Talk:Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.

This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

[edit] intro

Let's talk about Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

[edit] CERNET

I have removed the part about CERNET's Internet access to foriegn web resource because it has nothing to do with censorship. The article says CERNET banned access to foriegn websites so students are encouraged to use proxies. This is rather inaccurate and misleading. What happens is CERNET offers the students extremely low price (almost none) for access to domestic internet. While access to foriegn resources cause extra cost, CERNET charge extra money for this access. For example, in Tsinghua University, CERNET charge 30 yuan (appr. 4 USD) for 80 hours in one month, which is much lower than the average price provided by comercial ISPs. This has totally nothing to do with censorship. Biggu 02:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] old

The People's Republic of China has set up a set of Internet censorship systems that are collectively known as the Great Firewall of China.

Is it known by that cute name in China as well as outside of China? If not, perhaps we should say "known (outside of China) as..." or "dubbed...by X" if you know who first tagged it that way. --Ed Poor

I've never heard in refered to this in China. Part of the reason is that it is cute in English, but the Wall in Great Wall and the wall in Firewall are two completely different terms in Chinese.

We Chinese usually call it "GFW". --Earthengine 02:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is banned? Why? wshun 06:26, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Why? No one really ever knows why a Web site is banned in China. However, Wikipedia was banned as of end of last year: http://asp-cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/list.html though I have not checked it specifically recently. - Fuzheado 06:32, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Are you sure? There are many people from mainland China now working on Chinese Wikipedia. If they can access Chinese Wikipedia, surely they can visist English Wikipedia?? In fact I have accessed Wikipedia(English and Chinese) laster December(almost the same date as in the list). --Formulax 06:57, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

You accessed from within China? If so, odd that the Harvard site listed it as banned. Things are always in flux in China. It's also possible some folks in China are using proxy servers to bypass the block. - Fuzheado 07:06, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Actually now I am not in mainland. I visited Wikipedia last December in Shanghai, and everything was fine. But I am told by mainland Chinese Wikipedians that Wikipedia can be accessed in PRC. --Formulax 07:28, 1 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Er, it IS banned in China, I'm here now and I'm telling you that's how it is. It's easy to see: traceroutes die at a certain point to banned IPs, and continue fine to others. (I am now logged in by proxy in another country). --prat 05:13, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Subheadings needed for a nice TOC. I tried by scanning, but couldn't do it appropriately. --Menchi 06:45, Jul 31, 2003 (UTC)

I would say that the article isnt long enough. --Jiang

HOw Ludricous----

The government now has started the education of AIDS in China now. There are even websites set up by AIDS patients.--Formulax 03:06, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

--- What is cheesecake? Secretlondon 19:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

2. Informal. Photographs of minimally attired women.

titillating photos of women in bathing suits and so forth. Maxim magazine, or Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition. Maybe I should pick a less American word... 64.228.81.75

As an American, I have never heard the word "cheesecake" refer to anything other than the food. It is best to choose internationally recognizable words and avoid informal words since, after all, it is an encyclopedia. Livajo 17:31, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Translation

Was there any voice from Chinese users about a translation of this article? ;-) -- Tomchiukc 03:41, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is needed. The Chinese version has much more details, especially about recent development of enforcing laws and regulations.--Skyfiler 22:10, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Of China

What about internet censorship of China? i.e. the blocking of internet access from China. Mostly as a result of spam. Btw, should the companies/products that do the censorship be mentioned? // Liftarn

There's such a thing? Well, if one doesn't read Chinese, they might as well.... --Menchi 10:03, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Keeping cool

Let's try and approach this objectively even if it sucks. We should be careful about any speculation, especially when it concerns Wikipedia itself. Dori | Talk 03:49, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Funny name

"Great Firewall of China " very imaginative name. I laugh a bit. ;) China wants its citizens to be ants.-Pedro 01:48, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Imaginitive, bull. It's a common term for dot see en's filtering system. --D.valued 09:56, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia section too big

The section on the effect on Wikimedia is interesting, but it's too out of proportion for this article. We've tried to avoid writing about Wikipedia in Wikipedia (ie. "navel gazing"). Perhaps this should be largely moved to Meta? Fuzheado | Talk 23:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It should be moved to History of Wikipedia, which gives no coverage and should. --Jia ng 00:32, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want to, go ahead. But I think a summary should be left behind. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 00:55, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Has the Chinese government ever tried to edit Wikipedia?

