Talk:Project Nimbus

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

This article was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2022. The result of the discussion was keep.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Project Nimbus is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Technology

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology 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.TechnologyWikipedia:WikiProject TechnologyTemplate:WikiProject TechnologyTechnology articles

Espionage Low‑importance

	Project Nimbus is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Networking / CompSci / Security Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology 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.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Networking task force.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science.

This article is supported by WikiProject Computer Security.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

September 15, 2022

ZimZalaBim, first you tried to merge this page into the Google article because it "doesn't need to be its own article," then you tried to tried to delete this article, and now you're trying to delete specific information supported by WP:Reliable sources and replace it with equivocating language in the name of NPOV, without adding any sources to support your changes and declining to seek consensus for your changes here on the talk page. This is not in the service of Wikipedia. إيان (talk) 03:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NOR. If this article is to exist, it should not simply be a mouthpiece for those criticizing the project. We need to remain neutral, even if their words are not. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further, does anyone else think this wholesale revert of my attempts to make the article more POV was inappropriate? Perhaps @Gidonb has an opinion? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a user who hasn't been WP:CANVASSed, who hasn't also actively tried to delete this article, and who is uninvolved would have an opinion. إيان (talk) 18:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to assume good faith. Trying to ensure an article is neutral is all I'm trying to accomplish here. Please be cautious of our WP:POV policy. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good faith editing to try to reinstate changes for which you do not have WP:Consensus while there is an ongoing discussion that you are participating in regarding the matter on the talk page: WP:TALKDONTREVERT. Your suggested changes are not in the service of NPOV; they are deleting and ambiguating specific, sourced, and attributed information.

Please discuss and support the specific changes you want to make and allow for consensus to be built. إيان (talk) 20:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to only remove the Democracy Now citation, as WP:RSP notes it isn't widely considered a reliable source. I did not mean to revert everythying else (even though I don't agree with it). That was my editing error. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And all my previous edits have edit summaries that describe my attempt to create more neutral tones and adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. You haven't provided any policy-based reason for the wholesale revert of each of those changes. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Attempting to ensure NPOV

I've made a series of edits to ensure this article follows WP:NPOV, but they've all been undone without any specific argument as to why. These include:

This edit noting we don't need to cut/paste claims made by an opinion piece (especially when their language has POV)
This edit that removed the POV use of "illegal" when we can be neutral and let the linked article address the controversy surrounding the occupation
This edit that properly notes that the rebuke and condemnation isn't universal (which is implied without the modifier)
These edits that simplified the criticism from one employee without giving it undue coverage
And I note above that I erred with this edit that was meant to only remove the insertion of a Democracy Now citation (generally unreliable). My edit summary notes this, and I didn't mean to revert two edits.

I'd like to understand how these are controversial edits and what the argument is for reverting them. We need to ensure this article isn't just POV-pushing. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all of your edits are extremely controversial as of todays date 10 Mar,2024 MangoNot (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third opinion request:

(In responding to this I also taking into consideration the "September 15, 2022" discussion above.)

Writing about this topic in a neutral manner means that we must reflect what reliable sources are saying. Those reliable sources are saying that the IT firms are facing criticism because of this project, and that the criticism relates to Israel's human rights record and territorial expansion. We should not seek to minimize these issues in the language used here. But at the same time, just because reliable sources report that there is condemnation does not mean that we, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, should adopt those condemnations as our own, or fail to give balanced coverage. This is a contentious topic area, and we must steer a careful path between the two extremes. If you haven't already I would encourage both of you to read WP:STEELMAN and show each other that you genuinely understand the other person's position, and are willing to compromise. On the specific numbered items on ZimZalaBim's list,

We should say what the concerns are about, but the language here is non-neutral. When summarising the workers' position we need to avoid giving the impression that we endorse it. For example, we shouldn't say "concern over how the technology will enable" but perhaps instead "concern over how the technology might enable." We can't simply state that the data collection is "unlawful", or the settlements "illegal" because we know that the situation is in dispute and is more nuanced than that. Rather than getting into the weeds of explaining everything (in the wrong article), it would be better simply to leave those two words out.
As above, we shouldn't simply say "illegal occupation" because we know that fact is in dispute. This isn't the article to go into a lot of detail on the nuance, so instead perhaps "disputed occupation" or some other more neutral term.
Agree with "some of", unless there is a source credibly saying that every shareholder and every employee is rebuking them.
I would leave the Koren quote in, I think it is helpful to the reader and doesn't raise any neutrality flags for me.
I don't think there is a dispute to discuss on this one.

I am just a random guy on the Internet; you are under no obligation to pay any attention to my opinions. No money back, no guarantee :) Thparkth (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies

The article should include a section. On the controversy and protest, and the Google engineers leaving the company due to Google involvement with this project. 45.44.57.43 (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you, a wikipedia page should include everything about the subject, we jsut need the consensus with us on this one. MangoNot (talk) 13:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This page, akin to all other pages on Wikipedia, must remain devoid of any political biases.

Similarly, it is imperative that the content is reliable and free from speculation. Orenelma (talk) 16:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If by 'devoid of any political biases' you mean representing with due balance, what independent published reliable sources have to say on the subject then yes, that is what we aim for, per Wikipedia policy. As for speculation, if such sources engage in it, our article may very well note that such speculation exists, again per policy. Beyond that, we are under no obligation to take into consideration what any particular individual considers 'political biases', or what they personally consider 'imperative'. That isn't how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Nimbus has four planned phases…

it sounds like "the manhattan project has 4 project phases: designing something, gathering materials for something, assembling something and using something " -- lots of words that don't say much. Tonymetz 💬 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intro paragraph sentence about classified information is inaccurate

The actual quote from Google in the link is that the project is "not directed at highly sensitive or classified military workloads relevant to weapons or intelligence services"

This is not the same as stating that Project Nimbus does not deal with classified information. There are actually several ways to interpret Google's statement and Google has not clarified.

I strongly suggest replacing the sentence with a direct quote from Google rather than interpreting it in a specific way. Carthradge4 (talk) 00:44, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid speculation

As of writing this, the second paragraph suggests this project "could" use Google AI capabilities for several purposes. Multiple biased speculation are made about the project's aims.

I think Wikipedia should remain true to evidence-based information and avoid speculation, especially when discussing controversial topics. Overall I think this paragraph adds no substance to the article and should be deleted. 103.110.142.66 (talk) 09:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]