Jump to content

Talk:Proton AG

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 12 May 2023

[edit]
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Proton (Swiss company) (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 08:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proton AG → Proton (company)Proton (company) – Proton's customers and the press know the company simply as "Proton", and the suffix AG is irrelevant to people who want to learn about the company on Wikipedia. As this is the English Wikipedia, the term AG does not mean anything to the English speaking audience. In Proton's home country of Switzerland the company is known as either Proton AG (German) or Proton SA (French), depending on the region of the country (as Switzerland has four official languages).

Referring to Proton the company by a corporate designation in a single country does not make sense, since Proton has subsidiaries in multiple countries and goes by multiple name variants, such as:

  • ProtonLabs DOOEL Skopje (Macedonia)
  • ProtonLabs Taiwan Co. Ltd (Taiwan)
  • UAB Proton Research LT (Lithuania)
  • Proton Technologies Ltd (United Kingdom)
  • Proton Labs s.r.o (Czech Republic)
  • Proton Europe sàrl (Luxembourg)
  • Proton Germany GmbH (Germany)
  • Proton Research Sociedad Limitada (Spain)

For clarity, the page should be moved to Proton_(company).

Moving the page to Proton_(company) also helps people understand that the Proton page is for the company that created Proton Mail, Proton VPN, Proton Drive, Proton Calendar and Proton Pass. The current Proton_AG page does not provide this clarity.

It's comparable to referring to Uber as Uber Technologies Inc, though everyone knows the company as simply "Uber". The page should be moved to Proton_(company) because for the English-speaking audience, the company is widely known as Proton.

Octazooka (talk) 14:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. >>> Extorc.talk 18:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Octazooka has disclosed that they are being paid by Proton for their contributions (though that doesn't likely affect this request). ~ Eejit43 (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given the non-uniqueness of the name "Proton", adding the corporate suffix of the full name may be justifiable as WP:NATDIS. The fact that it has subsidiaries with localized names in other countries is immaterial because the article is about the parent company. However, "AG" vs. "SA" in multilingual Switzerland is an interesting point; can someone familiar with Swiss terminology clarify whether they're used interchangeably in the different languages? 73.223.72.200 (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 15 August 2023

[edit]
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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved to Proton (technology company). Clear consensus to move away from the current title, but there was less agreement over what the ideal destination would be. "Proton (Internet company)" and "Proton (technology company)" emerged as the two favorites. I believe the weight of argument slightly favors "Proton (technology company)"; during the discussion, it was noted that four other articles used the "(technology company)" DAB, whereas only one used "(Internet company)", and that one article has since moved to a different DAB anyway. Thus, I see "Proton (technology company)" as marginally more WP:CONSISTENT with similar articles. Precision concerns were also raised about each major proposal, but did not seem to hold much sway in the discussion. On the whole, any consensus that emerged from here is the roughest of rough, so participants should feel free to consider this a WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE close. (closed by non-admin page mover) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proton (Swiss company) → Proton (Internet company)Proton (Internet company) –
Global Presence and Perception: While Proton is headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland the services it offers cater to a global audience. Naming a company on Wikipedia based on its headquarters, especially when it is an international entity, may not be the most appropriate. A globally operating company like Proton should be identified by the nature of its business rather than its geographical location.


Comprehensive Representation: Referring to Proton merely as a "Swiss company" can be misleading for readers, as they may assume that its products and services are limited to Switzerland. On the contrary, the company offers a range of internet-based international services like Proton Mail, Proton VPN, and Proton Drive.


Consistency with Other Global Companies: global companies on Wikipedia are named according to the nature of their business or the industry they are part of, rather than their location. This ensures that readers have a clear idea of the company's main focus without potential biases associated with a specific location.