I'm wondering if Chinese censors have ever tried to edit Wikipedia articles to suit their versions of history and politics? Does anyone know?

Depends on what you mean by "censors". The whole censorship thing seems to be carried out in a haphazard manner, at several levels of authority, with self-contradictory results. Besides, they don't need to. My impression is that the average Chinese youth on the internet is much more radical in opinion than the government. -- ran (talk) 03:35, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

This month (June, 2005) China sent out bots to change the pages. This reported from user Masterhatch, who is currently away. -- Kojangee 22:30, Jun 23, 2005 (Beijing Time)

This has never been occurring. You should hold suspicion of propaganda origin from other sources such as cult of Falun Gong, who may freely attempt public relation distortion use medium such as Wikipedia. Wen Hsing 22:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Move request

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Internet censorship in China → Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China

The article is clearly about Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China, as implemented by the government of the People's Republic of China. —Lowellian (talk) 08:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Support. See above. —Lowellian (talk) 08:25, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Support This is a move you can easily do yourself without requiring an admin to move it. The destination page doesn't exist, so there are no conflicts like getting edit histories merged, and stuff, so just use the move button at the top of the page (next to history). —ExplorerCDT 16:47, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - ExplorerCDT, you don't need to tell me that. Anyway, I am an admin. I am listing this page here because it is potentially a controversial move. —Lowellian (talk) 01:02, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose at the time being. The article is clearly about Internet censorship in mainland China, i.e. the PRC excluding Hong Kong and Macao. I support moving to "Internet censorship in mainland China". (Please add {{move}} to the article. :-D ) — Instantnood 07:49 Feb 24 2005 (UTC)
- Conditional support if a notice in italic is added to the top of the article to tell readers the article is about Internet censorship in mainland China, without affecting users in Hong Kong and Macao. I remain oppose if the notice is not added. — Insta ntnood 18:37 Feb 27 2005 (UTC)
Support. A.D.H. (t&m) 17:09, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
Support. I don't think the firewall affects Hong Kong users, so IC in PRC would be a more suitable title. prat 01:23, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- But HK is part of the PRC (but not 'mainland' China -- small caveats to both those assertions). Alai 05:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. This rule is set by the government of the PRC. There is no political entity called "mainland China".--Huaiwei 06:51, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comment: I would like to suggest an alternative to the move of title. The Internet censorship does not affect users in Hong Kong and Macao. "Mainland China" is a term referred to the PRC with Hong Kong and Macao excluded. The alternative I suggest is "Internet censorship in mainland China". Please see also the relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Insurance companies of the People's Republic of China. — Instantnood 17:08 Feb 25 2005 (UTC)
- Mainland China is not a clearly defined term. It lacks clear delimiting in both a political and a temporal sense. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Politically: I would suggest that some, such as Taiwanese and those referring to the PRC/ROC split would include Hong Kong and Macau in the term 'mainland China', whereas others such as yourself may argue otherwise. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  - Temporally: If in fifty years time the name of the country changes, an article that is properly written should not require changes. Rather than being a history article (where 'History of China' is accepable as a cross-dynastic reference) this censorship article is firmly rooted in one government. I believe associating it with that government is the clearest way to define the article both now and in the future. prat 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    - Politically it is seldom used to include Hong Kong and Macao (see Talk:Mainland China). In colloquial speeches, these terms are often not clear cut. This article is firmly rooted in one government, but the suggested title is referring to censorship in (the entirety of) the territories under this government, but that's not the case. — Instantnood 07:22 Feb 26 2005 (UTC)
      - I agree with Pratyeka. The focus of this article is the policy of a specific government. —Lowellian (talk) 02:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
Oppose Article title is perfectly understandable as it is, no need to have a longer title for the sake of it, jguk 19:14, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The article title is POV, that's why it needs to be changed. —Lowellian (talk) 02:28, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
support. --Ji ang 06:01, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This discussion is no longer active. violet/riga (t) 20:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ran/Me

Ran, sorry, I don't want to revert war with you because we've always come to a resolution without going back and forth.

