Talk:Eric Schmidt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Virginia (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Comments[edit]

I had to comment on this. This man is being presented in a very very favorable light. Wikipedia is being used a propaganda tool for people like Schmidt that have deep personal flaws and run companies that expose everyone else while hiding behind PR cleansed articles like this. THis is a shame and a sham of an article and it clearly shows that with enough money the most evil people on earth can get a fresh start here. mickrussom (talk) 16:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like Google PR piece.

Nothing wrong with having an article about this person, if it were properly wikified. RickK 07:48, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have some interesting materials to add, like Eric's Novell history and history at Sun. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this article sounds a lot less like a Google PR piece with peacock terms now. I will run down the remaining sources tommorrow. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 06:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jeff, I reverted them, before having seen your comment above. Wikipedia isn't the place to get revenge on one of your former bosses, and certainly not without sourcing your allegations. If you want to put some of it back with proper sources, then fine, but please don't abuse those sources either - you ripped that fastcompany.com quote so far out of context that it had a completely different meaning here from the quote in the original article. --Aim Here 19:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No COI Here. I have not had dealings with Eric since 1997, in fact, I never worked for him as I had left Novell before he was appointed. The materials come from industry sources and public comments. So your comments about Eric being a former boss are entirely inaccurate. I am sure a lot of folks know who Eric is. Other than a single line about Novell, I thought it better to flush out the entire section. I will work on the other sections as well, including his personal life, divorce from his previous wife, and other public materials. His report card on dragging Novell from a leadership role into a failing company role belongs here. Based upon industry reports at the time, Schmidt seriously harmed Novell through his inept management practices. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 19:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, he wasn't your boss. I was confused because, on the LKML, you claim that you filed a lawsuit that claimed that Eric "and another executive at Novell" sexually harassed you, which was "Part of the reason [you] left Novell", which sounds to me as though he was an executive while you were working there. I must have read that wrong, but it still seems CoI material --Aim Here 19:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This morbid fascination with following me around the site simply to revert edits and post trolling comments appears to be a something WP:HARRASS addresses. Given our history, I think it would be wise for you to avoid me from now on. I do feel intimidated and your presence makes me uncomfortable with editing here. Thanks. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 20:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Grow up Jeff. I saw problems with just *one* of your many edits since you came back (I haven't even read the others), and you accuse me of stalking you. --Aim Here 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

How do you write that????

"Schmidt is an avid proponent of the nothing to hide philosophy"??? In Political Views? As his only Political View??? Just a sentence, just for a sentence???

I suggest to either delete this or give more information on this topic, but, "an avid proponent of the nothing to hide philosophy"? :S!|@@#$ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.104.234.130 (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

According to Ryan Tate, "Tech's Winner's and Losers of 2010", Gawker, 28 Dec 2010 Google CEO Eric Schmidt has said on CNN that if you object to Google's password sniffing vans, move your residence; and that if you wish to escape Google's search engine, change your name.

On the "just move" gaff he did offer a retraction: "....I clearly misspoke. If you are worried about Street View and want your house removed please contact Google and we will remove it."

The name change idea is so that after kids put stupid stunts on social media sites as minors, when they reach adulthood they can just change their name to expunge their record. scary ideas for children

Quote from a CNBC interview: ""If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."" secrets are for filthy people

Holman W. Jenkins Jr., "Google and the Search for the future", Wall Street Journal, 14 Aug 2010 commented: "Mr. Schmidt is surely right, though, that the questions go far beyond Google. "I don't believe society understands what happens when everything is available, knowable and recorded by everyone all the time," he says. He predicts, apparently seriously, that every young person one day will be entitled automatically to change his or her name on reaching adulthood in order to disown youthful hijinks stored on their friends' social media sites."

