things which it ideologically opposes - much as we avoid Media Matters for America and such. The NR article is also little more a thin rewrite of the same claims by Rufo, from the same source. Whether or not Rufo's claims about Google are sufficiently relevant to this article is not self-evident, and is a subject for discussion and consensus here.

A truly well-sourced paragraph on this subject would rely primarily on mainstream reliable news sources, not partisan polemics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

This same information is mentioned at City-Journal and Fox Business. These two sources, and the two from the reverted edit, are either not mentioned or not prohibited as sources at WP:RSP. If Google's decisions make you uncomfortable then your beef is with Google, not with Wikipedia editors who report on it. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

An article written by a conservative activist who's repeatedly lied about the contents of anti-racism programs is insufficient to support claims of fact; at best it's useful for Christopher Rufo's attributed opinion, and that only if there's a consensus that Christopher Rufo's attributed opinion belongs in this article. I don't think it does. Your addition has been rejected by two separate editors; at this point your path forward involves opening an RFC for broader community consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Magnolia677: Saying the sources are "not mentioned or not prohibited as sources at WP:RSP" is disingenuous. Fox News, the owner of Fox Business, and The National Review both come with flags ("No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply"). But additionally, there's no indication that they've done any investigation of their own. They're both quoting Christopher Rufo, who is not a reliable source. Dan Bloch (talk) 00:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Magnolia677 and Danbloch. As of 14 September, there is coverage of the racist anti-racism training by Yahoo News, The National Review, City Journal, The New York Post (Google pushing CRT in staff training: Report), Fox Business (Google 'antiracism' initiative attacks Ben Shapiro, suggests using evidence in argument is racist: report), The Washington Examiner, and MSN Online. You are correct, that Yahoo! News replicates National Review's article, and MSN sourced their coverage from this, Internal Google document ties white supremacy to Trump, MAGA, and Ben Shapiro by WashExaminer. WashExaminer linked to that City Journal article by Christopher Rufo, but does not reproduce it verbatim. I would say that we MUST mention something about this in the article, but hesitate because

ONE Washington Examiner also says:

The internal document contains a disclaimer that it was “not legally reviewed” and, therefore, is not to be considered company policy, but it was hosted on Google's internal resources server and made available across the company.

and TWO in City Journal, Rufo claims to "have obtained a trove of whistleblower documents from inside Google that reveal the company’s extensive racial-reeducation program..." but has not published the documents, nor reveal when, if ever, he intends to do so. That troubles me. Fox Business has the best article of the lot, with some original reporting tying the training to a Google publicized initiative about anti-racism training from 2020 that was expected to be released in mid-2021. Until Rufo produces some actual documentation though, I am not inclined to add anything.--FeralOink (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Google illegally underpaid workers around the world

News that will need to be added to the article: Revealed: Google illegally underpaid thousands of workers across dozens of countries via The Guardian UK and New York Tines.--FeralOink (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Google wasn’t invented “on the moon”

Article states Google was invented PhDs living on the moon 2603:8001:7802:4ED6:AC57:9FCE:4ECA:DD73 (talk) 03:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing this out.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylea21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 July 2020 and 14 August 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xwang2182.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2022

Please restore my account and laptop setting and features 2600:387:C:6A30:0:0:0:2 (talk) 15:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article about google, not a way to contact google. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2022

Google Inc 112.134.204.175 (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: as you have not requested a specific change.
Please request your change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Google is a limited liability company. This isn't the same as a corporation; see [1].--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant references in "History"

Of the three references (numbered 14, 29 and 30 as of today) given for the etymology of "Google", only the second is relevant. The other two say nothing about the subject. They should either be dropped or be moved to a more appropriate place. Mdmi (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2022

AHHHHyes (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I would like to edit because I would like to update the facts of what's going on

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Criticizing Google for censoring RT and other Russian media

The article should elaborate more on how Google has censored Russian press on its platform on the Ukraine situation, violating their freedom of speech while also serving American hegemony like dogs. Dimbreath Ubatcha (talk) 07:56, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

That might be better for Censorship by Google#2022 Russian-Ukrainian war rather than here. Endwise (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

"Googl" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Googl and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 7#Googl until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 04:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

please add google easter eggs Gosistman (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The article already mentions easter eggs and links to List_of_Google_Easter_eggs RudolfRed (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Change back to default 2603:8080:CD00:D26D:946D:F0C7:9DDE:D5CA (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ParamfD (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ParamfD (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

"Google Foobar" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Google Foobar and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Google Foobar until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Project Nimbus into Google#Project Nimbus

This doesn't need to be its own article. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

It's a $1.2 billion project involving Google, Amazon, and other companies involving a radical restructuring of the Israeli government's operations. It clearly deserves it's own article. It also has its own article on WP:HE. إيان (talk) 16:52, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I'm withdrawing this merge proposal. I misunderstood the project (it is not just Google). But I do think that article has different issues that I'll address elsewhere. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, including Wikipedia:Neutral point of view ... Edwardx (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022