If the article says this is about censorship in the mainland in the first sentence, what good does it do for the reader to say "mainland" again in the second and third sentence? How does reverting back to having these superfluous statements provide any understanding of the situation in HK? Do mainland internet users refer to it as "the great firewall"? Let's add a statement specifically about HK and remove the repetive phrasing.

We have to mention somewhere that the firewall applies only to mainland China, not Hong Kong. Personally I think this entire article should be moved to Internet censorship in Mainland China; then we can remove the disclaimer. -- ran (talk) 03:17, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

but that rename alternative wasn't well received a month ago. Is the "great firewall" term used within China or only outside? SchmuckyTheCat 04:09, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure. In China they just refer to certain websites being blocked or censored. -- ran (talk) 05:46, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

maybe not then [1] so lets leave that third sentence. ta ta. SchmuckyTheCat 16:04, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "China"/"PRC" vs. "mainland China" for page titles

Following the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Chinese) regarding proper titling of Mainland China-related topics, polls for each single case has now been started here. Please come and join the discussion, and cast your vote. Thank you. — Insta ntnood 15:16, Apr 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] YTHT, SMTH

Recent developments like the closing down of YTHT and the neutering of SMTH aren't even mentioned. Is it possible for someone familiar with these developments to write something on these topics? -- ran (talk) 22:43, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] State-owned Internet Service Providers

I think this artile only discussed the censorship of state-owned Internet Service Providers. Other ISPs, companies and orgnizations have their own firewall and censorship systems. An example of this is the Education Network maintained by universities in mainland China. It is also known that different branch of state-owned ISPs have different censorship standards, Wikimedia was still accessible from some state-owned internet services when it is reported blocked.

[edit] Role of foreign companies

I added links to Cisco which has provided the Chinese gov't with routers. Also, added point of view of human rights advocates Human Rights Watch & Reporters W/O Borders for balance (see guidelines NPOV --Kaspiann 11:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Responsibility

I added this new section as it's relevant and may influence American corporate policy --Kaspiann 11:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship of foreign sites

The article mentions "Overseas Chinese websites" under the list of Foreign Sites censored. It doesn't appear to be true. Should it be deleted? - Bnitin 05:48, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Websites in chinese about censores subjects are censored. Many pages about Tibetan independence e.g. Can someone please check if theese sites are blocked? www.tibet.com www.studentsforafreetibet.org www.savetibet.org www.freetibet.org www.heartibet.org

I guess that many religious sites are blocked too. Falun gong, Jehova's witnesses... Al-Jazeera? www.iwtnews.com? Should we mention sites that are blocked? Not ALL of course, but some?

[edit] Picture on the right-hand side

...needs to be redone by someone with Chinese fonts installed.

[edit] Awareness

Are the people of mainland China aware of the Internet censorship taking place in their country? the article mentions only it is possible to sense censorship ("white spaces in BBS'es"), but how many actually know about it? --Abdull 12:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] presentation of the efectiveness of Tor

[quote] Neither the Tor website or network are blocked, making Tor (in conjunction with Privoxy) an easily acquired and effective tool for circumvention of the censorship controls. Tor maintains a public list of entry nodes, so the authorities could easily block it if they had the inclination. According to the Tor FAQ sections 6.4 and 7.9, Tor is vulnerable to timing analysis by Chinese authorities, so it allows a breach of anonymity. Thus for the moment, Tor allows uncensored downloads and uploads, although no guarantee can be made with regard to freedom from repercussions. [/quote]