Schmidt has a way of making off-the-cuff statements that require clarification, and no lack of folks who find the original gaffs mind-boggling. I found this in just a couple hours browsing. I am afraid if his gaffs, critical reactions and retractions or clarifications were added to the article, it would become a mess. Naaman Brown (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note:Please watch Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Problems with the article[edit]

Right, I'll ennumerate the specific problems with this article, so that they can be addressed. Jeff's getting very protective of his edits, and I've been reverted twice today:

While at Sun Microsystems, Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Fast Company, a Silicon Valley News Agency. During the interview, Eric Schmidt indicated he believed that "sex" oriented businesses were the future of the computing industry. Several months after these interviews were published, Schmidt was recruited by Novell to the CEO position. One notable excerpt from these interviews:

...Eric Schmidt, Sun's chief technology officer, is leaning back in a plush executive chair. Eric is thinking about sex. A smile is on his lips, and a deep, satisfied light radiates from his eyes. He has grasped a liberating truth: sex -- not microchips and software -- is the key to the future of business. Eric Schmidt's job at Sun is to spawn and nurture new businesses. For Eric, organizational sex is a rich, vibrant topic. His days are often spent in flirtations -- and sometimes full-fledged assignations -- with new companies and their founders. What he tries to do is create a union of the fertile ideas of rebels and visionaries and the organizational DNA of Sun. [4]

This is pretty much undue weight to some random buzzword in a random interview, placed in the article to give the impression that Schmidt is some sort of sex maniac, and merely putting the word 'sex' in inverted commas doesn't do anywhere near enough to give the Wikipedia reader some idea of what the article is talking about. I reckon everything quoted above should go. The next paragraph (about attempting to kill Java) needs citations.

Everything in the 'Novell' section needs a citation.

Furthermore:

These businesses then became major suppliers of video servers and c

aching servers with a large percentage of the customer base being affiliated with the adult entertainment industry and sex video oriented businesses.

This looks like an undue weight on matters sexual again, and it needs to be well cited. I'm guessing that Novell doesn't do proportionally more business with pornographers than any other computer software firm.

Due to a serious tactical error on Schmidt's part...

POV. I seem to recall that Canopy won and paid Novell a heathy sum too, so I'd be surprised if you could even find a quorum of sources claiming that this was much of a tactical error.

...and departure of key technologists from the company, coupled with lawsuits and allegations in US District Court, District of Utah of Sexual Harrassment and Retaliation by Novell Executives during Schmidt's administration.