Change: Google develops the Android mobile operating system

To: Google develops the Android mobile operating system Johntathamtech (talk) 10:03, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

•  Done EnIRtpf09b^{chat with me} 11:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 5 September 2022 (2)

In the second paragraph of the 2022 section of "Criticism and controversies", Google is misspelled as "Gooole". Amgroce (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible addition to Controversies section

On October 9, 2020 the Wall Street Journal quoted Operation Warp Speed chief Moncef Slaoui as naming Oracle part of a three-corporation joint provider of a tracking platform monitoring vaccine recipients for vaccine series uptake and side-effects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:780C:6F00:F8F7:CC7A:42BD:19B2 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request for Google on 26 November 2022

I want to make a change! I am gonna put in some real, google Easter eggs and secrets, such as, if you put "do a barrel roll" in the Google text box, google will do an actual barrel roll. I am sharing some secrets for people that don't already know Google Secrets or just want to have fun 😇😳. Please 🙏 accept this edit request! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.47.85.217 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: that's just trivia which does not belong in an encyclopedia article. No matter how many emojis you use it's not gonna happen. You provided no sources regardless. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:01, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Already mentioned at List of Google Easter eggs. Pizzaplayer219^Talk_Contribs 02:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2022

The part "COVID-19 pandemic and the succes of it" should be changed to "COVID-19 pandemic and the success of it" 213.178.135.4 (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 11:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Spelling Change

In Philanthropy, it states "Google announced a $15 mln donation to support Ukrainian citizens." It should either say mil, or million. Wikibrowser30 (talk) 16:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

@Wikibrowser30: Thank you, that's  Done -- John of Reading (talk) 16:36, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Googlenet" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Googlenet and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 22 § Googlenet until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Muhali (talk) 12:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

RfC on 9to5Google as a source

There is an RfC at WP:RSN on reliability of 9to5Google as a source.[2] Only 3 opinions have been given in about 19 days. More would be appreciated. -- Yae4 (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

EditRequest: Date of incorporation

The "early years" section gives two different dates of incorporation within just a few lines. It is either Sept 4 or Sept 7, but not both. Please change, or at least mark the inconsistency using a template. Thanks. --77.23.54.32 (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Marked both with {{contradict-inline}}. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed. It seems a little unclear and only supported by self-published sources anyway, so I removed both.      — Freoh 02:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

You'll need to remove that from the note in the infobox as well. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 02:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, didn't see that, and the date there looks like it's better-sourced. Feel free to re-add it in prose to the body if you'd like, but it seems like the exact date of incorporation isn't super notable in the history of the company, so I'm fine leaving it as-is, where the date of incorporation only appears in the infobox.      — Freoh 03:12, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright I'll leave it as is then. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 03:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2023

2604:3D09:AA7F:FEA0:32B0:A7A2:163B:884C (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Add: Eugene Kwok to Key people .~

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

1,000 Languages Initiative / Universal Speech Model

I haven't seen any mention of this here, or on any other Wikipedia pages:

Google’s one step closer to building its 1,000-language AI model — The Verge, March 6, 2023

Universal Speech Model (USM): State-of-the-art speech AI for 100+ languages — Google Research Blog, March 6, 2023

Not sure where in the article this could go? Or is there a special page regarding Google's AI & ML research? Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! 69.58.143.240 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2023

Tommyedit82442 (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Can i please edit a date is not correct

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit that says Google is an "United States-based company".

I elect to undo this wording as it is not consistent with the rest of Wikipedia's pages on Silicon Valley companies and other American multinationals. Googles own parent, Alphabet inc, uses the term "American multinational", as does Microsoft, Amazon, Apple, Symantec, Broadcom, Intel, AMD General Motors, Ford, Facebook, Twitter, and etc. Taking this into account, it does not make sense to undo consistency and change the wording. Otherwise, we should then change it for the rest of Silicon Valley's thousands of companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sciophobiaranger (talk • contribs) 18:05, July 16, 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2023

In the history>early years section, David Cheriton invested "change $250,000 to ($100,000 - 200,000)"

Reference - https://www.benzinga.com/news/23/05/32475257/the-professor-who-made-10-billion-by-cutting-google-its-first-startup-check 114.130.156.201 (talk) 20:03, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Callmemirela 🍁 21:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Lead section

Hi, I was wondering if it would be best to change the part of the lead section mentioning Google's products into a list format, as the prose looks very confusing and difficult to read. Thanks, The Troutinator 🐟 - Slap me | What I've slapped 04:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

It is generally preferred to write in prose rather than lists. Furthermore, the lead section only highlights the most notable and important products. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)