Talk:Verizon

Updated draft for Corporate responsibility
Hello editors, I have here a new draft for the Corporate responsibility section that has better sourcing and considers recent editor feedback. The draft is below, but here is a bullet point list of changes:
 * Add: Verizon grants money to organizations through its philanthropic arm, The Verizon Foundation.
 * Update verb tense to past tense: The company ran HopeLine, which had provided mobile phones to victims of domestic violence.
 * Add: Verizon's educational initiatives include the Verizon Innovative Learning Schools program that provides children access to STEM education programs.
 * Add: Between 2019 and 2023, Verizon issued five green bonds for a total of $5 billion. Proceeds from its 2023 issue were earmarked to transition to more environmentally friendly electrical grids.
 * Add: In 2020, Verizon launched its "Citizen Verizon" plan with an outline of social and environmental goals.
 * Add: Among this plan is a pledge to be completely carbon neutral by 2035.
 * Add: The plan also includes digital-skills training for young people.

Corporate responsibility Verizon grants money to organizations through its philanthropic arm, The Verizon Foundation. The company ran HopeLine, which had provided mobile phones to victims of domestic violence. Verizon's educational initiatives include the Verizon Innovative Learning Schools program that provides children access to STEM education programs. Between 2019 and 2023, Verizon issued five green bonds for a total of $5 billion. Proceeds from its 2023 issue were earmarked to transition to more environmentally friendly electrical grids. In 2020, Verizon launched its "Citizen Verizon" plan with an outline of social and environmental goals. Among this plan is a pledge to be completely carbon neutral by 2035. The plan also includes digital-skills training for young people.

I am happy to review any feedback. Thanks VZEric (talk) 13:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You can edit this version into the article.
 * ✅ Geardona (talk to me?) 16:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you Geardona for the review. Due to my conflict of interest, I strive to maintain a firm boundary on not directly editing, even with the go ahead from a volunteer editor. Because of this, I kindly request that this be done on my behalf. Let me know if there are any questions. Thanks VZEric (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Geardona (talk to me?) 21:35, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks Geardona for the assistance here. VZEric (talk) 18:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2024

 * 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: page moved. A lot of history moved over at the target, from people boldly trying to copy-paste move or redirect to the Wireless article. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Verizon Communications → Verizon – Time to revisit this after almost six years since the last discussion.

Proposal is based on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCCORP. The long form is rarely used in any fashion, and the base title Verizon already redirects here, so we already acknowledge that the primary meaning of the name is this company, not any subsidiary. The reason the article bears the current title is no longer valid.

A bit of history: the current title was chosen to disambiguate the parent company from Verizon Wireless (VZW), which was also known simply as "Verizon" and was at the time a joint venture between the former Bell Atlantic and the British wireless carrier Vodafone. In fact, the name was coined for the joint venture.

However, in the years since things have changed. Firstly, in 2014, Verizon (Communications) bought out Vodafone's 45% share of VZW, making it a wholly owned subsidiary. That erased any meaningful distinction between the two name wise, as it made all dealings with Verizon Wireless inherently dealings with Verizon Communications, and all VZW property Verizon Communications property. In short, any reference to Verizon at that point was a reference to the parent company directly or indirectly, and treating the plain term "Verizon" as ambiguous was just being pedantic. Then, to top it off, Verizon has since undertaken a corporate reorganization and VZW ceased to exist as a distinct subsidiary, its functions transferred to the consumer and business segments, as pointed out on that articles talk page (see the talk archives). That's why the VZW article was moved to Verizon (mobile network).

Since we already recognize that people using the short form mean this company, then using the longer form for natural disambiguation becomes a case of unnecessary disambiguation when the common name of this company is simply "Verizon" and we should live the article to simpler form. oknazevad (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak Support - Since there are no other pages under just the name Verizon and not everyone will refer to the company as Verizon, I support this. WiinterU (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

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.
 * Support per nom. The previous discussion is at Talk:Verizon Communications/Archive 3. SilverLocust 💬 12:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Is "Marketing campaigns" section notable?
Reading the marketing campaigns section, it seemed like much of it was written to promote Verizon, and aren't really that relevant to most readers. Especially the latter 4 (Inspire her mind, flipside stories, better matters, humanibility), which just seem to highlight Verizon's advertising without any pushback or analysis or anything useful.

It seems that based on the notability policy for orgs the sources are not Independent (Notability (organizations and companies)). For instance, the "Humanability campaign" paragraph has two sources, one is a trade publication (AdAge), which the policy says to use with "great care", and the other is a WSJ article that looks like churnalism. EOT3000 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)