Brief conclusion: renaming the page to "Proton (Internet company)" would provide readers with a more accurate representation of the company's industry, scale, and global presence. 77.179.40.156 (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. – MaterialWorks 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

— 77.179.40.156 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Proton (privacy services company). The "Internet company" term seems vague and perhaps could also apply to Proton Radio, since Proton Radio delivers its service exclusively over the Internet. Practically all companies have something to do with the Internet now, and this one isn't an Internet service provider. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @BarrelProof Given Proton's aggressive push to diversify, I don't think they will only stick to privacy services company. Sure, they may say it's privacy respecting (VPN is a proper privacy service if one were to believe marketing claims), but it's more of Office software (email), general purpose software (calendar, drive), security (password manager) etc. However, Proton is a tech/internet company and that feels like a better representation of the subject. Greatder (talk) 14:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Proton (tech company). I definitely opt for renaming the company, but to Proton (tech company) as Proton is the only notable tech company called Proton. While they provide services like email, VPN, and drive, similar to other tech giants such as Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo, terms like "internet" and "privacy services" are too narrow or overly specific. A general "tech" descriptor would be more appropriate. --94.111.57.62 (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
— 94.111.57.62 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the company says it is a company "offering privacy-focused online services". As far as I can tell, the company products have a common theme of privacy-related services. I don't think they are among the "tech giants". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:57, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, you think a company that manufactures cars isn't a technology company? I beg to differ! -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article says the company has 400 employees. It is not a "tech giant" or a "big tech" company. Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are all much much bigger companies. Yahoo is about 20 times that size, and Microsoft and Google are several hundred times that large. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: There's a clear consensus to move away from the current title, but a consensus for what disambiguator should be picked would be good too. – MaterialWorks 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any Wikipedia articles that use "(tech company)" in their title. I found four that use "(technology company)". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof have you found any that says (internet company)? Greatder (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one: Gazelle (Internet company). I suggest not considering that a good example to follow, since it hasn't gotten much attention and is tagged as having {{multiple issues}} (including COI editing, an advertisement tone, and excessive dependence on company-sourced information). Looking at the article, I fail to see what that company has to do with the Internet, and I just opened an RM to rename that article. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both Proton (technology company) and Proton (Internet company) and . Given the global reach and impact of Proton, anchoring the company's identity to its geographic location is reductive. ALso a broader term like "technology company" avoids being overly specific or quickly becoming outdated. --VertyBerty (talk) 12:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 May 2024

[edit]
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 discussion.

Proton (technology company) → Proton AG – Full company name. Simpler and more concise (WP:CONCISE). Allowed per WP:NCCORP. Strugglehouse (talk) 15:54, 17 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. ToadetteEdit! 14:43, 25 May 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Consensus was reached on a move from Proton AG only a year ago. While WP:NCCORP does allow for legal status suffix, it also allows for the existing parenthetical. To quote WP:CONCISE: "The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area" - I would argue that the AG legal status suffix is relatively unknown outside of Switzerland and is not know to most people familiar with Proton. Also, as pointed out in the previous requested move (dated 12 May 2023) discussion, Proton incorporates in many countries under different legal statuses. The parenthetical (technology company) is the clearer disambiguator, and moving to Proton AG strikes the wrong balance between brevity and sufficient information. If further brevity is sought, (tech company) offers greater balance. ConanTheCreator (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: This cannot be a soft move flooring the recent threads. Courtesy ping to User:BarrelProof, User:LamDoom, User:Necrothesp, User:Greatder, as they were active in the last discussion. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting idea. I would say support, unless people can bring atleast bring another singular company with the name Proton in any of it's part and has AG at the end. Greatder (talk) 07:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sources

[edit]

This sentence: «Proton Mail maintains and owns its own server hardware and network in order to avoid utilizing a third party. It maintains two data centers, one in Lausanne and another in Attinghausen (in the former K7 military bunker under 1,000 meters (3,300 ft) of granite rock) as a backup.» has, apparently, relatively low quality sources. The first source is the company just saying that (conflict of interests), the second source is a news piece (most likely just citing the first source; and the link is not working at this moment, too), the third source apparently doesn't even mention Proton, or did I miss it in the video? Luckylemming (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add A Fact: "Proton user data protected by Swiss laws"

[edit]

I found a fact that might belong in this article. See the quote below

Proton is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland. This means all user data is protected by strict Swiss privacy laws and Swiss neutrality.

The fact comes from the following source:

https://proton.me/calendar

Here is a wikitext snippet to use as a reference: 

 {{Cite web |title=Organize your schedule privately with Proton Calendar |url=https://proton.me/calendar |website=Proton |access-date=2024-09-27 |language=en |quote=Proton is incorporated and headquartered in Switzerland. This means all user data is protected by strict Swiss privacy laws and Swiss neutrality.}}

This post was generated using the Add A Fact browser extension.