Ahem. Conflict of Interest and undue weight - the editor was an active participant in the events refered herein. This needs reliable secondary sources saying that these events were at all significant in Schmidt's career. The particular phrasing of the edit could well pose WP:BLP problems too. --Aim Here 20:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
It would appear your sole justification for challenging my edits here are some basis where you believe there is a conflict of interest, and this is your sole stated reasons for page blanking my edits to the article, and removing credible verified and reliable sources. Schmidt sued dozens of key technologists at Novell and ran them out of the company, this is a matter of record. There were also multiple lawsuits (Ken Anderson and others) filed against the company alleging Sexual Harassment as a result of Schmidt's attempts to push Novell into the internet porn business. This coupled your with comments on my talk page that you intend to have "any edits I make deleted from Wikipedia" clearly fall within WP:HARRASS. This is the last time I will politely ask to to avoid me on this site. Your presence is disruptive and your sole stated purpose is to harrass another editor. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 22:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish, Jeff. I gave a number of justifications for my problems with your edits in this article. You put hardly any sources in the parts of the article I quote above, and the one source there was a misleading out-of-context quote that doesn't back up the statements in the article. As for your assertion 'this is a matter of record', and 'Schmidt's attempts to push Novell into the internet porn business' please cite verifiable, credible, secondary sources. Ditto for 'multiple lawsuits (Ken Anderson and others) filed against the company alleging Sexual Harassment' - "Ken Anderson" +Novell + "Sexual Harrassment" gets 5 unrelated ghits. And please reread what I wrote on your talk page. I merely said that the fastcompany.com quote would be deleted, not 'any edits you make'. And I've never stated that any of my purposes here is to harass any editor. Sigh, Jeff, I was rather hoping that your sabbatical from Wikipedia would have taught you something about how to comport yourself here, but it looks like you've learned nothing. --Aim Here 00:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Rather than arguing Jeff, just provide cites for your edits. It should be simple, right? Otherwise they all just fail WP:NPOV.. Jerry (Talk) 02:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I agree with User:Aim Here's concerns about User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's edits here, and further agree with his recommendations as to which parts should be taken out and which parts need citation. I am certainly no single-purpose account, and my motivation is certainly not harassment (as I have never had any interaction with this user), but a sense that the edits do not meet WP standards for citations, NPOV, and in the case of the "sex" quotations especially, undue weight. More caution in editing and less haste in accusing others of bad faith or harassment would be warranted on User:Jeffrey Vernon Merkey's part, in my opinion, especially when as in this case there have been no personal attacks but level-headed, substantive criticism of certain contributions. alanyst /talk/ 03:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you do not have all the history of these accounts. They are troll accounts from SCOX. Their goal here is for one purpose -- harassing me and being disruptive. But that is beside the point. I will not edit this article any longer. Instead, I have placed a $1000.00 bounty on its improvement to to featured status. So the rest of you can get busy and get it to that point. (You will very quickly see these editors have no intention of providing anything constructive -- they will leave and follow me to the next article and resume their conduct.) Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 04:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not who is the editor, rather what is the output is what's being looked at. You made a large number of edits to an article you had an obvious COI with and didn't source any of them and then argued and threatened and complained when the most basic rules of NPOV, NOR, NPA, NLT, BLP are asked to be followed. No editors get passes in these situations and it's telling that you think that you should get a pass. Perhaps a reread of the basic editing policies for newby editors is in order?
Sorry, but I'm not a troll. Just someone who wants to make sure that WP:NPOV is adhered to, and as Jeff is a former employee of Novell, his Point of View is suspect. It should be *simple* to provide cites if all the edits are true Jerry (Talk) 05:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Prove it. There is the content. I put up the money. All of this material can be found on the stock boards, and industry pubs for the years mentioned. You also have a PACER account and can look up the lawsuits filed against Novell for the past 15 years or so. Good Luck. I won't hold my breath though. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 05:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the history of the Novell-Canopy litigation is available on Groklaw, with the documents and a quote from Novell's PR guy explaining the case here The outcome of the litigation was that Novell prevailed and Canopy had to pay Novell [1] You can verify by contacting: Nancy Volmer, Public Information Office, Administrative Office of the Courts,(801) 578-3994. Or contact Salt Lake District Court at 801-238-7830 and ask them about the outcome of the case. It's Case 20030211. Appellate. 2004 UT App 162. Filed May 13, 2004. 4th District, Provo, Utah. The Honorable Anthony Schofield. Since Novell prevailed, it was obviously not a tactical mistake to sue Canopy. Mr. Merkey's most recent business venture, Solera, is funded by Canopy Group. [2] [3] Since Mr. Schmidt is a living person, what I suggest you do is present the materials Mr. Merkey has added here to Mr. Schmidt and see if he thinks it's libelous. At least that way you'd give the man a chance to clear his name. I don't know either Mr. Merkey or Mr. Schmidt and I'm not a lawyer, but I think I can spot libel when I see it. And unless you and Mr. Merkey can prove in a court of law that everything he wrote is factually true, and I've just demonstrated that you can't, it's not all right to leave such accusations up for any length of time, I don't think. Has anyone let Wales know? 82.248.104.43
You don't have to do all that work to get the ruling in the Novell-Canopy case. It is right here [4] I agree this material should not be left even on a talk page. The part about imagining Schmidt leaning back in his chair and smiling as he thinks about sex... it's obviously fantasy. How would you prove that? I find it interesting that when Microsoft was supportive of SCO, Merkey attacked everyone on the Linux side of that issue, including with libelous claims. Now that Microsoft is going after Google, here comes Merkey with libelous claims about Google's CEO. The question a court may ask Wikipedia is: why do you allow this person with this history to edit at all? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.179.6.212 (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
You verify it the way you'd verify any article from any half-reputable magazine; which is to say you don't - they're paid to do the research, not you, and anything else is OR> --Gwern (contribs) 18:38 6 May 2007 (GMT)
Right enough, I've always agreed that it's sourced and verifiable, but how encyclopedic is a quote about Schmidt lying back in a chair and thinking about "sex" (here it doesn't mean what the word sex usually means, but it appears to be a failed attempt at inventing a horrible corporate jargonism). Would anyone who searched Wikipedia for Eric Schmidt care to know about what he thinks about in his chair in his office? If there's anything significantly more than this one article linking Schmidt and 'organisational sex', then this 'organisational sex' stuff might warrant some sort of mention, but you'll note that Wikipedia doesn't consider the phrase noteworthy enough for an article, or even a wiktionary entry. Given that, and the other unsourced edits by the same editor (who seems to have worked with and/or been involved in litigation with Schmidt) referring to pornography and sexual harassment, I think you have to worry about some sort of agenda-driven POV-push. --Aim Here 19:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a dangling "</ref>" available in the body of the text, around third paragraph down. I can't seem to find what's wrong with it. Fixed it. --RWilliamKing 19:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

