Talk:Intel

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Intel article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Archives (index): 1, 2: 2 years

Intel was one of the Social sciences and society good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 31, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 26, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 13, 2009.
Current status: Delisted good article

This level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Companies Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies 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.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany

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

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

California: San Francisco Bay Area Mid‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance).

Oregon Top‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon 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.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

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

Electronics High‑importance

	Electronics portal This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk pageElectronicsWikipedia:WikiProject ElectronicsTemplate:WikiProject Electronicselectronic
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Computer hardware task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Computer graphics High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer graphics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer graphics 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.Computer graphicsWikipedia:WikiProject Computer graphicsTemplate:WikiProject Computer graphicscomputer graphics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

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.

Ultrabook Fund section looks dated

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Ultrabook_fund_(2011)

This section is talking in present tense about sources dating back to 2011. It could probably use a change to past tense at least but probably needs a full update to what happened with the fund as the results of this fund should be observable at this point. Gyaruko (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gyaruko, if this is still an issue, you could make a "bold" edit to fix it. –jacobolus (t) 11:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

challenges to dominence (3000s)

is the 3000 here a year or what? because year 3000 has not happened yet and it is similar to 2000 so it is likely a typo 216.108.26.35 (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section - too long

The lead section is (according to the lead section guideline) way too long. The last two paragraphs belong into the product and market history section. They are not of fundamental importance for the topic of the article and therefore appear subjective and undifferentiated or non-objective in the lead section. Bildersindtoll (talk) 16:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that the lead is way too long.

Firstly, the Wikipedia guideline is merely a rule of thumb, and the length of an article's lead section depends on the total length of the article, and since this article is quite long, the lead length seems more or less appropriate to me in relation. For example, Wii and India are both featured articles and have very long lead sections too since their articles are long as well. Secondly, I'd argue that the lead already summarizes the most important aspects of Intel's history and market position relatively concisely (i.e., it's not overly detailed while at the same time doesn't leave out key aspects). Thirdly, I don't think the last two paragraphs are biased, as they merely reflect what the sources say, and I think neither should be removed, as the lead should not only summarize Intel's glory years, but its complete history. Ignoring Intel's recent history would indeed be unneutral. Maxeto0910 (talk) 09:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

third_party/angle/third_party/llvm/src/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/android/cloexec-open.cpphttps://source.chromium.org/chromium/chromium/src/+/main:third_party/angle/third_party/llvm/src/clang-tools-extra/test/clang-tidy/checkers/android/cloexec-accept4.cppNOT_FOUND: Requested entity was not found [type.googleapis.com/google.rpc.LocalizedMessage] locale: "en-US" message: "Cannot parse URL as a Gitiles URL" [type.googleapis.com/google.rpc.RequestInfo] request_d: "0aa7465e72f24dd49465ac239fcf4a61"

89.222.217.12 (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

89.222.217.12 (talk) 11:06, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intel ARC (GPUs)

Under the Product and market history section, Intel Arc should get a small part. Yeahimaboss413 (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intel Removed From the Fortune 500

This line has me confused “ranked in the Fortune 500 list of the largest United States corporations by revenue for nearly a decade, from 2007 to 2016 fiscal years, until it was removed from the ranking in 2018.” Removed from what rankings, because Intel is ranked 46 in the article it lists. Intel has remained a Fortune 500 company as far as I can tell. Bmorrow151 (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like you're right: https://fortune.com/ranking/fortune500/2018/. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now added a "discuss" tag for the sentence for further input from other editors. However, as of now, it seems like you are right and the sentence should be reworded. The citation given for this statement only shows the top 20 companies, but Intel ranked 46th. Maxeto0910 (talk) 08:33, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now fixed the text, as Intel also ranked in the Fortune 500 in 2019: https://fortune.com/ranking/global500/2019/. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue is fixed now, this thread can be archived. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:25, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"state owned"

