Talk:Google/Archive 5

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.^[1] 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.^[2] Employees learned that American infants are already fundamentally racist, and that only reverse discrimination against white people can rectify this.^[1][2] 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.^[1][2] 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".^[1][2]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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 .--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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).

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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.^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:780C:6F00:F8F7:CC7A:42BD:19B2 (talk) 11:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

This edit request to Google has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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)

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)

The redirect Google. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 6 § Google. until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

On a procedural note, one of the templates was removed with this edit on the 11th December, functionally ending the proposal before a formal merge close; I've now removed the other template, but of course anyone is free to start a new proposal - or just update the Google AI page with more on Gemini ... Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 29 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michcat11 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jitman43.

— Assignment last updated by TotalSolarEclipse (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 March 2024 and 4 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): XiaoyuChennyu (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XiaoyuChennyu (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow, this article could use a good copyedit. I can't even get through the first section. Firstly, not everything has to be linked. Let's start with that. Shelter3 (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi, what is the importance of "LLC" in this sentence?

Google LLC (/ˈɡuːɡəl/ ^ⓘ, GOO-gəl) is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce, consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence (AI).^[1]

Can we omit "LLC" or hyperlink that? Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 11:01, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This is a WP:COMMONNAME issue. Google is the usual name for the company in reliable sources, so I have removed the LLC part.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's quite common in articles about companies to mention "LLC", "Ltd.", "Inc." etc. in the first sentence. Maybe just because some editors like it, but maybe there's a policy or MOS convention. I don't know. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP looks in favor of using the common name, so without the "LLC". Alenoach (talk) 06:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:NCCORP doesn't help in this case, since it's about the page title, but we're discussing the first sentence of the article. I tried to find a policy or guideline about the issue, but failed. I found Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section/Archive 19#Legal name vs doing business as name, but that short discussion doesn't tell us much. — Chrisahn (talk) 07:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I asked about a policy or guideline regarding the general issue at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Use of business form in first sentence in article about business. — Chrisahn (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

P.S.: I don't really care whether this article's first sentence uses "Google LLC" or "Google". I noticed that many (most?) other articles about companies use the business form / legal name in the first sentence, and I'd like to understand why and whether there's a guideline. — Chrisahn (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

That would be MOS:FIRSTCORP Ptrnext (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Awesome, that's exactly what I had been looking for. Quote: "Regardless of the page title, the lead sentence of an article on a company or other organization should normally begin with its full legal name." Thanks for resolving this issue. — Chrisahn (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect The Keyword has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § The Keyword until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:02, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Google Open Source has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § Google Open Source until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:07, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Greyglers has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 18 § Greyglers until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 03:08, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Gppgle has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 22 § Gppgle until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

That does not seem to be mentioned anywhere here - I think that's an oversight. I've recently started an article on this (not to be confused with the older topic of censorship by Google). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:17, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,

I have just modified 2 external links on Google. 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/20241109174639/https://wired.me/technology/googles-ai-hub-saudi-arabia/ to https://wired.me/technology/googles-ai-hub-saudi-arabia/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20221120194600/https://xconomy.com/wisconsin/2019/01/31/googles-madison-expansion-to-triple-size-of-local-offices/ to https://xconomy.com/wisconsin/2019/01/31/googles-madison-expansion-to-triple-size-of-local-offices/

Please refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,

I would like to provide some constructive feedback regarding the Google Wikipedia article to help improve its accessibility and navigation for readers:

1. **Section Organization**: The article could benefit from clearer section headers and a more intuitive flow of information, particularly in organizing Google's diverse product offerings.

2. **Navigation Aids**: Consider adding more internal cross-references between related sections to help readers find relevant information more easily.

3. **Currency of Information**: Some sections could use updates with more recent developments, particularly regarding Google's recent initiatives and partnerships.

4. **Accessibility**: The article would benefit from more descriptive alt-text for images and diagrams to improve accessibility for screen reader users.

I appreciate the comprehensive coverage the article provides and believe these enhancements would make it even more valuable for readers. I'm happy to help implement any of these suggestions if there's community consensus.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 118.179.126.169 (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello fellow editors,

I would like to suggest a potential improvement to the Google article. Given that Google has become increasingly prominent in the artificial intelligence space with products like Google Bard, Gemini, and various AI integrations, I think the article could benefit from expanding the AI and machine learning section.

The current content seems to touch on this topic but could be enhanced with more recent developments, particularly: 1. Google's AI research initiatives 2. The integration of AI across Google's product ecosystem 3. Recent AI partnerships and acquisitions 4. Impact on the search industry and competition

This would help keep the article current and comprehensive given AI's growing importance to Google's business strategy. I'd be happy to contribute to such improvements if there's consensus from the editing community.

Thoughts and feedback welcome!

Thank you. 118.179.126.169 (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good. Beware though that the section "Products and services" is a dense summary of the many existing products, so keep it succinct. It is also important for your edits to be backed by reliable sources. Alenoach (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Could someone add the new AI Centre, in Waltham Cross Herts (about 15 miles north of Central London HQ) to the Europe Table? Thanks https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crmek723dz9o.amp Dotsdomain (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

In the "Corporate identity" section: The original motto was retained in the code of conduct of Google, now a subsidiary of Alphabet.

