Talk:Three Google executives found guilty over Italian video

Google claims assisted?
In the current draft it says that "Google claims it even helped the Italian police identify the bullies in the video and the person who uploaded it." I've changed that, removing the word "even" as unnecessarily POV. But I'm concerned about the phrasing in that I don't see anything in the sources that disputes this claim or makes it seem unlikely. I don't see why we don't just make this stronger, such as "Google has pointed out that it helped..." Thoughts? JoshuaZ (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC) -- "The Google executives were convicted of not removing a video uploaded to Google Video..." Was not removing a video really the official name of the crime they were convicted of? Bawolff ☺☻ 09:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ --Adi4094 (talk) 09:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Problems
The paragraph on what Robledo said, all but the last sentence, is essentially copied from the San Francisco Chronicle article.

The last sentence, on what Vivi Down said, I can't verify from the sources, but that might be because I'm not in a position to access the Financial Times article. --Pi zero (talk)


 * I addressed the first matter by reducing the paragraph, and addressed the second by removing the sentence pending verification. Frankly, I felt leaving those problems for someone else to deal with stood an uncomfortably high probability of merely causing the article to go stale, which would do no-one any good at all.  I do think the article is worthy as it now is (yes, that is what a positive peer-review means), but if someone could verify the deleted sentence and restore it, that would further improve the article.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

✅ Last para of FT article --Adi4094 (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)