Sawnp (talk) 15:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proton endorsing Republicans on antitrust

[edit]

In some circles the news is making the rounds that Proton is endorsing Trump's nominee for antitrust at DOJ, both on the CEO's personal social media and the company's official social media channels (example).

On 2024-12-04, Andy Yen wrote:

10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned. People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.

On 2025-01-15, @protonprivacy@mastodon.social stated that «Corporate capture of Dems is real. In 2022, we campaigned extensively in the US for anti-trust legislation [...]». The post was deleted a few hours later. At the same time Andy Yen posted at length on Reddit.

Coverage from reliable sources seems limited. Perhaps letemps.ch and indirectly CNBC mention Andy Yen's Trump-aligned communications. Nemo 07:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage has since increased and the article has been mentioning the fact since. Nemo 06:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Proton statements are not a Trump endorsement, or even a general Republican endorsement, they are only supportive of Republican positions on big tech antitrust. Independent analysis indicates Proton is actually anti-Trump. 213.55.243.158 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth pointing out that neither article is Trump aligned. If you translate the French article, he is criticizing European passivity in the face of threats from the US. That is more anti-Trump than Trump aligned. The quote in CNBC says ""[Trump's] view is he probably wants to regulate his tech companies himself," Yen told CNBC in a November interview at the Web Summit tech conference in Lisbon, Portugal. "He doesn't want Europe to get involved." This can hardly be viewed as Trump-aligned. 213.55.243.158 (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doing your own "independent analysis" is original research. The source we have, The Intercept, has a very clear title: Proton Mail Says It’s “Politically Neutral” While Praising Republican Party . Is there any reliable source disputing this? Nemo 10:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The title is incomplete and a closer read makes it clear the comments are specifically about antitrust and Gail Slater, and not the Republican party in general. This is also confirmed by articles in Swiss press. For instance, this article in Le Courrier in Geneva (where Proton is headquartered), draws an opposite conclusion about Andy and Proton, that they are against Trump, writing "Car si l'entreprise se veut neutre, Andy Yen, quant à lui, milite avec ferveur. Non pas en faveur de Trump, comme l'en accuse Reddit, mais pour la souveraineté technologique du Vieux Continent. Il mène une campagne féroce contre la big tech comme il l'a fait savoir, la semaine dernière, devant la Commission européenne", which translates to "While the company claims to be neutral, Andy Yen is a fervent campaigner. Not in favor of Trump, as Reddit accuses, but for the technological sovereignty of the Old Continent. He is waging a fierce campaign against Big Tech, as he made clear last week before the European Commission."
Le Courrier also writes: "Difficile, en effet, de qualifier M. Yen de trumpiste. Défenseur ardent de l'antitrust, ses prises de position ne semblent pas dépendre d'un parti - Proton a récemment publié un article à charge sur la politique de Donald Trump en matière de protection des données." which translates to "It's difficult, indeed, to call Mr. Yen a Trumpist. A staunch defender of antitrust, his positions don't seem to depend on party affiliation - Proton recently published a damning article on Donald Trump's data protection policy." This is refuting the claim that Yen supports the Trump Republican party, and takes the position that his position is about antitrust.
Le Courrier is a highly reputable source, and more credible than the Intercept on this topic. It's the oldest newspaper in French speaking Switzerland, having been published since 1868, and it also leans left/progressive which makes their defense of Yen more notable. As a Swiss newspaper, they also are undoubtedly better informed and closer to the subject, which is a Swiss company. 213.55.243.158 (talk) 23:33, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further search, there is actually another source, from Le Temps, which is considered a newspaper of record in Switzerland, and more credible than the Intercept, which is not a newspaper of record. Le Temps writes: "En juillet 2021, Andy Yen avait d’ailleurs publié sur X une déclaration similaire à propos de la nomination par le président Joe Biden de Jonathan Kanter à la tête de la division antitrust du Département américain de la justice. Un message qui n’avait pas suscité la moindre controverse." which translates to "In July 2021, Andy Yen had published a similar statement on X about President Joe Biden's appointment of Jonathan Kanter to head the antitrust division of the US Department of Justice. A message that did not arouse the slightest controversy." and also "Andy Yen y affirme qu’il se montrera d’autant plus prudent à l’avenir. Ce qui ne l’empêche pas de continuer à défendre une approche européenne en matière de souveraineté technologique, comme il l’a fait dans un entretien au Tages-Anzeiger le 8 février. Une posture qui, assurément, ne serait pas du goût d’un certain Donald Trump." which translates to "Andy Yen says that he will be even more cautious in the future. This does not prevent him from continuing to defend a European approach to technological sovereignty, as he did in an interview with the Tages-Anzeiger on 8 February. A posture that, certainly, would not be to the liking of a certain Donald Trump."