There's no reference supporting that claim. If you search their website, the code of conduct doesn't mention any such motto since it's been replaced by "do the right thing". 109.130.157.14 (talk) 08:25, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

> doesn't mention any such motto

You would be correct, as the motto is actually "don't be evil". OmegaAOL (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

There is so much going on in the lead section. Why does every product need to be linked to in it? Why are there citations, despite the style guide that you should not cite in lead sections?

This being a level-4 vital article, and at many points in the top 25 and top 50 most viewed Wikipedia articles, I am asking for consensus instead of just doing it myself. Because I would otherwise. OmegaAOL (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

MOS:LEADCITE is quite flexible about whether to include references in the lead, leaving editors to decide on a case-by-case basis. References that don't bring much value can be removed.

I don't know if the list of products is good or bad, it's a little tiresome to read but also rich in information.

Articles on major topics can have a lead that is a little longer, but condensing it by around 25% may be good. For instance, here are some sentences that I believe aren't very valuable and could be removed:

"Google's parent company, Alphabet Inc., is considered part of the Big Tech group, alongside Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, and Meta." (not so specific to Google, and Big Tech is loosely defined)

"Google is the largest provider of search engines, mapping and navigation applications, email services, office suites, online video platforms, photo and cloud storage, mobile operating systems, web browsers, machine learning frameworks, and AI virtual assistants in the world as measured by market share.[19] On the list of most valuable brands, Google is ranked second by Forbes as of January 2022,[20] and is fourth by Interbrand as of February 2022.[21]" (quite redundant with the rest of the lead) Alenoach (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2025 (UTC)

Merging this is will be more productive for developing consensus on content. Consider what a mess Praise of Google would be. In the main article, due weight can more properly be measured and if there are specific topics that need to be forked it will be easier to achieve those forks with a simpler dedication to neutrality Czarking0 (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose: Criticism of Google is way too large to be merged here successfully, and would lead to WP:SIZERULE problems.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:45, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  That is not a good reason to oppose this merge. If the content was already in this article and a split was proposed, a "critcism of google" split would not be a wise choice. Czarking0 (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

• A merge here wouldn't really work, but there are some obvious subpages part of the Criticism article can be merged to. For example, "Criticism of search engine" and "Censorship" should be integrated into Google Search. CMD (talk) 07:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

  No policy based reason provided for "wouldn't work" Czarking0 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Such pages are supported by WP:CRITICISM - they are appropriate if criticism is substantial, well-sourced, and relevant to the subject. Similar to @Ianmacm's argument, WP:SUMMARYSTYLE advises splitting large topics into sub-articles. In fact, we already have Google Search, Google Maps, Google Brain, YouTube, etc. Should those all be merged into mother Google or should the Criticism of Google article be fanned out into those pages? I prefer the current page structure.

Cdmx545467 (talk) 04:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Why then not make a "praise of google" page? CRITICISM is an essay that is a poor guidance here compared to policies like WP:POVFORK. I encourage summary style and forking. However forking on criticism and praise makes maintaining WP:NPOV a herculean task. I agree that parts of "critcism of google" could better be merged into these other forks and I think that could be a good consensus to find here. Czarking0 (talk) 04:17, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

The answer to the question about "praise of google" is unclear to me, but that's a different question. Clearly, there are many Criticism of <some company> type of pages - Criticism of Apple Inc., Criticism of Netflix, Criticism of Facebook - but not many "praise of" pages. So, we have historic reasons at a minimum and maybe, just possibly such pages run against existing WP policies. I agree that there are WP:NPOV issues to consider (always), but am not convinced they force a merge-back at this point. The most prominent items in this page are notable enough to be split into separate articles, leaving only short summaries here. It may be more practical to reach consensus for such actions (or just perform those splits and see if they stick), as they could be helpful on the way to the more ambitious proposal discussed here.

Cdmx545467 (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I probably would advocate for merging all of those but that is not the question here. PAGEEXISTS is not a policy based rationale Czarking0 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose No one is suggesting a "Praise of Google" here except you. Criticism is a neutral word. WP:NPOV (specifically WP:POVNAMING) and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. The "Praise of" articles I see on search seem to be due to a name of an episode or song. Such an article would be against WP:NPOV. The nominator is presenting a theoretical scenario versus the reality. The "Criticism of..." article was created as notability was established for it to stand on its own. Merging the content is counterproductive. – The Grid (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am not suggesting "Praise of Google" I am quoting the policy at WP:POVFORK Czarking0 (talk) 04:54, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

  There is a link to "Criticism_and_controversies" linking to a separate article. That seems to honor the brevity limits imposed by Wikipedia. I believe that is the better route rather than creating an enormous article that can get a user "lost in the weeds", as it were. Bd64kcmo (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose criticism of Google is quite a long article, we're not just talking about a "it happened once" incident. there are many others "criticism of x" articles, and i think that keeping them separate would remove a lot of clutter. also, some of the criticism in that page just doesn't fit into the main google article, for example this.

Emayeah (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

please add this topic in the page somewhere ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Under "Products and services", there is a "Main article: List of Google products". The 3rd paragraph of the introduction also covers the main products. Alenoach (talk) 22:08, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

I wish to see topic in the See also section so that I don't need to search the link in the text. I mean it purely for the convenience. ~2025-35021-39 (talk) 05:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. You can add a link in "See also" if you want. Although it might happen that someone reverts it, arguing that the link already exists in the rest of the article. Alenoach (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2026 (UTC)