Talk:Susan Wojcicki

Edit request to "CEO of YouTube" section on July 27 2018

Suggested edits in ** **

1. Can we add this as the 3rd sentence in this section? **In 2017, she was also ranked number six in the world’s 100 most powerful women in Forbes.** https://www.forbes.com/power-women/list/

2. Users are watching **over** one billion hours a day **and also generating billions of views.**

3. Since taking on the role of CEO, YouTube’s percentage of female employees has risen from 24 to **32** percent.

4. YOUTUBE RED IS NOW YOUTUBE PREMIUM: Suggested sentence where YouTube Red is mentioned: **She also oversaw the launch of YouTube’s advertisement-free subscription service, YouTube Premium, which includes YouTube Originals and the new YouTube Music. Its over-the-top (OTT) internet television service, YouTube TV, launched in early 2017.**

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube_Premium

5. In the second sentence of the last paragraph, can we add this? (Right before "The more stringent policies...")

• • Wojcicki's efforts include using machine learning to speed up video review, growing the team focused on content issues, introducing new ways to tackle misinformation on the platform and working to provide more transparency to creators and the community-at-large about these policies.**

https://youtube-creators.googleblog.com/2018/07/mid-year-update-on-our-five-creator.html

Sources do not state she died of cancer

The page currently says: "After a 2-year battle with cancer, she died of the disease in August 2024." However, the cited source (and all sources I've seen reporting her death) does not actually state that she died of cancer, only that she died after living with cancer for 2 years. It's conceivable given the available information that she died of another cause, so I suggest that in order to avoid jumping to conclusions, the words "of the disease" be removed for the time being. 2601:18B:301:2230:4831:990:42E7:234 (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC) 2601:18B:301:2230:4831:990:42E7:234 (talk) 05:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

That whole sentence has now been removed for different reasons, but the "Personal life and death" section states: "On August 9, 2024, Wojcicki died at the age of 56 due to cancer." I now suggest that "due to cancer" be changed to "after living with cancer for 2 years". 2601:18B:301:2230:4831:990:42E7:234 (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Sundar Pichai's internal memo to Google employees implies that cancer was the cause of death. https://blog.google/inside-google/message-ceo/an-incredible-life-and-career/ 108.233.254.17 (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

The memo only states that she died "after two years of living with lung cancer", not that she died of lung cancer. 2601:18B:301:2230:65B:E1E1:9DC5:6520 (talk) 15:42, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done I agree with this change. From multiple articles, we see that reporters deliberately stick to the wording that both her husband and Pichai have used. This means they avoid attributing the lung cancer as the cause of her death:

• The Guardian: "[...] has died at the age of 56 after two years of living with cancer."

• The New York Times: "Her death was confirmed by her husband, Dennis Troper, who wrote on Facebook that she had been living with lung cancer for two years."

• Variety: "Wojcicki’s death after a two-year fight with cancer was announced by her husband, Dennis Troper, in a public post Friday evening on Facebook."

• Reuters: "YouTube's former chief executive and long-time Google executive Susan Wojcicki died on Saturday at the age of 56 after a two-year battle with lung cancer."

Like what OP said, if future reporting clarifies how she died, we'll go ahead and make those changes. But for now, let's stick to this. :) —FrostFairBlade (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

She died of something immediate. Probably something like drowning, since that is often what happens with lung cancer, you drown to death. However, that is not how it's going to be reported because it's gruesome and unnecessarily detailed. There are other ways to go from cancer, such as taking a massive OD of opioids, to the avoid the terror and pain of drowning. Still, I don't think Wikipedia needs to report these immediate causes. She clearly died due to complications from cancer, according to the sources. She died "after a two-year battle with lung cancer" ie. she lost the battle with cancer. -- GreenC 17:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

You're presenting one possible interpretation; your own guess as to what happened. That guess may certainly be correct. However, it may also be incorrect: the statement that she died "after a two-year battle with lung cancer" would also be logically consistent with her dying in a car accident, being murdered, falling down the stairs, or any other cause of death that has nothing to do with cancer. Wikipedia shouldn't go beyond what has actually been reported, regardless of how correct your guess may seem to you. 2601:18B:301:2230:5F39:777:B6D8:9C87 (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Pichai statement

