This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, labor, traveled), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.
Maybe I'm the only one, but does anyone else think it's strange that the article is named after the document instead of the events/controversy surrounding it? The document itself doesn't seem very notable and thus is a reason why this article is difficult to find. I don't have a perfect replacement, but "Google's Diversity Memo" or "Google-James Damore Controversy" both seem like good alternatives that would allow more people to see the article. Also naming the article after the name of the memo doesn't seem to be NPOV since that is the argument Damore's memo is making. Thoughts? Pokerplayer513 (talk) 21:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I would not object. Tuntable (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I also think the existing title is problematic because it is neither italicized nor quoted as the actual name of a document. Instead, it reads as a statement of pov (which it is, as Damore intended). I think the suggested titles above by Pokerplayer are reasonable, but italicizing or quoting the existing title also works for me. DonFB (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
DonFB, I'd do it, but I haven't looked up how to "move" articles yet which I believe is how we would achieve the article name change. If you want to do the article name change yourself, I'd support it. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Omg I mucked up. I accidently moved the original talk page to the new article page. Idk how to fix it :(
I oppose to moving, especially to "Google-James Damore Controversy". Who is that "Google-James" guy and what is "Damore Controversy"? "Google's Diversity Memo" is also wrong because it makes look like Google is the author. Please leave the title as is or start discussion on WP:RM. --M5 (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how to start a discussion at WP:RM, but I'd support it if you want to start one. Can we just try to reach consensus here? I don't really think anyone would confuse "Google-James" for a person or "Google's Diversity Memo" suggests that Google itself wrote the memo. Those seem like unreasonable mistakes. The current title clearly violates WP:NPOV and doesn't follow WP:NDESC. No one knows the memo by it's name, because the controversy surrounding the memo is what makes this page notable, not the memo itself. In addition to what I've already suggested I think "Google's Diversity Memo Controversy" or heck, even a page on James Damore instead of the memo seems preferable. I just think my initial suggestions are better because James Damore falls into the WP:ONEEVENT BLP category. I'm willing to discuss further. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
As an aside, I don't think Damore falls under WP:BLP1E category, since he has intentionally sought fame after the incident - BLP1E exists to protect private individuals, but specifically excludes people who intentionally seek fame (because it's meant to be used to protect people, not silence them). That doesn't mean we necessarily should have a page for him, and definitely doesn't mean we must, but at this point he's a slightly-notable activist, so I feel we could if we wanted to. Moving this entire page there might have consequences, though, since it would probably have to be rewritten to focus more on him and trimmed of some side commentary. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah I thought the rule was more about fame than the desire for fame. You explanation makes sense though. He just hasn't been hired by a right-wing think tank yet (unlike Lindsay Shepherd) and spends most of his time tweeting so I thought the BLP1 rule applied to him. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
He has a job and tweets a couple times a week, which is much less than others with his follower count. ChandraJace (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Your statement made it seem like he's a professional commentator, which I was trying to correct by pointing out that he has a job and doesn't post any more than most people. ChandraJace (talk) 03:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It was intended to say he's not a pro commentator. If he was hired by a right wing think tank that might change.Pokerplayer513 (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I suggested a name change a long time ago, but the problem, as you've found out, is that nobody can agree on a better name. I don't think this one passes WP:COMMONNAME (the name of the memo seems to be of little note in most coverage), but there isn't a clear title to move it to, either. "Google Diversity Memo Controversy" does seem like it might have some potential. --Aquillion (talk) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'll second "Google Diversity Memo Controversy" Pokerplayer513 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I think it's fine as is. The title of the page is italicized to indicate that it's a title and the beginning of the article gives context. Why should this be treated much differently than a book title? ChandraJace (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Because the article is mostly about the controversy stemming from the memo, rather than the memo itself; and that controversy, rather than the memo itself, is what's generally noteworthy about it. It also isn't really the WP:COMMONNAME - a google search for it with quotes turns up ~16,000 hits, which is high but not remotely as high as would be expected for something of this level of coverage if the title of the memo were considered central to the controversy. Also, if it fails WP:COMMONNAME, then the title may run into WP:NPOV issues given the scathing way it describes Google. --Aquillion (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not a book and is self-published so it shouldn't be treated like a book. The title was italicized in response to the suggested move a few days ago and doesn't make the obviously necessary changes. We can include "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" in the lead, but it clearly should not be the title for reasons stated above. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how it being self published or the recency of the title being italicized matters. The distinction between a book and article seems arbitrary to me too. ChandraJace (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Because Damore's document itself isn't what's notable (he's not an expert and he self-published what is essentially a wikipedia article) it's the controversy around the article is what's notable. I just think the recency of italicization shows there is a lack of awareness by editors here to what is a clear POV violation (apart from Aquillion apparently). Read WP:RSSELF for why self-publishing matters. Also check out WP:COMMONNAME. I don't see how there's any argument that people know it mostly as "The Google Memo" and that's reflected by data from Google Trends. "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber" is hardly mentioned and I think it goes without saying that no one knows it by that name (honestly). I don't see what the downside it to changing it to "Google Diversity Memo Controversy," (apart from the the ones addressed earlier) but I'm open to ideas. I might take a poll after this to see where we are. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I just want to see where we are at in regards to a name change. Please reply to the following statement with Support Both, Oppose Both, Support 1 (if you oppose option 2), or Support 2 (if you oppose option 1) along with a comment:
I think the title of this article should be changed from Google's Ideological Echo Chamber to:
1. Google Diversity Memo
2. Google Diversity Memo Controversy
WP:COMMONNAME is relevant to this discussion as well. Citing an example to justify your reasoning is helpful for further discussion.
