This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

There is no confirmation of this delisting. There is no confirmation of a rumor of the delisting, even. Please add some, or I will have to remove it. Anaholic 15:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threads on 2ch regarding that topic has gone over 50 threads.

Also, several news-sites such as ITmedia, GIGAZINE or Impress reported disappearing of these words from Google and Yahoo despite other search engines comes up with loads of results, although news-sites mostly aren't convinced about it being deliberate.

I find it hard to call it "There is no confirmation of a rumor of the delisting". -58.0.212.76 06:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

my engish is bad.so i also write same opinion in japanese. i think we dont need article...just go live.com and google.co.jp and type"初音ミク"and do IMAGE search. you can see result in YOUR EYE.and you dont need to wait article that someone you dont know well　write about.this is just happening now. 英語は下手なので日本語で併記しておきます。 私が思うにこの件について第3者の検証は必要ないと思います。 この不自然な結果は現在進行形で起こっているのでgoogle.co.jpとlive.comにいって自分で"初音ミク"と打ち込んで イメージ検索してみればいいのではないでしょうか。 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.84.1.48 (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is sure that "Hatsune Miku" is censored. But in the beginnning the source is not written and baseless guesses like "Dentsu asked Google to drop Hatsune Miku" were written. you should write only information which has a certain source.

(Japanese)「初音ミク」が検閲されていることは確かですが、最初はソースが書かれておらず、「電通がGoogleに初音ミクを落とすように頼んだ」のような根拠のない推測が書かれてました。確かなソースがある情報だけを書くべきです。 --Sayama87 13:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it should abstain from the deletion by subjectivity. We should argue.Ezezmog 07:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

こちらウィキペディア対策班。２ちゃんねるの応援要請を受けてかけつけた。長期間、ここで議論できる保障はないが、英語なら任せてくれ。俺が理論的、かつ冷静的に状況を説明する。日本語版の記事のノートでの支援を頼む。だが、熱くなりすぎて項目をあぼーんさせるなよ。中立性と客観性が第一だ。項目を削除したがっている連中もいることを忘れるな。相手に項目の削除の口実を与えるな。機会があったら、日本テレビの午後の思いっきりテレビでmixiランキング特集で「初音ミク」がランクインされたことが放送されたことについて執筆を頼む。以上。 Dear, IP Address 58.0.212.76, there are plenty of topics on Wikipedia that are not officially confirmed. There has been plenty of conspiracy theories, such as the case of 9.11 tragedy covered by Wikipedia. Your judgement may also be challenging various topics on Wikipedia that has portions covering conspiracy theories. Regarding this case of possible censorship, there has already been various news source in Japanese that has questioned the suspicious outputs of google. There has been reports which some has tested concluding search results from .com domain using proxies and search results from .jp domain differing on this keyword. I may post the online news in Japanese, but I wonder if it is worth posting it since some people may not be able to read Japanese.

(http://www.itmedia.co.jp/news/articles/0710/22/news088.html) --221.188.79.16 09:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... First, ITmedia's article just said that google image search doesn't show Miku Hatsune images. It is not clear that this problem caused by the censorship. Second, this reference, just said that MSN Live search was used more than Google search on October 3 2007. The website does not refer to the causing, and, in first place, I can question whether the website is a reliable source. Third, on the subject of the statement ""google" meant the search in Japan. After the event, "google" came to mean the censorship in Japan", this is a hopeless case. It is not true. The source should be cited clearly and precisely.--Int main(void) 10:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-hem. The official name of the Google Censorship technology is "EvilRank"

There's quite a bit of other articles dealing with censorship, and internet censorship, on wikipedia (Censorship, Internet censorship, Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China). Perhaps we should look at several of these articles and either merge some of them, or make sure that they all somewhat agree with each other. Dr. Cash 22:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no friend of Islam, Google, America or Christianity, but should Wikipedia really be linking to what is effectively a hate site when the page's only significant use seems to be a non-descriptive list of alternatives? Its purpose is to defame Google, which goes against Wikipedia policy. It has nothing directly to do with the topic of this article. I'm getting rid of it. elvenscout742 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the title of this page be changed to something like "Censorship by Google" since the current title could mean this or Censorship of Google? If no one has any objections, I'll make this change myself.--Daveswagon 16:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page.--Daveswagon 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This line "Thus to agree to Chinese censorship was a violation of its own founding principles.[2]" is biased. Perhaps it should be deleted. It is not Wikipedia's position to make a definite judgement of whether or not Google actually violates its principles. Also, the same paragraph contains some silly capitalization errors.

First of all, please sign your comments with four tildes. I can't see the relevance of your argument... it is WPs position to draw logical conclusions or to state proven facts. If censorship goes against Google's principles then it's allowed to state this. No bias there. 84.56.46.47 13:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A simple test...dot-com index differential: site:.com Other top level domains can be compared similarly (.org, .cn, etc.). Searches for essential html tags, such as <html> returns the difference for all domains."

Sure it works but I don't actually know what you're talking about, so it's not simple! Any chance of a rewrite for nubs?

Well, the test-search for .com revealed that google.com has 60,000,000 sites less than google.de (google.com: "Results 1 - 10 of about 6,810,000,000 for site:.com", google.de: "Ergebnisse 1 - 10 von ungefähr 6.870.000.000 für site:.com"). but shouldn't google.de be the censoring one? This test is worthless. 80.219.250.92 11:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the removal of Uruknet worth singular mention here? I recall other sources also being removed from GoogleNews - is this one particularly noteworthy to single out? --ZimZalaBim (talk) 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of sites not indexed by "google news". I vote for it to be removed or cite some more proof of censorship. As it is its nothing but a spam link Bl4h 08:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with both of the above, and since it's been this long without any other opinions I'm just going to drop it. --Zootm 15:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has added a {{helpme}} tag under the 'websites' section of the article, asking "what is the tag which says this is strongly disputed"
Unfortunately that user does not have an account - and so is not easily contactable - but I will make an attempt.

