THC Science

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

Google in China

It says Google.cn blocks searches on things like Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. But when I go to Google.cn and put Tiananmen in the search the Wikipedia article comes right up. Does this mean you have to be in China for it to be blocked? So it'd be the country, not Google blocking it? This should be clarified 63.26.206.216 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)eric[reply]

EvilRank

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

"External links"...

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]

Ambiguous title?

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]

Maintain objectivity, please

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]

Slightly Confused

"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]

Uruknet

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]

Livelink

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]

Iraq stoning video

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]

Pointless section...

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]

Small edit

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]

Tank Man

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]

is this an example of Google censorship?

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]

Miku Hatsune

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]

See Wikipedia:Verifiability. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and the source should be cited precisely. Here's NOT 2ch. Be an angel and go back to 2ch if you have little incentive for conforming to Wikipedia policies.--Int main(void) 10:45, 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]

Dear Int main(void), you have probably not read the article from IT MEdia News entirely, and your point of view is likely biased on this. The source mentioned balanced views, and one expert with knowleged in the field mentioned about the "crawling", questioning that crawling alone was the factor (outdated data index is unlikely for such well known search engine), and said as one possibility, that the keyword may have been set as a "NG Word" for some reason, meaning "filtered". The article points to the well known online forum (BBS) in Japan, and discussions within the forum. Within the forum, the possibility of censorship is mentioned frequently. If you do not understand the background and lack experience in the field, I think you should refrain from joining the discussion for lack of knowledge. You have very likely failed to read the entire article, and have challenged the nature of Wikipedia of its neutrality with likely bias. Wikipedians do not tolerate with such bias. Return 0;.--222.148.89.232 06:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read the article entirely, so removed or commented out some improper edits. The article doesn't state that "In Japan, Google censored illegal-business-practice accusation". It is so clear. Concerning the topic of threads on 2ch, I think that it isn't worth for referring on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not journalism and not gossip items.--int main(void) 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japan

Int main(void), why you removed this?

->In Japan, Google censored illegal-business-practice accusation^[1]. Moreover, Google protected the company which committed systematic rape.

This leads to this left prose now, and it is the beginning of an IPA[6] authorization project.

->Toshihiro Yoshimoto, the owner of the censored page, published What is Google-hachibu(censorship by Google)? and now he is developing the software to discover censorship by Google^[2]. However, those who regard Google as questionable were minority groups in Japan.

It shows that concern for the censorship of Google is a national level that a Japanese independent administrative agency accepted this business. It is very clear! You must not remove it! 202.225.235.52 05:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is very clear that IPA funds the project to develop a software to discover delisted websites by Google due to legal issue and/or technical issue, but that isn't necessarily mean that IPA supports the opinion that Google has been censoring in Japan. So I didn't comment out the statement about the IPA project and commented out others from POV. However, I think that we can write to the article that "Toshihiro Yoshimoto, the owner of the delisted website 悪徳商法マニアックス (Akutoku Shōhō Maniacs, lit. Illegal-business-practice maniacs), claims that Google has been censoring in Japan." What do you think about my opinion?--int main(void) 07:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Google-censorship.png

Image:Google-censorship.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship in Germany and France

> There is no direct way to check whether a search has been affected in this way.

This is not true! At least the German and the French version show a message at the very bottom of the result page and a link to chillingeffects.org, which explains the reasons:

"In response to a legal request submitted to Google, we have removed 8 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read more about the request at ChillingEffects.org."

Try it for yourself: Warning! This link points to search results featuring nazi-content!!!

I think the article should reflect this, and I will update it in a few days. --Autoplombe (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube censorship

I'm thinking of adding this to the article, but I thought I'd post it here first in case anyone is able to flesh it out a bit:

Apart from blocking users, YouTube is selectively ignoring certain videos in its compilation of "most viewed" statistics. For example, this comedy video featuring "Achmed the dead terrorist" has been viewed over 22.3 million times, but does not appear anywhere in the list of "all-time most viewed" videos, where the top-ranking video has achieved only 21.8 million views. Other similar occurrences are documented in this video.

-- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 18:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sites critical of Islam

I think it's important to consider whether the sites were merely "criticising Islam", i.e. in this case expressing a hateful opinion, or whether they were in fact publishing (arguable) factual inaccuracies, which goes way beyond mere criticism. The section should be re-worded to reflect the fact that the opinions expressed by the sites were not necessarily in themselves the reason for censorship. Etaerc (talk) 14:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effect of image filtering on one website

I added this section because I could find nothing about how Google filtering works. Such filters raise or lower the bar of censorship. This section casts light on how Google works and the effect it can have on websites that find themselves deemed to be carrying explicit images. The section was deleted without any form of explanation; I reinstated it. This is an element of the topic worthy of inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magforum (talk • contribs) 11:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the edit summary that it was original research. That is, a contributor came to their own conclusion and added that conclusion to the article. Instead, we generally only include material that can cite a reliable source - a article from a reputable newspaper on censorship by google would be fine. Andjam (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship by Yahoo!

Why is there no page about Yahoo!'s censorship? Just wondering. --Alexc3 ^(talk) 00:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Google Censorship!

I just did a search on "Obama: WRONG Change for Children" where the page with all words appearing appeared 8th on the list and the ones appearing ahead of this item had only two or three words and were articles from newspapers that they apparently wanted to highlight about how Obama represents "change". Now that we see companies like Google and YouTube are slowly using their technology to try to influence people for political gain as has been the case for some time in the major media, who can we trust? This is the company that supposedly hates censorship!!!. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.113.251 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China doesn't mind?

I have added a 'citation needed' tag to the statement "Most Chinese Internet users did not express their feelings about Google's choice". Were most chinese internet users aware of the changes? Were they allowed a safe way to express their feelings? Were they asked?

Fishiface (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire sentiment as it is an unverifiable claim. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol feet king vids?

What about Youtube removing videos by force that make fun of Bhumibol Adulyadej, King of Thailand? I noticed alot of people calling censorship on that one, so...75.72.92.166 (talk) 01:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is google still banning xenu.net?

When I run the search provided in the citation http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Axenu.net+scientology, the sites seems to come up just fine without any removal or disclaimers. Are the claims made in this section of the article still accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.43.118 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finkelstein