There are at least two things on this page which need citations. First of all, evidence that Schmidt was a co-creator of lex, and secondly, the part under the Trivia section about his $1723 holiday bonus (the current citation mentions nothing about this). Is this an Illuminati reference? Foolingmachine 06:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Schmidt as co-author of lex is adequately documented on Wikipedia. But "part-time professor" at Stanford -- how is that considered part of his education? Was he a professor there or did was he just invited to lecture for some classes? There are news references to the latter, at least, but nothing in the "education" period that I know of. This is scrambled chronology at best. Yakushima (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Contested Materials Moved from Main Article for Discussion[edit]

Sun Microsystem as CTO[edit]

While at Sun Microsystems, Eric Schmidt was interviewed by Fast Company, a Silicon Valley News Agency. During the interview, Eric Schmidt indicated he believed that "sex" oriented businesses were the future of the computing industry. Several months after these interviews were published, Schmidt was recruited by Novell to the CEO position. One notable excerpt from these interviews:

...Eric Schmidt, Sun's chief technology officer, is leaning back in a plush executive chair. Eric is thinking about sex. A smile is on his lips, and a deep, satisfied light radiates from his eyes. He has grasped a liberating truth: sex -- not microchips and software -- is the key to the future of business. Eric Schmidt's job at Sun is to spawn and nurture new businesses. For Eric, organizational sex is a rich, vibrant topic. His days are often spent in flirtations -- and sometimes full-fledged assignations -- with new companies and their founders. What he tries to do is create a union of the fertile ideas of rebels and visionaries and the organizational DNA of Sun. [1]

Thank you[edit]

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
To Eric E. Schmidt for the time being. I don't know if you read this article or its talk page. Shared barnstar 1 of 3. Thanks to my hometown (Wikimedia image), to Ask.com, and to a Wikipedia user for teaching me to share barnstars and be polite. -Susanlesch (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sir Eric: If you watch and read this article/TALK, I second the "Thank You!" and enjoyed your hour interview on the Glenn Beck Show, talking about The New Digital Age. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:16, 25 February 2014 (UTC)


I hope that the above editor will please note that talk pages are not forums or fan pages. This is a place to talk about changes to the article. 169.231.35.176 (talk) 07:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fast Company[edit]

How is this stupid excerpt even relevant to this guy? I hate reading this sort of agenda laiden schwag when I am trying to research a person. Seriously, get over your weird issues, idiots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.24.121 (talk) 12:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Violations of WP:BLOCK and/or WP:SOCK[edit]

Per User:Werdna/JVM Block, Jeff Merkey the person (not just the account) is banned from WP forever. Follow the link on Werdna's sub-page to the AN/I for a discussion of how the IP address is determined to be Jeff. Then per WP:BLOCK and WP:SOCK, 166.70.238.44 is de facto banned.

