This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics 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.GoogleWikipedia:WikiProject GoogleTemplate:WikiProject GoogleGoogle articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organized Labour, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Organized Labour 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.Organized LabourWikipedia:WikiProject Organized LabourTemplate:WikiProject Organized Labourorganized labour articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada 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.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
COI'd edit request: reword sentence to not present an article-subject claim as a Wikipedia-voice fact[edit]
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.
Specific text to be added or removed: "The company has retaliated..." (near the end of the "Positions" section) - please rewrite to "It considers Google to have retaliated...", or "it asserts the company has retaliated..." or a similar phrasing. ("It" here is "the union", the subject of the previous sentence.)
Reason for the change: The current phrasing states without segue that "The company has...", which makes it an uncited statement in Wikipedia's voice. The accuracy of this statement is the heart of ongoing controversy about the events it refers to, so I regard it as inappropriate to not qualify the claim as a view from the subject of the article, rather than background information granting context to the article.
References supporting change:https://www.npr.org/2021/01/08/954710407/at-google-hundreds-of-workers-formed-a-labor-union-why-to-protect-ourselves - the existing citation on this sentence - explicitly includes a statement near the end from Google contesting the claim of retaliation. Much earlier in the article, it describes and quotes statements from AWU press releases and an AWU member, where they describe their position on retaliation. The article takes no position on whether this claim is accurate; not qualifying the statement in this article treats it as concluded when it is, instead, a live dispute.
My conflict: I am employed by Google as a software engineer. This edit request is wholly in my personal capacity as an individual, is not representative of or endorsed by Google or Alphabet, and is not within my scope of work. I am not receiving any payment for this edit request and I am not responding to any request that I make this request. (It's requests all the way down.) I consider my employment to render it inappropriate for me to make any direct edits about Alphabet LLC, its subsidiaries, its competitors, its antagonists, its staff, its products, etc. Obviously this specific topic is about as "do-not-touch" as it could get for a Google employee.