I don't want to join an edit war, but this proposed edit,[7] does not have any reliable source, and consists largely of original analysis / opinion. The claim that there are no google links to Norman Finkelstein's blog site is sourced only from a letter an individual wrote to a partisan journalist's blog. On the other hand, you can check for yourself and at present this seems to be true. The other statements (that this appears to be true, that the site is a "previously top-rated result", that this is a matter of Google "explicitly endorsing political censorship in the US", that it is the first example of such, and that "Google China has used similar policies for some time") are all uncited. Per WP:BRD, WP:V, and WP:RS proposed content like this that is challenged should remain out of the article until and unless there is a consensus. Can anyone justify why the material should be on Wikipedia by finding a reliable source? Wikidemon (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something very odd is going on here. My last edit, in which I simply state what everyone can verify, and provide a reliable source, is being systematically cancelled, by one administrator on demonstrably wrong grounds, and now by a newby, since my edit merely states what Philip Weiss notes on his website. There is no mention of censorship. A fact, verifiable in 10 seconds by anyone, is recorded and sourced. The explanations given are not grounded in policy, or even in reading the last edit I made. What therefore is going on?Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Philip Weiss not a reliable source? (Published by The New York Observer, The Nation, The American Conservative, National Review, Washington Monthly, New York Times Magazine, Esquire, Harper's Magazine, and Jewish World Review, and author of American Taboo: A Murder In The Peace Corps). He is a very well know reporter, published in a dozen respectable newspapers and mags? All journalists are partisan. He has as much profile as many others regularly quoted for their opinions. I do not quote his opinion, I quote a fact both he and his correspondent remark on, which anyone can verify, without saying whether this is censorship or not. Like Weiss and many others, I check NK's site every week, and for the couple of years it always came up first. It doesn't as of two days ago. That is noted, and sourced.I have no responsibility for the rest of the text. Elide what is unsourced, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.Nishidani (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:RS and WP:OR. The source is not Philip Weiss. It is a letter by a reader to the Philip Weiss blog. The Philip Weiss site itself is not reliable either because it is a self-published blog. Reliability is not a matter of stating site owner's credentials - in this case a partisan journalist / editorialist publishing in his area of partisanship. It is a matter of accountability, editorial oversight, etc. Further, posting a google result "which anyone can verify" is clearly WP:OR, and the use of google search results as sources is specifically frowned on around here. If this matter is as obvious as you think, and if it is truly something notable enough that we should mention it in an article about google, surely a reliable nonpartisan secondary source will see fit to write about it in a way that is verifiable. Wikidemon (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the comment 'Agreed', meaning Philip Weiss checked the information supplied to him by his correspondent, which is what reporters and journalists of standing customarily do as part of their professional life. I did not post a 'google result' which any one can verify. I posted Weiss and his correspondent confirming a fact, and added anyone can verify it. There is absolutely no original research involved in my edit on Weiss and his correspondent's remarks. It is certainly notable that a scholar of distinction subject to a denial of tenure on dubious grounds now suddenly disappears from google. Why that should happen will no doubt be analysed in the following days. The stringency applied here is curious, since you, I, and every other editor here will have, with scruple checked the fact, and found it to be independently verifiable, outside of the source. This is not usually demanded, or required, or often even possible. But when one can in 10 seconds prove this is so, anyone can prove it, then commonsense should prevail. To insist against commonsense by hauling in a waggon-train of policy that is there to stop non-obious, unlikely, spurious or poor matter from being dragged into wiki is not, I suggest, an efficient way of going about things. I could be patient, and wait till the Finkelstein technies analyse what is going on, and post it on his site. By the same token, others here could be less impatient, and use their commonsense to allow an innocuous and sourced fact to stand, until the same reports come in. Sometimes policywonking can blind one to the obvious. I hope this does not occur here.Nishidani (talk) 22:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardingless of the reliability of the source, how is the statement "Google appears to lack results in its search machine for Norman Finkelstein's previously top-rated result normanfinkelstein.com" encyclopedic? Google "appears" to lack a result? We need a much stronger verifiable claim of this for it to be worth mentioning in an encyclopedia. Short of that, it is speculation, heavy in innuendo. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, I read Weiss' "agreed" comment. We have two unreliable sources - a letter, and a journalist blogger's approval of the letter. The heft of the resume of a person self-publishing a blog is immaterial, it's still a self published partisan publication. In the field of Arab/Israeli politics in particular there are plenty of people with PhDs and tenure, who publish dueling columns and blogs where they say all kinds of disparaging and contradictory things about each other. The number of reasons why google searches are unreliable is legion, and thoroughly discussed elsewhere. Per WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, etc., poorly sourced material that is challenged as unverifiable stays out, and it is the responsibility of editors proposing to add it to establish sourcing and consensus. If we take this from the realm of policy to reality, what is obvious? It's eyebrow raising that Finkelstein's blog does not seem to appear in google search results and I'm curious to know exactly why. The reason is far from obvious. Attributing this to google censorship for political purposes is utter speculation. Even the source does not do that, the letter writer and Weiss simply note the fact. They're surely raising their eyebrows along with the rest of us. Whatever the explanation is, if it's not a technical glitch or mistake the reality is probably a lot more interesting than any speculation. If there is anything to it some respectable journalist in the world will get to the bottom of it and write about it in a neutral nonpartisan source. Or else they'll try and not be able to get to the bottom of it. In the meanwhile we have nothing to go on before the facts are in. Wikidemon (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with wikidemon. this blog is not a third party, reliable source. even if this reporter were to be the most honest and reliable (insert famous newspaper) reporter in the history of the universe, i don't see how his personal blog should automatically be treated as a reliable source. Theserialcomma (talk) 22:45, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're both overreading with the hermeneutics of suspicion. There is no disparagement in noting a fact, calling for comment, reviewing that fact, and saying 'Agreed'. This is patently ridiculous, as is the constant insistence that the edit is about 'censorship'. The edit strictly confines itself to noting that a notable journalist checked a fact and confirmed it was a fact. Policy should never wikilawyer the obvious out of existence, as it is being used to do here. So, you are commenting, both, on your suspicions about an edit, not on the verifiable content of the edit. One can do this in wiki: it is one reason why form-worship trumps content, and makes these articles largely unreadable. Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to call it "sticking to policy", and let's please stay with that. I'll be blunt here. I'm not certain the observation is true, significant, noteworthy, or relevant to the article. There is no reliable source for it. There is a reason WP:RS is the way it is, and nothing about this factoid justifies relaxing the rules. This does not look like a close case to me - it is not suitable for the encyclopedia without sufficient sourcing. Wikidemon (talk) 10:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with policy. Discretion is used everywhere. My tech-canny nephew refers me now to 'The Dark Side of Google' which I will now read. Perhaps before thinking about 'The Dark Side of Wiki'.Nishidani (talk) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discretion and policy both argue against adding information based on blogs and analysis of google searches. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noting: in his previous edit (10 lines above), Wikidemon introduces ... significant, noteworthy, or relevant to the article as his criteria, apart from being true. They are new to this thread. I suggest these new ones are of limits to this discussion. -DePiep (talk) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