Can we get an admin to put in a hard IP block? And then checkuser the IP for any sockpuppet accounts?

rm edits of banned user, per policy. 67.40.133.205 (talk) 03:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeff Merkey's ban evasion is now the subject of an AN/I thread. I have reverted his changes per Banning_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting_edits. Jeff (or "not Jeff, but I use this IP address") please take this to the AN/I thread.67.41.112.91 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


Opponent of Privacy Rights[edit]

I have corrected the quotation in the article. The exact statement he made to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo is, "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place." Dollarwizard (talk) 14:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This section should be removed from the article anyway. It's sensationalist garbage and painfully biased, which is really not fitting for an encyclopedia. Eric Schmidt has never claimed to adhere to a "nothing to hide" philosophy. The included quote comes from a Slashdot mangling of the quote which is nothing more than a link to a Register article (that also mangles the quote) that is nothing more than a link to an angrily written Gawker piece. In none of these pieces is the entire quote even shown. The most complete recreation of the quote out of all three of these rant pieces is a video in Gawker piece that includes a cut up and incomplete rehashing of the original quote. To use one cut-up and incomplete quote that doesn't even say what you're claiming it says to argue that he is an "avid proponent" of the philosophy is incorrect and wholly dishonest.69.244.64.30 (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I have softened the language (removed the "nothing to hide" philosophy) and changed the reference to the YouTube video of the 34-second segment where Schmidt made the comment. That makes the reference a primary source rather than a secondary source. Now, I should add that Schmidt might indeed be making a good point with his anti-privacy stance, because the "USA PATRIOT" Act has been interpreted to say that company executives much turn over information on searches when requested to by the federal government, so one should not do Google searches with the expectation that the federal government will not someday have access to them. Dollarwizard (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
The section as it stands now is absolutely meaningless. Since you don't know what was said directly before the quoted sentence, the context is completely indiscernible to the point that you can't even call it a "political view." This section should really just be removed until Schmidt says more on the subject than one sentence cherry picked out of a chopped up fluff piece.69.244.64.30 (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree. That section is now a one-sentence slur. It needs further discussion here before it is re-added in any form. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. If you go to google and type in "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place" you get 28,000 websites that reference the quotation. If you go to google news and type it in, you get 92 news stories. This is definitely notable. As for it being a "one-sentence slur," one of Google's fanboys complained when it was longer than one sentence, so it was reduced. As for it being a "slur," it's a direct quotation! This Google fanboyism is just bizarre. They haven't been a small company run out of a garage for many years now. Dollarwizard (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Correction: there are now 70,500 websites that return the quotation. And there are now 134 news stories on Google news with it. Dollarwizard (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