Well, first, even if Tor's website was blocked, it would still be easy to get it, though any other site or p2p network. And if the entry nodes in the public list were blocked, one could still access that network, if one knew, or found somwhere else the IP of an (entry) node. All p2p networks have these elements, but are still much harder to completely block than any other architecture - cuz theyre p2p. But my main problem is about the traffic analysis attacks; it is of course true that using traffic analysis techniques, one could find out which Tor nodes communicate to one another. But the whole point of its technology, onion routing, is designed precisely to make such determination difficult; there is no other technology obscuring identity of nodes better! And its allmost impossible to create a network that would be totaly resistent to traffic analysis (though quite high and reasnoble ressistance is possible, and Tor is pretty good in that relative regard), outside of making all nodes use all bandwith all the time! So its really unfair to state this as Tor's minus, its actually its most positive side!

-aryah

[edit] another tool to circumvent censorship

Infranet, developed by folks at MIT, uses Steganography to embed information in innocuous-looking http traffic

[edit] Split. Other forms of censorship

Censorship in China redirects to this artice. Surely the Chinese government censors things other than the internet (try taking Bibles or Falun Gong lit. into China). Hence I suggest this article be split. LukeSurl 20:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well.--Daveswagon 05:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I split it: Censorship in the People's Republic of China. Please contribute if you can.--Daveswagon 18:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A small test on GFW "bi-directional filter": URL keyword test

There is an article on xys forum (2005) discussing about URL keyword test.

article on xys forum：

From Yush on 2005-8-13, 04:37:19:

Test: visit any web page in mainland China (except default page such as index.html), for example the cover page of People's Daily:

1. Normal URL

http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/3613123.html

2. URL with arbitary parameter, such as "方舟子" (?x=%B7%BD%D6%DB+%D7%D3)

http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/3613123.html?x=%B7%BD%D6%DB+%D7%D3

3. URL with parameter of sensitive words, such as "方舟子" (?x=%B7%BD%D6%DB%D7%D3)

http://politics.people.com.cn/GB/1024/3613123.html?x=%B7%BD%D6%DB%D7%D3

Visits of 1 and 2 are successful, but that of 3 would be denied, and then the page and other pages (except the default page) on the website cannot be visited by URL 1 or 2 for a period of time.

Conclusion: The blockage occured on portal of mainland China network, through filtering of URL (instead of page contents)

[edit] Google China?

This is very odd. The article mentions Google being blocked. However, Google has now made a localized version, Google.cn which panders to the interests of the Chinese regime. Example:

Google.com (what the rest of the world can see) image search for "tiananmen square": woops, not supposed to see that.

Google.cn (what good Chinese are allowed to see) image search for the exact same string: nothing to see here, move along.

First image hit on Google.com for Tiananmen: tanks and oppression. First image hit on Google.cn for Tiananmen: tourists hugging.

How can this not be noteworthy in the context of the Great Firewall of China? Kasreyn 07:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

You need to read the article more caredfully, or simply search "Google" on the page.--Skyfiler 17:25, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see now. It's mentioned - barely. I would certainly feel the issue deserves more than a glossing-over. The article, particularly its header info, makes it appear that the censorship is entirely the work of China, when in fact, at least one prominent western corporation has been willing to bend over backwards to assist in censorship. Internet censorship in China is therefore a cooperative effort between the Chinese government, Chinese businesses, and some western businesses such as Google. Kasreyn 01:33, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is like saying that Wal-Mart deserves credit for paying minimum wage, not the government that instituted this requirement.--Daveswagon 05:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed this statement

This is inaccurate....

The National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China (PRC) has passed an Internet censorship law in mainland China^[1].

This isn't a law passed. It's essentially a judicial interpretation of the law, which allows the criminal code to be used in internet cases. It's also not the basis for legal internet censorship in China, since most of the censorship involves administrative actions that aren't covered by the Criminal Code.

Just as a note, when you are dealing with Chinese Law, it is *very* important to keep in mind the difference between a law, a decision, an opinion, a measure. a regulation, and a decree. This different documents are very different from each other.