@Graywalls: That was not my point, I was not advocating for Wikipedia to display "breaking news". I am saying that Pichai's statement is notable here for the reasons I outlined. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Calling the rest of community to see whether the contents in dispute at Special:Diff/1239695979 should remain out, or be put back in. Please leave out until consensus is formed. Graywalls (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Actually, the norm is that the WP:STATUSQUO before a dispute is retained until a consensus is reached (if no consensus is reached, the status quo is retained by default). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

STATUSQUO is an essay, ONUS is a policy. Policy > essay. Graywalls (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems you're either misunderstanding or misusing PAGs here. ONUS states that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion (that's true) and that consensus may decide this to be the case. There has been no consensus here, only WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS for its inclusion until you challenged it, which is why the status quo should generally be retained until consensus can be reached (on whether ONUS applies). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I will add that a common method used to generate discussion is to tag a disputed statement with {{disputed inline}}. But that, of course, isn't possiblr if the disputed material is question is removed from the article and we have to wait for editors to stumble upon this talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It can be pasted here. The disputed content isn't required to be in the main space to discuss. You could also start an RfC if you'd rather. Graywalls (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound cocky, but it seems you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RfCs are not meant to resolve minor content disputes between two editors. No, disputed content isn't required to be in the main space to discuss, but placing a tag will expedite the consensus-building process. It is considered good practice to retain the WP:STATUSQUO in discussions, and material has WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS unless challenged. With all this in mind, I will restore the material in question and tag it with {{disputed inline}}. If other editors agree this material is undue/non-notable, we can remove it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:32, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

For those arriving via the {{disputed inline}} tag, I outlined my reasoning for the inclusion here: Special:Diff/1239684927. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

It appears we continue to interpret these two pages differently. I disagree that consensus has been established in favor of inclusion and believe that the application of ONUS is valid. Let's leave it to uninvolved editors to comment. I disagree with the restoration, per WP:NEWS and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. She just died a few days ago, so I believe it's too soon to even assume implied consensus and NOTEVERYTHING clearly shows not every tangential stuff from press needs to be covered. This needs more input from more than just the two of us. Graywalls (talk) 07:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Leave it out. The fact that a somewhat pro-forma memorial statement was issued by her former employer is expected and by social convention somewhat required, so it is not really notable. It doesn't add anything of value to the article. It would be notable if they didn't issue one. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I might agree to leave it in if the tributes did more than just offer the perfunctory farewell remarks. For example I see he mentioned that she was a pioneer in maternity leave, but that is already mentioned in the article. StonyBrook _babble 19:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

So do editors here also believe sections like Chadwick Boseman#Response (a GA) and entire articles like Reactions to the death of Elizabeth II shouldn't exist? InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Besides for WP:OSE, for better or for worse, sports/Hollywood celebs who meet untimely deaths are going to be a lot more talked about than business leaders, as you can see in the Boseman article where tweet likes broke records. And there's no comparison here of course with QE2. StonyBrook _babble 19:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, numerous figures in the tech industry reacted to Wojcicki's death. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Chadwick Boseman § Response is a fairly long and well sourced section that gives many reactions with significant context. If there were enough content for a similar section with that level of coverage in this article that would be great. As it was the one corporate comment added was a bit underwhelming and a bit sad as it implied that her death really wasn't that significant to many. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I believe several of the more notable reactions documented on this article should be summarized. At the time of the revert/dispute, Pichai was the only person who had issued a statement at that point (he was the first to confirm the news after Wojcicki's husband). Additional sources if needed: InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

So what? Encyclopedia articles are not sensationalism. Consider WP:20YT Graywalls (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

(This is going to be my last try.) Yes, I do think readers in 20 years would be interested in how the world reacted to Wojcicki's death. If editors feel we should not name names, how about a simple Numerous figures in the tech industry paid tribute to Wojcicki, praising her as a trailblazer in Silicon Valley? InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Nope sorry, I just don't see it. If it was really warranted here, one would think that no less a persona than Walt Disney—who died relatively young under similar circumstances 58 years ago—would have a respectable post-mortem tribute section as well. He doesn't. StonyBrook _babble 21:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Garage?