I don't disagree with this designation, but instead of back and forth editing, can we talk it out here? isa.p (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well I own some Intel stock; so I guess it's O3000 owned. I definitely think this should be mentioned in one of the Trump articles, but not here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly something about this debacle should be mentioned here. Czarking0 (talk) 13:50, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the lead and have clarified in the infobox reflecting the content in the body which says the government has zero board representation or governance rights. Calling that state-owned is misleading. In any case, if the content needs to be re-introduced, seek consensus first. Ptrnext (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that talk page consensus should be established before lead and infobox changes unsupported by the body Czarking0 (talk) 13:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with removing this from the lead. A 9.9% direct government stake is substantial and meets standard definitions of partial state ownership - the lack of board representation doesn’t negate the ownership itself. This is material information that readers would reasonably expect to find in the lead, and removing it creates a misleading impression by obscuring a significant aspect of Intel’s ownership structure. A brief, factual mention in the lead (e.g., “partially stated-owned company”) while keeping the detailed explanation in the body is consistent with other articles. Sakuav (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the facts and there is a level to which it is also true that there is some state ownership. However, nothing should be added to the lead or infobox before reliable sources are used to build claims in the body. If reliable, independent sources call it state owned then we should add it to the body and add something to the lead. First sentence is maybe harder to justify due weight. Czarking0 (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The body already contains multiple mentions of this state ownership with reliable sourcing. There's a dedicated section in the history (U.S. government stake (2025)) as well as coverage in Leadership and corporate structure, backed by first-party sources from Intel (https://www.intc.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/1748/intel-and-trump-administration-reach-historic-agreement-to) and reputable sources such as Reuters and The Wall Street Journal. I assume your edit was made in good faith, however your reasoning for removing it from the lead is not sustained by the existing reliable sourcing in the body. Please try to Wikipedia:AVOIDEDITWAR by discussing here first rather than reverting back. Sakuav (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I'll look again and I appreciate your comment. I Ctrl+F'd for 'state owned' and did not see these Czarking0 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing these, I stand by my reasoning that the body does not describe Intel as state owned. Therefore the lead will also not describe it as state owned at this time. Feel free to respond with a quote of the body that you think supports the claim that this is a (partially) state owned company. Czarking0 (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for the exact phrase "state owned" but that's not how Wikipedia typically works. The body clearly states: "the United States government purchased 433.3 million Intel shares at $20.47 per share, equivalent to a 9.9% stake." This is definitionally partial state ownership - when a government owns equity shares in a company, that company is partially state-owned by standard definitions used across Wikipedia and in economics/business literature. This isn't some token 1% position or indirect ownership through a sovereign wealth fund - this is direct ownership by the U.S. government of nearly 10% of the company. The phrase doesn't need to appear verbatim for the concept to be present and sourced. Many Wikipedia articles describe partial state ownership without using those exact words in the body text. The facts are clearly established: the U.S. government owns 9.9% of Intel's shares, making it partially state-owned. Sakuav (talk) 18:12, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When a topic is contentious and editors are not in agreement on exact phrasing then the exact phrasing from reliable secondary and independent sources should be used. If such a source calls the 9.9% state owned, state ownership, or such a similar phrase then I think we should use that term. If not, then I think we should use whatever terms they do use. Further if one such source uses the term but many others do not, then I think we should state it the body something like Source calls this arrangement state ownership but most reliable sources do not. In that case, the lead should not use the term state owned. Czarking0 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump's action is contentious. But this isn't an article about him and not a contentious article. We have differing editor opinions here; and I imagine the Intel board had some private, tough arguments. But that doesn't make it contentious. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This part of the article, at least, is about post 1992 US politics which is a designated contentious topic on en Wiki. That is why I used the term. Czarking0 (talk) 22:28, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The action by Trump to refuse to give Intel money allocated to it unless they gave the government a stake is indeed contentious and belongs in a Trump article. Your addition of a CTOP banner I've reverted. We should not put a CTOP banner on every article related to something Trump has done to some other organization or person. It changes the editing rules. Such belongs in one of his many articles. Intel was founded 58 years ago and is not a political organization. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:32, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Czarking0 that the body of this article does not support 'state owned' in the lede, nor AFAICT are there any RS's supporting 'state owned.' At 20% with an RS it might be appropriate to note a U.S. government controlling interest in the body and lede, but that is a long way off. Tom94022 (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree. In addition to the lead, we need to watch the short description, which now mentions partial state ownership but probably shouldn't. Kombucha25 (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think with your agreement there is talk page consensus against calling it state owned in the lead, infobox, and short description given the current state of the body. I suggest you boldly make these changes. I am refraining from doing so at this time due to 1rr. Czarking0 (talk) 19:25, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I've boldly gone ... and made those changes. Thank you for your trust. Kombucha25 (talk) 22:50, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like this current version as it stands. Well done on those changes! isa.p (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are not appropriate for establishing contested designations like "state owned".Czarking0 (talk) 03:44, 1 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I think the changes I just made reflect the consensus above. US government is not the owner and it is incorrect to assert such in the info box, Intel remains a public company with the US having 9.9% ownership. Tom94022 (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I agree Czarking0 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. I was overly cautious to keep that reference. --Kombucha₂₅ (🍵) 00:09, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps "partially owned" may also be a step too far? i think the deal is highly notable and deserves inclusion in the lede, but the source referenced doesnt even describe the arrangement as ownership - merely as a stake with no governance power and limited voting abilities. Perhaps "Since 2025, the United States government has taken a 9.9% stake in the company." would be a better sentence?

Here's some other reliable sources describing the deal as the US government taking a stake in the company, not as ownership.

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/08/22/intel-trump-us-government-stake/

https://techcrunch.com/2025/09/03/why-the-us-government-is-taking-a-stake-in-intel/

https://www.dw.com/en/why-us-government-seeks-stake-in-chipmaker-intel/a-73701338

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg3zpdl3xdo

So far I've only found the CBC describing the deal as ownership.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/us-lutnick-defence-industry-intel-1.7617783

Perhaps I'm being a stickler here, or I'm missing something, but it is notable to me that reliable sources are avoiding terms like "ownership," "state-owned," and the like. isa.p (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to {{Infobox company/doc}}, the owner field can be used for publicly traded companies only when the owner is a long-term strategic owner such as an affiliate, founder or founder's family. At this time, I don't think one can say that the US government is a long-term strategic owner.

Regarding the sentence that remains in the lead: I believe RS'es do sometimes call it a "passive ownership". Carlp941's replacement text looks ok, though would prefer it to be more specific to include the "passive" part: Since 2025, the United States government has held a 9.9% equity stake in the company, without governance rights. or Since 2025, the United States government has held a 9.9% non-voting equity stake in the company. or similar. Ptrnext (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]