I've just created it. Template:Enwp based

There's a small blurb starting with "On June 13", and there's a sentence in it that leads me to believe that it is vandalism...but the citation and the fact that, despite the anti-semitic comment, it is slightly on topic kind of sway me away from that thought...

The point of this post is should that section go away? Fruckert (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing most of the section about Climategate, which currently reads; "More recently, Google has been censoring search suggestions skeptical of climate change, i.e. "Climategate" is forbidden, but "climate change" is ok. Also both "climategate" and "climate gate" search results went from over 12 million to around 6 million results for both. "climate gate" should always yield more than "climategate" as teh Google search algorithm should find all sites containing "climategate" and sites containing both "climate" and "gate", but "climate gate" yields less results than "climategate". This is pointed to as undeniable evidence of tampering since the results are violating the rules of their own search algorithm."

The paragraph is not only incorrect ("climategate" currently returns over 13,000,000 results), but also lacks a citation proving that Google's algorithm "should" return more results for "climate gate" than for "climategate." 199.111.183.124 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed quite a lot of material like this that seems to be original research. The section on Japan also seemed to be derived solely from a claim by a site owner who has been delisted by Google. --TS 09:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm putting a lot of it back because you are engaging in exactly the same censorship that we are talking about under the cover of exactness, when you could have simply removed the specifically unverifiable or changing numbers.--193.35.132.151 (talk) 13:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that "climategate" is no longer showing up in Google Suggest under the search bar. It was there earlier today. Seems suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.151.132.236 (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should the title of the article be changed to censorship "of" Google? The lead talks about the company obeying laws. It seems to me the article should talk about censorship initiated and carried out by the company itself or at its discretion or the title should be changed to reflect the broader subject matter. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Sailer's blog has been offered as a source in this article. Keep or deny?

• Pro: Sailer is notable enough to have a Wiki page; he's a commentator in other mainstream news (besides vdare.com)
• Con: It's a blog; his writing is is highly pov; "buchanan" is notable in that context
• Misc: You don't need a source for the claim... anyone can type buchanan into google and see what happens 71.224.206.164 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buchanan is no longer an unperson. Check it and see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.157.157 (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google has disabled AdSense to manga related websites that link to Child Pornography as well as removing sites from Google's search index.

• http://www.icaruscomics.com/wp_web/?p=4900
• http://l7world.com/2010/04/google-sponsors-child-pornography.html --BoP 00:24, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "search suggestions" that appear when you begin typing a search in Google:

I noticed if you type "Why are Black people" that lots of suggestions came up, most of which are embarrassing to Black people. Suggestions also appear for any other race, or nationality you might type. However, recently, Google removed those suggestions from the "Why are Black people" search. It is clearly self-censorship, but only where Black people are involved. I feel this should be mentioned.

The suggestions still appear if you type "Why DO Black people," but I am sure they will censor that soon, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddgwynn (talk • contribs) 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Censorship by Google , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. — Parent5446 ☯ ^{(msg email)} 03:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, Google extended its new SafeSearch restrictions to non-English speaking countries. Previously, these new restrictions had only affected Google's English search results. Jarble (talk) 18:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been, frankly, unable to even remotely come up with any sites within even the first few pages of Google search that aren't blatant Israeli propaganda links when trying to Google Palestinian issues. Even Googling the exact phrases from articles I know to exist comes up with the actual article many lines down and the above links containing no real relation to what I Googled (even using "around the phrase") but instead Israeli propaganda sites.

Even more mysterious is that Googling questions regarding this issue or even how to filter it produces absolutely no related links other than blatant Israeli propaganda pages. This is clearly beyond a glitch or search algorithm issue, this is clear censorship of anything that puts Israeli crimes and tactics to light. 124.168.241.91 (talk) 10:57, 16 September 2013 (UTC) Harlequin[reply]

Has this been written up or discussed in a reliable third party source? If so, let us know where and something based on that can be added to the article. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 12:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]