Support Both. Title was italicized at my suggestion. That was the very least required for Npov, but it is a fairly subtle change that will not be recognized as the title of the memo by many general readers. A better solution is to change the name to a neutral phrase, as suggested. I don't think the actual name of the memo meets CommonName guidance; another Common needs to be applied: CommonSense. DonFB (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it needs to be changed, but I'd support #1 over #2. ChandraJace (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Can you choose one of the options and explain why? Just so it's clear. I'll also add I prefer #2 because the article is really about the controversy. Had the memo stayed internal to Google it wouldn't be notable. Heck, the document itself links to Wikipedia multiple times. Cheers, Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
"Google Finds It’s Underpaying Many Men as It Addresses Wage Equity"
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose - articles about written works use their English-language title (WP:NCBOOKS, WP:NCMANUSCRIPT). The only case to use a commonname for a work would be if the full title was long and unwieldy, or involved a subtitle - neither is the case here. I generally doubt Google Trends as tiny changes in search terms can affect the results, but its probably not a good research tool specifically in this case. -- Netoholic@ 10:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. COMMONNAME reasons, as explained by proposer. Frenchmalawi (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. This is a reversal of my opinion posted above on this page, so I'll explain. I base my new opinion on the Naming Conventions (books) Guideline. Even though that guideline is for books, I believe the following passage in its Neutrality section applies to the title of this article:
"When using the title as written by the author, and nothing else, possible implications of POV are the author's and not Wikipedia's. Trying to "purge" Wikipedia page names of an external author's intentions would be creation of a new POV; the Neutral Point of View policy instructs not to "correct" what authors of notable works want to express with the title they give to their work".
That said, I think the inability of the software to allow an article title to be enclosed in quotation marks is a non-trivial deficiency. If, when I first saw this title, it were enclosed in quote marks, I likely would not have thought the title should be re-worded. I think italic typeface for an article title is not adequate to distinguish an author's strongly opinionated verbatim phrase from an editorial choice by Wikipedia writers. However, the Neutrality passage I quoted above persuades me not to advocate a title change. Redirects from "Google diversity memo" and the like will allow readers to find the article without much trouble. DonFB (talk) 07:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The article is focused on the memo. It's the memo as subject in more ways than one. The controversy is in a way a second order thing. Even though the controversy is what dragged our attention to the memo Jazi Zilber (talk) 01:33, 15 March 2019 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
I think the actual contents of the memo are important enough to warrant their own section of the article. We should dedicate a section to Damore's claims, preferably contextualizing them with the state of scientific knowledge about gender differences and methods of promoting diversity (since the paper is not completely against diversity). Otherwise, we end up treating it like many newsrooms are treating the Green New Deal resolution, discussing only the reactions to the memo and not the memo itself. Qzekrom💬theythem 03:41, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Qzekrom, if you look further up on this talk you will find a poll on this. There are some that oppose, but your view would be valuable there. Feel free to close that poll and just put the proposed change in the article, together with any changes you think appropriate. I would no contextualize in that section, but do it in a separate section. That is because it will be controversial, but what Damore actually said is pretty clean. (The anti-discussion aspect to this case is far more concerting than the memo itself. Let me know if you do this. Tuntable (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
@Tuntable: I'll take a closer look at the proposed text when I get a chance. Qzekrom💬theythem 06:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Qzekrom, if you have an opinion on the matter please at least express it in the poll above. Tuntable (talk) 06:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)