You've built yourself a false dichotomy here. While you seem to believe that the only two options here are either your contributions are kept in the article or the people removing them are just google fanboys who don't understand that google isn't a small company anymore, the truth of the matter is that your additions kept getting removed because they're bad and simply do not belong in an encyclopedia article. As I pointed out earlier, the one sentence quote that you are using completely lacks context and can't even be classified as a "Political View" as it is currently billed. This is simply not up for debate. You've not even seen the interview in its entirety, nor have you even heard the words that came out of Schmidt's mouth before the sentence you quoted. Considering that your only evidence of this being his political view is one quote taken from a cut up interview that lacks all context, this section does not belong in this article. You can piss and moan about how this is bizarre google fanboying all you want, but repeating something over and over again simply does not make it true.69.244.64.30 (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
The source of the quotation is the interview itself. If you will follow the link from the reference, you'll see that it goes to a YouTube video of the segment. I did see the interview when it was on television (it was in a CNBC special). The text of the quote comes not from a secondary source, but directly from the interview. I have also added the context (i.e., Maria Bartiromo's question). Dollarwizard (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
And the YouTube video does not provide his entire answer to the question. Maria Bariromo asks the question, Schmidt says "Well, I think judgment matters" and then they cut out everything he says until they get to the sentence that you quoted. I am skeptical of the context of the quote since the interview seems to be intentionally cut to make it look more interesting than it really is. The fact of the matter is that since you do not know the entire quote, you do not know the context of the sentence that you quoted. This section should not be in this article until at the very least you can tell us what was said directly before the sentence you quoted. Even if you could do that (which you cannot,) it's really not fair to pretend you can describe somebody's political views based on one off-hand sentence that isn't supported by any other citations.69.244.64.30 (talk) 05:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have added another citation. Also, if you know anywhere that Schmidt or Google has clarified or disavowed the comment that he made, please post it. Dollarwizard (talk) 12:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
I have also put in the full quotation now and added the Mozilla director's reaction.Dollarwizard (talk) 12:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You said you added the full quotation, but where's all the words between "Well, I think judgment matters" and "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place?" If you don't even know what those words are, how can you consider this a complete quote? The "second citation" you added is just another fluff piece that is quoting the cut up interview, not the interview itself. That doesn't count as a second citation. Since all you have is one incomplete quote on this subject that doesn't have any context, this entire section is an assumption. This does not belong in an encyclopedia. Also, a quote from a Mozilla spokesperson in regards to the security of Google doesn't have anything to do with Schmidt's "Political Views" so it does not belong in a section with that title.69.244.64.30 (talk) 13:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I have put that he said *in part* and then put the quotation. As for the Mozilla director, I thought that would add some context to demonstrate the notability of it, since the CEO of the company that most people entrust their data to has demonstrated an ignorance of even the most basic privacy rights, but I have removed it in order to avoid giving you an excuse to keep removing the section. Dollarwizard (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
You have one heavily chopped quote taken from a CNBC clip. You don't know what words came between "Well, I think judgment matters" and "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place?" Still, you're trying to pass it off as one continuous quote. Perhaps you don't know how to properly use punctuation marks, but by putting it in between two quotation marks you are denoting that it is one continuous quote. This is not one continuous quote, and the parts that are missing are key to inferring context. On top of this, the quote as given is not his "Political Views" as billed in the section title, but your personal interpretation of his political views based on one quote (that you've never seen the entirety of) without a single shred of supporting evidence. This is why this doesn't belong in a dictionary. It is all your own personal interpretation and assumption and nothing else. That is the exact opposite of what belongs in an encyclopedia.
If you can find verifiable sources to write a section detailing his political views, that's great. Vaya con Dios, and don't let me get in the way. Should you find evidence that backs up your assumptions on his political views, that's great too, and you can even cite your quote as supporting evidence. I'll even help you write that section. For right now though, there is no substance to this section, which is why I am removing it.69.244.64.30 (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
It's called an ellipsis or ellipses, and I have inserted it, with brackets, because *apparently* there was more said. It's possible that he just cleared his throat or something, but I have inserted the ellipses anyway. I will also change the title of the section from "political views" to "views on privacy." Dollarwizard (talk) 16:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Is everything okay now? I have worked very hard to accomodate the critics of that section and to fix it so that it can be acceptable. Also, if you have anything else that I should change or add, please post it here rather than delete the section. Thanks very much in advance. :) Dollarwizard (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
This whole section was worthless, the quote you are getting all worked up about was specifically about past criminal subpeonas. You should have listened to the above advice about posting quotes without context. http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1372176413&%20play=1 75.226.4.76 (talk) 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: if this information belongs in the article, it should be the last section in the article. Pfagerburg (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move it to the last section of the article. Dollarwizard (talk) 19:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved by silent consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


Eric E. SchmidtEric Schmidt — Already redirects here, and he is almost always referred to without his middle initial. Gary King (talk · scripts) 05:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2011 Bilderberg Conference[edit]

In June 2011 he was videographed at the Bilderberg Conference in Switzerland.(See: "Mysterious group caught on camera")

Petey Parrot (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Joke caption?[edit]

In announcing his endorsement for Obama, Schmidt jokingly said that with his $1.00 salary, he would be getting a tax cut.[2]
  1. ^ "How Companies Have Sex". Fast Company. Retrieved 1996-10-01. 
  2. ^ tax-cut

The source is actually a blog that suggests that as a joke caption. So it should not be stated as a fact, unless evidence is provided that Schmidt actually said that. W Nowicki (talk) 19:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Blacksburg or Arlington?[edit]

The article states that he grew up in Blackburg yet graduated from Yorktown High School -- with a link to Yorktown high school in Arlington, VA.

Which is correct?