I have reverted an attempt to insert this again in this article,[8] Internet censorship in the United States,[9] and Norman Finkelstein.[10] To avoid carrying on an edit war I will not revert further for now, but if the reversions continue on the article pages I will seek help from Wikipedia administrators to maintain stability. Please, don't make more drama out of this than necessary, do not insult other editors, and do not accuse Wikipedia editors of "censorship". We can discuss this here - it obviously does not have consensus for inclusion at this point but we can talk about it. Wikidemon (talk) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[1] 悪徳商法？マニアックス--

[2] 悪マニ管理人が「グーグル八分発見システム」開発へ、IPA未踏ソフト事業(Developing the software to discover censorship by Google) Impress Watch August 1, 2007.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 236: / Line 236: @@
 :::Nothing to do with policy. Discretion is used everywhere. My tech-canny nephew refers me now to 'The Dark Side of Google' which I will now read. Perhaps before thinking about 'The Dark Side of Wiki'.[[User:Nishidani|Nishidani]] ([[User talk:Nishidani|talk]]) 11:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 ::::Discretion and policy both argue against adding information based on blogs and analysis of google searches.  [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
+:::::Noting: in his previous edit (10 lines above), Wikidemon introduces  ''... significant, noteworthy, or relevant to the article'' as his criteria, apart from being ''true''. They are new to this thread. I suggest these new ones are of limits to this discussion. -[[User:DePiep|DePiep]] ([[User talk:DePiep|talk]]) 22:15, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 ===Edit warring===
 I have reverted an attempt to insert this again in this article,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_by_Google&diff=283419481&oldid=283259930] [[Internet censorship in the United States]],[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=283419766] and [[Norman Finkelstein]].[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norman_Finkelstein&diff=prev&oldid=283420701]  To avoid carrying on an edit war I will ''not'' revert further for now, but if the reversions continue on the article pages I will seek help from Wikipedia administrators to maintain stability.  Please, don't make more drama out of this than necessary, do not insult other editors, and do not accuse Wikipedia editors of "censorship".  We can discuss this here - it obviously does not have consensus for inclusion at this point but we can talk about it. [[User:Wikidemon|Wikidemon]] ([[User talk:Wikidemon|talk]]) 20:43, 12 April 2009 (UTC)