Based on this, I believe the claim of Republican support should be removed. Le Courrier stated that "A staunch defender of antitrust, his positions don't seem to depend on party affiliation" and Le Temps supports this view by pointing out that Yen also published a similar statement about Biden's appointment of Jonathan Kanter, and drawing the conclusion that Yen's posture "would not be to the liking of a certain Donald Trump". We now have two sources contradicting the Intercept, saying Yen's position on antitrust does not depend on party affiliation, stating he supports both Republicans and Democrats on the issue of antitrust, and concluding he is not a Trump supporter (but is rather against Trump). Both sources are closer to the subject matter, and one is even a national newspaper of record. 213.55.243.158 (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to digest here.
@Nemo bis, the quote you include from Andy Yen is incomplete. The full tweet reads...
Great pick by @realDonaldTrump. 10 years ago, Republicans were the party of big business and Dems stood for the little guys, but today the tables have completely turned. People forget that the current antitrust actions against Big Tech were started under the first Trump admin.
There is then an image of Trump's nomination for Gail Slater as Assistant Attorney General.
Probably pedantry on my part but in the interests of objectivity, I think the full context and detail help inform the discussion.
The Intercept article has a somewhat sensationalist headline which portrays Proton as praising the Republican party. Proton did no such thing; Andy Yen did from his personal Twitter account. The article goes on to say in the body copy that "...Proton CEO Andy Yen praised the Republican Party...", which doesn't align with the headline. The lines do blur between Proton's official comms and Andy Yen's personal twitter account, and Proton's handling of the fallout was clumsy, but the Intercept article isn't exactly showering itself with reputable-source glory.
That, coupled with the seeming absence of other reliable sources covering this incident, makes me question whether this incident meets Notability and Verifiability.
Anonymous user (213.55.243.158) makes a fair and verifiable argument to at least highlight Conflicting sources. Any invocation of the Intercept article should probably be balanced with opposing citations and page text. That said, I wonder if this topic falls under exceptional claims require exceptional sources; specifically...
  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
Andy Yen's and Proton's previous positions on the topic of anti-trust and big tech are well established, and one article claiming Proton or Andy Yen as praising or aligning with Trump or the Republican party hits both bullet points outlined above.
I would move to either...
Strike the whole incident from this page.
or...
Write greater content under Public policy positions which expands upon Proton's various policy positions around anti-trust and big tech. Part of this section can explore both sides of the controversy, citing conflicting sources and presenting how different parties interpreted the incident.
Personally, I favour the former as I don't think that a full analysis can be covered with brevity, and will end-up taking disproportionate space compared to the import of the incident. ConanTheCreator (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, reliable sources are what matters. I won't debate the opinions above as this is not a forum. As for Le Temps, it does not contradict The Verge, so it's no reason to substitute some editors' personal opinion to what reliable sources (The Verge The Intercept) say. Nemo 21:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have an agenda and are not unbiased on this topic. As various commenters have pointed out, there are issues with conflicting sources, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, notability, and verifiability. You are correct that reliable sources are what matters, but here the two most reliable sources are the newspapers of record which clearly contradicts your claim that Proton supports Republicans. The exact quote from the more reliable source reads: "It's difficult, indeed, to call Mr. Yen a Trumpist. A staunch defender of antitrust, his positions don't seem to depend on party affiliation - Proton recently published a damning article on Donald Trump's data protection policy." 213.55.190.247 (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "exceptional claim" here. At no point in time the article claimed that Yen was "a Trumpist", so this is a WP:STRAWMAN. Please keep unrelated discussions out of this talk page, this is not a forum. Nemo 21:04, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are issues with conflicting sources, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, notability, and verifiability. These are valid concerns which warrant exclusion. The claim Proton supports the Republican party clearly fits the criteria for exceptional, which is defined by Wikipedia as "seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended". The Intercept is also not a mainstream news source, and is classified as a left-wing outlet. This surprising claim is not covered in multiple mainstream outlets, further validating that it is an exceptional claim. 213.55.241.151 (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are no contradictory sources. Both The Intercept and Le Temps support the current version. There's nothing extraordinary about a business supporting the Republicans and you have not provided any source to indicate it would be. Nemo 11:51, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is contradictory because the Le Temps article you cite actually comes to the opposite conclusion that Proton does not support Republicans. It specifically points to the fact that Proton also supported the Biden antitrust nominee and Democrats on antitrust, and has also taken many anti-Republican positions. Furthermore, even if you ignore the issue with contradictory, as pointed out by ConanTheCreator, there is an issue with WP:Exceptional (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_sources). A claim is exceptional if it is out of character or against an interest they had previously defended and/or not covered in multiple mainstream outlets, both which apply here. 213.55.241.151 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading edit summaries and diffs