The section claims: "Google blocks the websites of competitors to its Youtube subsidiary from its results sets like liveleak.com"
and the citation is Google search for Liveleak website does not return link to it.

I am uncertain why this is disputed. I would add that if the user is to dispute this section at all, he/she must add a comment somewhere on the talk page outlining his/her dispute. I will watch this article and give it a day or two - if no rationale has been provided I will remove the dispute.

It is worth mentioning that the citation seems legit to me at first inspection.

Rfwoolf 13:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFwoolf, the link is to search result showing that livelink is indeed not indexed. This says nothing about the claim that google "blocks" competition, you-tube like sites Bl4h 02:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks forthe help, I added the tag because there is no evidence that google is blocking liveleak for the reasons stated. They host terrorist propaganda (video from the mujahedeen in iraq) so it might be a different reason, not because it's a youtube competitor. 76.17.115.199 14:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Its nonsense and shouldn't be there. It may be true, but there are many reasons sites get banned and this one is pushing a lot of rules. The owner of LiveLeak even posted a video [1] saying they hired a "3rd party" company to do SEO work for them, which eventually led to the delisting of their alternate domain "liveleak.org". If you know anything about google there is a fine line between " friendly optimization" and "manipulation of search results" and they are quick to delist websites for it. Also, google is a business, and ADWORDS is where they make their money. Companies dont like having their ads associated with beheadings and terrorist topics, believe it or not :] What is true is that liveleak.com is definitly banned or flagged. Now wether thats due to CENSORSHIP or BUSINESS is uncertain. On a side note, the link listed in the article for liveleak is bad usage. If you want to check to see how many pages are indexed under a domain, you type SITE:domain (site:liveleak.com). Not search for the term "liveleak" as the link in this article does. It shouldn't even be here Bl4h 23:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't hear any mention of SEO work, in the video the owner states that someone was brought in to verify everything was present and correct. As for pushing rules, what rules exactly?

• The line is worded to suggest that the blocking of you-tube sites is common. LiveLeak is only an example of this great claim, yet theres nothing to suggest that liveleak itself was blocked due to competition. The burdon of citation is not on me, its on whoever added this line or anyone who wants to stand by it. As it is, its nothing but a spam link to liveleak. I think it could at least be worded better. Perhaps explain the story behind liveleaks bannage or include other examples of you-tube like sites that are banned Bl4h 01:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above poster. There is no proof that the site was censored by Google nor any claims by the site that they have been censored.

Are you serious? A Google search for LiveLeak isn't proof enough for you? There is nothing factually incorrect about stating that Google does not list LiveLeak in its search results. Get a clue!

Well if the point of it is to state that liveleak isnt in google then we can just delete it. Thousands of sites are not listed and/or banned from google for various reasons. I personally have sites that are not listed. This article is about google censorship, you get a clue. Also try and sign your remarks so we can tell whos who Bl4h 08:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until such a time as the story is validated I think it should be removed (Especially is the site themselves aren't claiming they have been censored). Right now it seems more a vague possibility than anything else.

Just to cite some today references: according to this post, cited also by [2], it seems that livleak.com has a Robots exclusion file which blocked indexing. This was also cited by this article (in italian), where it is reported that Google confirmed this. Of course, an official announcement from somebody would be welcomed to finally solve this issue. Katanzag 06:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Liveleak is now listed in google[3]. Liveleak contacted google and got a hold of them, and they fixed whatever the problem was. Bl4h 13:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user or users keeps adding a paragraph to the "Web search" section about the supposed removal of the Iraq stoning videos by Google. Not only has this paragraph never cited a source for this so-called censorship, but it also has nothing to do with Google's web search function. I added a paragraph under the "YouTube" heading about YouTube's Terms of Service and video removal (assuming this is what the above users meant to reference), but this was removed and the original paragraph reinserted. Please. We can not list every single video that YouTube has denied or removed, and I see no reason why the stoning video is more notable than other such videos. I'm at my three revert limit, so I ask that other users please revert these changes if and when they occur again.--Daveswagon 17:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the following sentences in the China section:

A simple test can be performed to quantify the number of pages which google.cn censors as compared to those listed in google.com. Search using this string to compare the approximate dot-com index differential:

site:.com

Other top level domains can be compared similarly (.org, .cn, etc.). Searches for essential html tags, such as <html> returns the difference for all domains.

The reason is that there is no difference as far as I can tell when actually search site:.com from both google.cn and google.ca

Do feel free to try it out by yourself and see the results. 24.89.245.62 20:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

censored websites that provided critical information about Scientology

I'm removing the word "critical." Seems a little too POV. Cap'n Walker 20:56, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up "tank man" on google.cn, and the famous picture is all over it. Maybe I am missing something, but shouldn't that be censored? [4]

I believe the censorship occurs when searching for "Tiananmen". The odds of a native Chinese searching for "tank man" without knowing what it means are pretty low.--Daveswagon 00:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "tiananmen". The picture was there too. [5] Smedlorificus 07:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that phrases containing the word "suicide" do not appear in the search suggestions on Google Toolbar. Would this be an example of censorship by Google? --Ixfd64 01:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with Google Toolbar, but I'm inclined to say "no".--Daveswagon 02:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]