How is that Google setup operations in her garage?! This is probably the single most important event in her career and most interesting thing about her IMO. The article doesn't say. -- GreenC 17:02, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking? Many tech companies in Silicon Valley have humble beginnings like this. Steve Jobs and Apple? Hello? In fact, I am starting to get utterly bored with these origin stories all sounding the same. You might want to check out the book "In the Plex" by tech writer Steven Levy which discusses the origins and growth of Google. I am sure it will have something in more depth on Wojcicki and her involvement. Bdavid1111 (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 December 2025

Change: "Her maternal grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants." to "Her maternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants." or "Her maternal grandparents were Ukrainian Jewish immigrants."

Justification: the existing referenced source does not confirm that her maternal grandparens were from Russia. (or change the source to a one that supports the Russian-Jewish hypothesis, if it exists)

Evidence for Ukrainian-Jewish origin: Her mother Esther Wojcicki explicitly confirms her father was from Ukraine (Chernivtsi) not Russia: https://www.facebook.com/AmBARclub.org/videos/esthers-mother-was-russian-her-father-was-ukrainian-meet-esther-wojcicki/846696555747979/?locale=he_IL (despite the page title, she doesn't talk about her mother in the video).

The error may arise from confusing Russia with the Russian Empire, which at some point occupied Ukraine and Poland. Artem (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Partly done: I have removed the sentence entirely, as the cited source does not discuss her maternal grandparents at all. Day Creature (talk) 16:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

(re-consider?) The word "also"

When the sentence "He is also Jewish" was added

The word "also" in that sentence (about her husband) is ambiguous and -- (now) -- it could be confusing.

When that sentence was added to this article ('01:00, 19 August 2025') ... [It was originally not capitalized, but now it is] ... ( see [the DIFF at] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Wojcicki&diff=1306662008&oldid=1305334062 )

at that time (about a year after she had died), there was at least one place in the article from which a reader [who did not already know] could "find out" that Susan Wojcicki had been Jewish ... without searching through things like footnotes and "Categories".

"(On the topic of footnotes and "Categories": See, for example, entries such as "20th-century American Jews" and "21st-century American Jews"] in the list of "Categories:" at the end of the article. "See also" footnote number [10] of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Susan_Wojcicki&oldid=1306662008 which is -- or was -- a source [about Susan's mother] named ["Esther Wojcicki: A Jewish mother of the tech revolution" ] ... [ Archived].)

When the sentence about her maternal grandparents was deleted

(At that time) [August 2025] there was still a sentence in the Early life and education section of the article, that said

Her maternal grandparents were Russian Jewish immigrants.

from which a reader^{[who might not already know]} could "find out" that Susan_Wojcicki was Jewish.

At some point, that sentence got deleted. I am not sure why it was deleted. There might still be some comments here (or perhaps in an "archived" section of this "Talk:" page) debating about [whether her maternal grandparents had been] "Ukrainian Jewish" vs. "Russian Jewish" immigrants ... or something like that.

But since that sentence is gone now, I think that -- now -- the word "also" in the sentence about her husband could be (or, seem) 'ambiguous' or confusing.

What should [probably] be changed

I guess it would be OK to add a sentence (probably in the Early life and education section of the article) saying something like "Susan was Jewish" or "Susan's mother is Jewish". The [previously] existing footnote in that section, to a source by the author "Tramiel, Preeva" would probably be adequate to support such a brief sentence.

But maybe would be better to change the word "also" (in the "Personal life and death" section) -- to instead say [e.g.] "like Susan" or "like his wife" ... which was probably the intended meaning of the word "also", in the first place. However, ("note" that) the word "also" can have other meanings! ... such as [it can mean] "in addition to being an accomplished juggler", or "in addition to being an expert on UFOs", or many other things (which might not be true about her husband ... but since a reader would probably not know that, an update to this article might be advisable, to help make it less ambiguous.)

Any comments? Mike Schwartz (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2026 (UTC)