[edit]

To the unregistered user or users who keep making edits on Proton-related articles with misleading edit summaries and diffs, in an apparent attempt to obfuscate what the edit does, please stop. If you really need to shuffle text around in such a way that the diff becomes unreadable, do it in multiple edits and make sure that each of them has a truthful edit summary. Removing negative coverage, for example, is obviously something that should be mentioned in the edit summary; forgetting to do so looks like bad-faith editing and ends up being disruptive. Nemo 06:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Transparency and objectivity are key here, and edit wars should be avoided. If your edits are reverted, engage in the talkpage to discuss and form consensus. Disruptive editing can be escalated to sanctions, but with a little mutual respect, things shouldn't get that far. ConanTheCreator (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Nemo, I must strongly object because you yourself conduct the activity you denounce. You just committed a misleading edit summary, omitting the fact that you also added substantial text, deviating from the talk page consensus text. Myself and others have tried to discuss with you in good-faith (despite the unfair attacks you made against some editors), so this is a bad faith edit attempting to undermine the consensus. I revert your change and as a matter of principle, and I invite you to discuss further here if you wish. RémySchwartz (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I simply restored the earlier version, undoing some unexplained and undiscussed removals of your version. The edit summary seems pretty clear to me but I apologise if it wasn't. You can explain in the section below what you're proposing to do and why, since your edit was not explained either by its edit summary or by the discussion below. Nemo 08:50, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you do not understand the consensus. I will clarify below in the discussion, but it was clear to everyone else. RémySchwartz (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proton Foundation

[edit]

Sadly the Proton Foundation is not owning the majority of shares but is the primary shareholder. Please correct it. Soakirks (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it seems the sources didn't support the claims in the article. Hopefully it's better now. Thanks, Nemo 17:36, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the mistake was introduced recently by one of those unregistered users who use IP addresses from Zurich and keep making incorrect and misleading edits to this article. Nemo 17:39, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to this article, the Proton Foundation has a controlling stake in Proton AG and control = majority. Another article on techcrunch also says the foundation is the controlling shareholder. I vote to restore the original text since it is supported by two independent sources. Or restore the original text but replace majority shareholder with controlling shareholder (the both mean the same thing). RémySchwartz (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Controlling shareholder does not mean the same as majority shareholder. For example, in several jurisdictions, a 30 % share is considered controlling. Nemo 19:52, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a quick Google search and found a news story which confirms that the foundation is the majority shareholder. Heise is a well-known and credible German tech publication. The original text is therefore actually correct, but didn't have proper sourcing. I will put it back with the correct citations. RémySchwartz (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rising risk of edit war

[edit]

Things are getting a little heated in the revision history and I think we collectively need to step back and discuss some of the content in the Public policy positions section.