Roadrunner 17:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Internet," not "internet"

Best as I can tell, every instance of the word "Internet" should be capitalized. This article has had a lot of trouble following this standard. Please take note of this when adding or improving content.--Daveswagon 05:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organizing external links

The external links section is a mess. I'm trying to organize it. If you can help, please do. These links are suppose to offer information that the article doesn't, so many of them should probably be converted to references or outright deleted.--ShipSinker 14:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken language links

The titles of the Chinese versions of this article seem to have been changed to literal question marks, causing the links on the sidebar to be broken. (This may just be a glitch with my browser? Could someone else check?) --π! 02:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turf Wars

I am visiting Beijing at the moment. The fact that I can visit and edit this page is a testament of how much censorship there is. Google.com is blocked at the moment, but it was working earlier today. There are some censorship, but they don't seem to be permenant, usually back on in a few hours.

I have spoken to a relative who is a IT professional here in China. He point out that the Internet connection both inside and outside China are worsened by the turf wars of the ISPs here. There are two major network providers in China, China Telecom and China Netcom. The connection between them are pretty bad even in China. Basically, they "intentionally" increase the latency and packet loss between each other to force customers to get their service. So a medium website that would want to reach all audience would have to pay for both services. (Big sites don't care cause they usually have distributed server farms.)

When I get back to the states, I will try to find sources to back up his claim and add them to one of those pages. --Voidvector 16:43, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make speculative and false accusation, is disrespectful and may cause unwanted commercial troubles.Wen Hsing 22:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNS affects UDP as well as TCP

The article currently has:

"DNS filtering and redirection. Don't resolve domain names, or return incorrect IP addresses. This affects all TCP protocols such as HTTP, FTP or POP"

Surely failure to resolve DNS affects UDP as much as TCP (and indeed any other IP protocols). Anyone have any objections to changing TCP to IP, and updating the examples? ConditionalZenith 04:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP block lifted?

This article says that the PRC has completely unblocked Wikipedia. Is that true? 24.93.190.134 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

There is now freedom to access website such as Wikipedia of course from all of China. Wen Hsing 22:17, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psiphon

Psiphon [2] is a software project designed by University of Toronto's Citizen Lab under the direction of Professor Ronald Deibert, Director of the Citizen Lab. Psiphon is a circumvention technology that works through social networks of trust and is designed to help Internet users bypass content-filtering systems setup by governments, such as China, North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and others.

"We're aiming at giving people access to sites like Wikipedia," a free, user-maintained online encyclopedia, and other information and news sources, Michael Hull, psiphon's lead engineer, told CBC News Online.[3]

Octopus-Hands 23:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Shield Project

a new article has been created. it is very big, the government spent over 60 billion rmb on it. so it deserves for its own place. I just copied some part. feel free to add more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SummerThunder (talk • contribs) 01:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Length

It is over 33K now... --Skyfiler 03:04, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

A too long tag on the talk page and an expansion tag on the article page? What the heck is going on here? Unless the person who put the too long tag there doesn't know how to archive or be WP:Bold, I'm assuming they're referring to the article page. Quadzilla99 20:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality dispute?

Okay, someone just added a neutrality dispute tag to the page. If there is anyone who agrees with this, please state what elements of this page you feel are not neutral. Otherwise, the tag will be removed.--Daveswagon 04:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The tone of this article opposes the Internet censorship of mainland China. Wikipedia says to avoid self-references by avoiding mentioning Wikipedia as a blocked site. 71.175.43.242 22:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could identify exact sentences or sections that you feel are biased or missing counter arguments that you feel needs to be added. I read through the article and couldn't find anything that jumped out at me. Also, according to the self-referencing rule: "Wikipedia's free content is reused in many places. Don't assume that the reader is reading at wikipedia.org, or indeed any other website." There are no violations of this rule in this article. Saying "Wikipedia is blocked in China" makes sense regardless of if it is read on Wikipedia or not.--Daveswagon 22:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article simply presents what is fact about Chinese Internet Censorship. The censorship of Wikipedia should be mentioned as it goes to the heart of censorship which is control. The Chinese government cannot control everyone who edits Wikipedia so it is blocked. This article is POV in that the Chinese government is of the opinion that it should not exist. This, however, is not sufficient reason to tag it. I am going to remove the tag. If anyone disagrees please discuss what should be changed here. Wikipediatoperfection 07:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully I oppose this article, because it is strongly bias. Words such as 'taboo' and 'blacklist' are aiming negative connotation to Chinese refinement of internet contents. Excessive detailing of circumvention, ans lack of emphasis benefits of content refinement are strong concern to me. Please administrator consider implications to operations. Wen Hsing 22:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