Dharris (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Different photo[edit]

I think maybe we should use a different photo of Schmidt - the current picture shows him frowning with his arms crossed, with generally negative body language, that is likely to leave readers with a somewhat negative bias towards the man. I know I certainly wouldn't want a photo like that to be used if I had a wikipedia article. Rikeus (talk) 14:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I think its fine. It seems to be typical of many of the images of him -- so he frowns and ponders.[5] Perhaps a smiling jovial image would not capture the essence of him. Anyway, the "body language" issue seems quite slight to me. But are you suggesting an alternative? And if so -- which image? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
I guess I probably should have looked around before I said anything - you seem to be right, maybe he's just a generally unhappy person (All this wealth and power makes Eric sad). I wasn't thinking of any specific photo (I hadn't even looked), I just mentioned it because it was something that really jumped out at me. Rikeus (talk) 18:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
It could be worse.Epeefleche (talk) 22:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Potentially Libelous Material[edit]

Epeefleche reverted an edit to a potentially libelous statement in the biography section:

″In 2012, he was dating concert pianist Chau-Giang Nguyen, who was engaged to Hollywood Oscar-winning TV and movie producer Brian Grazer until they split in 2011.[1][2]

  1. ^ "Married Eric Schmidt dating concert pianist Chau-Giang Nguyen". New York Post. September 3, 2012. Retrieved December 17, 2012. 
  2. ^ "Brian Grazer’s ex-fiancee still sports his diamond ring". New York Post. September 29, 2012. Retrieved December 17, 2012. 

Although the NY Post is considered an RS, there is absolutely no confirmation in either article that he had a dating relationship with concert pianist Chau-Giang Nguyen. I request the above statement be removed, per Wikipedia's rules: ″Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.″ 71.160.33.246 (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

You say it is an RS. You point to two articles by the RS. So it meets the "sourced" requirement. I know you are new here, and this is only your second edit ever, but the very rule you cite supports the text being in the article. Plus, there is nothing at all that appears libelous -- libel is more likely to be present in a statement such as "x is a criminal," or "y has a venereal disease".--Epeefleche (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point Epeefleche, but if the RS cannot confirm the statement is fact than it is contentious (ie controversial) and poorly sourced. Actually, the article is written in the PageSix portion of the NY Post, where the pages metatag title states "Page Six | Celebrity Gossip | Entertainment - News, Photos, Galleries - NYPOST.com".[1] It is indeed libelous because it assumes 'ES is a cheater' when there is no definitive proof, just gossip. These are judgements, not facts. Are we to assume that because the NY Post wrote it, it is fact? 71.106.166.244 (talk) 06:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^ . New York Post http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/item_LRE4IQjoJ87gVFw1SIXQIN.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
You are under a misapprehension. For wp purposes, something that is sourced to an RS is inherently appropriately sourced, not poorly sourced. You have it backwards. And wp is based not on reporting "facts" per se, but what RSs report. As you've already indicated, this is an RS. The fact that he is separated and leading a separate life from his wife has been reported by various RSs, including the NY Times, etc.[6] Anyway, the focus on wp is verifiability. Not truth. This is verifiable. You may want to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I see now, thank you clarifying this Epeefleche, your resources have helped me better understand the issue. It doesn't seem to be a libelous statement. I could not find any NY Times article about their separation, and the article you pointed to states 'A simple Google search also suggests he has a complicated love life: he reportedly separated from his wife'. Just so I know for future reference, if an RS points to a google search as their source, is the article still deemed an RS for the BLP? I appreciate you educating me on this, like you said I'm new to making edits here on wp 71.106.166.244 (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Happy to help. Wikipedia guidelines are not intuitive. And are many. As to reliable sources, because they are deemed to be reliable that means that they are third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. They are reliable for what they say. And that they say that should be verifiable. WP focuses on the verifiability, but not the ultimate truth of the matter asserted by the RS.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Book author[edit]

It should be noted that Schmidt has apparently co-authored at least two books: [7] -- Beland (talk) 06:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Yes, he coauthored one book; the second book notes his preface on the cover.

Here is what Amazon lists for Eric Schmidt (following the link just above.)

  • The Startup Game: Inside the Partnership between Venture Capitalists and Entrepreneurs (author William H. Draper III)
  • The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business (co-authored with Jared Cohen)

It could be added to the article that he wrote the foreword for the Draper book. — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People , Nations and Business[edit]

His new release in paperback will require a separate article: The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People , Nations and Business. It is in the news today and will be in more news as it becomes more available. What it talks about will be more appropriate for sections here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2014 (UTC)