In light of the recent volume of edits and reversions from unregistered users, applying semi-protected status on this page was the right call. Also, thanks must go to those editors playing whack-a-mole with those unregistered user edits.

Initially, my instincts were to simply edit the wording in the article, to try and reach consensus by incremental edit (as per recommendation in Dispute Resolution). However, in light of rising tensions, I thought it worth discussing in Talk first. I have reverted Nemo's text on Proton's support of the Republican Party while we discuss relevance and wording. This is clearly a contentious paragraph and hopefully we can find a way to word it that is neutral, sourced, and doesn't resort to dispute resolution processes (Third Opinion, Noticeboards, etc.) as per wiki guidelines.

This is the text as it currently stands...

In January 2025, Proton expressed support for the Republican Party through Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal accounts. The company later stated that it is "politically neutral", and "official accounts cannot be used to express personal political opinions".

For context, the original tweet that started this was an endorsement of Trump's pick for Attorney General for the Antitrust Division, Gail Slater (https://archive.ph/VAFln).

While the Intercept is widely regarded as a credible source ("generally reliable for news" but "a biased source"), I contend that the conclusions it draws are an exceptional claim, as is the article sentence, "In January 2025, Proton expressed support for the Republican Party through Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal accounts". I will make the case for this below.

Notably, the red flags are...

  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;

The Intercept was really the only mainstream source that covered this (forgive me for my lack of French skills or a Le Temps subscription), and below is why I contend that the statement is surprising and against previously defended interests.

Firstly, the claim that "Proton expressed support for the Republican Party" was refuted and argued against by Proton and Andy Yen (https://www.reddit.com/r/ProtonMail/comments/1i2nz9v/on_politics_and_proton_a_message_from_andy/). The fact that the quoted individual refutes the interpretation offered by The Intercept article should be enough to raise the possibility on an exceptional claim.

However, there's a lot more that backs this contention.

The company has a history of stating it's political neutrality. Some examples...

Proton have, and still do, support many causes that are at-odds with the Republican agenda, including DEI, freedom of press, calling-out institutional racism, etc.

This includes financially supporting many liberal-leaning organizations, especially those involved in protecting democracy, online privacy, and the freedom of press: https://proton.me/about/impact

Many of these organizations stand against Republican initiatives. For example...

I've used a lot of primary sources here, but these are useful in establishing the interests that the subject parties have previously defended. If it's useful to the conversation, I can find some 3rd party sources that also establish the above (although this has already taken up way more of my time that I anticipated when starting to type this).

This adds up to a significant body of evidence that the claim, "Proton expressed support for the Republican Party" to be both surprising, and seemingly out of character or against an interest they had previously defended. Hence my contention that this statement is an exceptional claim, and requiring multiple high-quality sources. Given The Intercept is the only source that really covered this controversy at all, let alone drawing this conclusion, I propose that this isn't enough to justify the statement and it should be either struck from the article permanently or reworded for greater neutrality.

Why strike this from the article? With only one source supporting an exceptional claim, the statement doesn't satisfy notability.

Why reword? This statement, and the follow-up messaging, did cause a stir within liberal-leaning elements of Proton's community. Recognizing this controversy is appropriate, but it should be done in a suitably neutral tone.

I can start with suggested wording, if folks would find that useful, or leave it to others to propose.