'Benefits of content refinement' - you've got to be kidding me. Are working for the Chinese dictaroship or just reading out of their propaganda? Any neutral person would agree censorship is evil. Jörg Vogt 23:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Please no rudeness, I intend no offense, I am just a citizen who believes this report is too biased. Neutral point of view is major importance to Wikipedia project. 'Censorship is evil' - this is not neutral! And what is Chinese dictaroship? I have never heard such phenomenon, perhaps you will start new reportage about it? Also extentsive detailing of the circumvention methodology is irresponsible damaging to aims of the content refinement. Wen Hsing 00:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent developments section

I feel something needs to be done with the "Recent developments" section. It's a long and tedious list and will only become more so as it is added to. Furthermore, I think the article should focus on the current standing of Internet censorship in the PRC rather than giving a "play by play" of its progression. I would recommended cutting and pasting most or all of this section into a new article such as "Timeline of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China" or "History of Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China". Does anyone having anything to say about this?--Daveswagon 19:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Information warfare

Some help is needed in making a potential article over here - about the alleged flooding of the internet with information by secret police used by a few governments (currently the Russians and the Chinese have been accused of doing this). Some notable sources are available in the references section.

The original article (which was very problematic and was deleted) was purely based on the FSB allegations, and an attempt is being made to make the future potential article more international. It is currently up for deletion review over here, where there is a tie of votes (9 to 9) between those who endorse its deletion and those who want it overturned and relisted.

This is a very controversial topic, but I'm hoping that there are to be enough notable sources to make a decent article out of it - perhaps someone here may be able to help.

The article is still heavy focused on the FSB's role - I'm trying to make it more international (note: I'm not the creator, I just think that it deserves some attention). Esn 03:48, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Please recall importance neutrality maintained. Do not unnecessary make accusation without proper investigation, and ensure you are not trick into disseminate criminal propaganda. Do not jeopardize friendly international relation of Wikipedia Project and recall commercial reality. Please consider benefit of Government correction of inaccuracy. Together we strive for common goal of truth, good relationship and prosperity.Wen Hsing 04:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marxist Internet Archive

The MIA came under attack from the PRC a little while ago. I think it'd be worth putting up since China is a supposed "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" nation. Thanks. Here's the site www.marxists.org User:MC John

Respectfully consider absurdity of falsity accusing PRC of leading 'attack' on the MIA webserver. There has never been forthcoming the proof to support such accusation. Perhaps technical misconfiguration is responsible for systerm failure, and MIA has blame China, due to ideological objection to our nation legitimate economic reform aimed to benefit society. MIA must show more responsibility in care to avoid cause social instability by inappropriate ideas.Wen Hsing 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I think people say its not so absurd, because China is not really Marxist-Lenist in terms of economic policy. They are as capitalist as anyone now. And they abuse human rights. Jörg Vogt 03:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EMHI and Postimees blocked?

greatfirewallofchina.org claims that Estonian Meteorological and Hydrological Institute(www.emhi.ee) and newspaper Postimees(www.postimees.ee) are blocked. Can anyone confirm? --Tarmo Tanilsoo 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Stupid and irresponsible China-bashing. I live in Beijing and can access both sites without a proxy. —Babelfisch 06:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Internet censorship in China is not always the same in all regions. Still, I wouldn't put much trust on the greatfirewall site.--Daveswagon 22:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../i/n/t/Talk%7EInternet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China_0b4c.html"

Categories: B-Class China-related articles | B-Class China-related articles of Top-importance | Top-importance China-related articles | Articles that are too long