Thoughts? ConanTheCreator (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This all rests on your personal opinion that such a claim is "Surprising or apparently important", which it is not. You keep repeating this opinion but you have not provided any source for it. Please avoid original research.
Consensus is not measured by the number of bytes you write restating your opinion. Nemo 07:04, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think ConanTheCreator deserved to be insulted for taking the time to research and for not being concise.
I’m French-speaking and have read the articles in Le Temps and Le Courier, and you are misusing the source. You added the sentence “This matter was covered by national media in Switzerland”, citing Le Temp. This incorrectly implies the Intercept’s interpretation is supported by other media. Le Temps and Le Courier both say Proton does not support Republicans.
Your text also lacks neutrality. Le Temp mentions Proton also supported Biden’s antitrust nominee with a similar post in 2021. To be neutral, it has to be mentioned, as Le Temps did. If we speak of consensus, the consensus from the sources is against the opinion from the Intercept that you have added. Yet these dissenting opinions/sources are not mentioned at all. Only the Intercept makes this claim, and Wikipedia considers it a biased source. Giving both sides would make this section long relative to importance, so I agree with the consensus for removal.
I can understand with today’s politics, the desire to judge and punish people who hold “wrong” opinions, but this is an exceptional claim as many others point out. Wikipedia must be balanced and neutral. The current text does not do that so I remove it while we discuss.
If we do include it (which I do not suggest), a neutral text can be:
“In January 2025, Proton was accused by left-wing media outlet The Intercept of expressing support for the Republican Party through Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal account. However, reporting in Swiss media found that Proton's support for antitrust does not depend on party, noting that Proton CEO published a similar statement about Democrats in 2021, and holds policy positions which would not be to the liking of Trump. The company states that it is politically neutral.”
The second part is direct quote from the Swiss articles. RémySchwartz (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your proposed text is not neutral, because it assumes that supporting the Republican party is something negative one gets "accused" of. Your revert mentions "multiple sources" but you didn't reference any single source in support of the revert; please avoid misleading edit summaries. The text "support for antitrust does not depend on party" would also be WP:SYN and original research, because there's nothing in the sources supporting the idea that statements about the supposed "corporate capture" of this or that party can be equated with "support for antitrust". I suggest that you revert your revert until you have managed to produce an alternative text that is more neutral and respectful of reliable sources than the current one. Nemo 07:29, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Le Temps and Le Courier both contradict the opinion of the Intercept that Proton supports Republicans, so the text is contentious. I stand by my text. "support for antitrust does not depend on party" is not original research, its direct quote from Le Courier which analyzed the incident. I agree with you to not call it an accusation, it could say instead: "In January 2025, left-wing media outlet The Intercept said that Proton expressed support for..." However, I still agree with the consensus of everyone else to omit because it is an exceptional claim. RémySchwartz (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile there's another source we can use, from Mashable: Haley Henschel writes «I personally think the entire incident was sloppy more than anything else and not a symptom of a sinister ulterior motive. But it might give some users pause or leave a bad taste in their mouths if they interpret it as an instance of corporate knee-bending to the Trump administration.»
This is in line with the other two sources, which describe the controversy as a PR debacle. So it could simply be added as an additional source for the status quo text, or we could add a little snippet like «The incident was described as "sloppy" with risks it could be seen as "an instance of corporate knee-bending to the Trump administration"».
There are countless sources on such corporate "genuflections" (as the same Intercept author described the incident later) so ideally we'd link another Wikipedia article with a list or description of such events, to avoid going into detail here. Nemo 08:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Mashable is not considered a reliable source. I cannot understand why you ignore the two reliable/unbiased sources on this incident. It's in French, but French is also legitimate (really more legitimate since this society is from Romandie). RémySchwartz (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That entry indicates concerns with sponsored articles and encourages "non-sponsored content should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis". So let's evaluate, why would that article not be a reliable source?
I'm not ignoring Le Temps, I've incorporated its reporting. Le Temps confirms that there was a significant controversy around Proton's statements and that the handling was poor (as it says Andy Yen will be more careful in the future). It does not contradict the fact that Proton supported the Republicans in January 2025.
What's the second source you're talking about? Nemo 11:11, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second article is from Le Courier, previously linked above. Le Temp concludes "Une posture qui, assurément, ne serait pas du goût d’un certain Donald Trump", which translates to "Proton's position will not be liked by Trump", which contradicts they support Republicans or are "knee-bending" to Trump. Le Courier says the same, and my text quotes directly from both articles. The Mashable article is not news, it's a product review, and its the opinion of a product reviewer, which is not the same standard as mainstream journalism. It's not a mainstream news, reinforcing consensus of exceptional claim. RémySchwartz (talk) 12:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On revisiting, unfortunately I believe you argue not appropriately. You state something as a fact, but it is not a fact, only the opinion of the Intercept. Only a single source, acknowledged to be biased, voices the opinion that Proton supports Republicans. No other reputable publication makes that claim. For this reason, the correct action is removal of exceptional claim. RémySchwartz (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot find the link to Le Courier, please provide it again.
Saying that "not liked by Trump" contradicts "supports Republicans" is original research and WP:SYN. It would be mere vandalism to go around and edit articles claiming people are not Republicans just because they said something Trump didn't like. Le Temps says «Le message a été perçu par bon nombre d'internautes comme un soutien au président républicain». Again, there is no exceptional claim here; there's nothing exceptional about a business and a cryptocurrency enthusiast voicing support for Republicans in January 2025. No source supports the idea that this would be an extraordinary claim.
As for Haley Henschel's article, it may not be an excellent source for political analysis but it comes from someone with experience in covering marketing and politics, so it's an acceptable source for the marketing impacts on the USA public of a political communications debacle. It's certainly better than substituting our own original research on what happened.
Honestly I have no idea why we're still debating this. It's very simple, there was a controversy around some company's poorly thought communications, which was relevant enough to be mentioned by several news sources, and the article is going to mention it without taking sides. I understand that fanboys do not like to remember the controversy, but just carry on; trying to bury it only makes it come back. It is obvious to anyone reading with a clear mind what Proton's words meant, and we do not need to convince readers how to interpret them, so if it helps we can change from «In January 2025, Proton expressed support for the Republican Party through Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal accounts» (which I consider very bland) to something like «In January 2025, Proton was involved in controversy as communications on Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal accounts about the Trump administration, as well as the character and policies of the Democratic and Republican parties, were poorly received» (this is an euphemism of what Le Temps says: «L’entreprise genevoise Proton est la cible de nombreuses critiques»). Nemo 05:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The second article was linked by another editor. I think you missunderstand the point of other editors. The definition of exceptional claim is:
  • Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
  • Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character or against an interest they had previously defended;
Multiple editors have pointed this as a problem, and favor removal. It matters not our opinions of exceptional, what matters is Wikipedia definition. This is why many argue for removal.
I consider your latest text proposition (the "euphemism for Le Temps") acceptable since it comes from a neutral source (unlike the Intercept which is acknowledged by Wikipedia to be biased). The citation should then be updated to Le Temps. However, we must respectfully acknowledge that the opinion of all others is removal, and that remains my opinion as well if I am honest. RémySchwartz (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in favor of keeping it in its current form — the brief paragraph within a section about multiple policy positions addresses my previous concerns about undue weight and problematic wording, as was the case when it had its own subsection. Volt4ire (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree regarding form, anything more would be undue weight which other editor have also mentioned. I replace now to agreed text, which I hope is acceptable for editors who support removal. RémySchwartz (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The "current form" was the one which actually said what Proton said. Instead of just making the change I proposed, you're now edit warring to remove sources other parts of the sentence. So I'm thinking we should go back to the previous consensus version until you come up with a complete proposal here that can find consensus. Nemo 08:41, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Nemo, the view of many (myself inclusive) is removal for exceptional claim. As compromise, I proposed acceptance of your suggested text, no more, no less: "In January 2025, Proton was involved in controversy as communications on Proton's social media accounts and Proton's CEO's personal accounts about the Trump administration, as well as the character and policies of the Democratic and Republican parties, were poorly received."
I believe this will also be acceptable to editors calling for removal because as you say, it quotes Le Temps, a neutral source, and avoid the exceptional claim. Volt4ire is the one who suggested finding a consensus text, and his comment is about the form (where to place the text). Unfortunately, you have now added additional sentences which gives it undue weight which others wish to avoid. Further, you attempt to put the exceptional claim back from the backdoor by citing the biased source as the primary source and in the citation snippet. This ignores the other opinions which have been shared here and the good faith attempt of others to find a compromise. RémySchwartz (talk) 11:52, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the discussion in full I support removal, but the text from the consensus view as supplied by RémySchwartz above is not so much of a concession. EthBoi2000 (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you remove the reference? Nemo 17:54, 11 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As other editors have pointed out, this is a biased source which makes an exceptional claim. EthBoi2000 (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Nemo add it back again, so I remove it again. I believe Nemo is being disruptive, he added the citation back in a way that intentionally highlights the exceptional claim. The justification is also incorrect. It does not support an existing claim (in fact the reference reaches different conclusion), and even if it did, the source still makes an exceptional claim. RémySchwartz (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Proton_AG&oldid=1302520033"