Talk:Chinese wall

Wiktionary page
Whats going on with the wiktionary page? It doesn't seem to exist. Thadk 08:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Similarities with Separation of duties
To me it seems that a chinese wall is related to seggregation of duties (ie. that the wall is something you build in order to prevent certain persons from executing certain actions. Can anyone confirm this?

Etymology
Am I the only one who finds that, far from being "more likely," the second and third etymologies are almost certainly Folk etymology? Has anyone got any legitimate source for this? The OED says that it's in reference to the Great Wall, which seems far more likely. Would someone in early 20th-Century America (OED gives first use 1907) know about a custom (of dubious veracity) of Mandarins? Would he create an analogy based on the Chinese-American community's isolation--caused at this point by racist laws, not by the immigrant group's insularity? No--but everyone knows about the Great Wall of China!


 * I'm sure the name stems from the use of thin paper walls in traditonal chinese houses to separate rooms - under the basis that you should not cross the barrier, even with there being no technical force stopping you.


 * Chinese houses don't have paper walls. Japanese houses do.

Roadrunner 19:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I shall endevour to find reference for this concept, with the lack of proper references for the other proposed origins these should be considered for an 'edit' . The huge blockquote should be referenced to an external site aswell, wikipedia is not a source of it's own 'truthfulness' (one cannot reference themselves).

--Max power 22:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I was going to swoop in and suggest it's a reference to the Chinese Room, which uses similar language of information blockage between actors, but the dates don't even remotely work if the existing material in this article are to believed (that the term dates back to the 20s, while Searle wrote in the 80s). So this is to obviate any such thinking. However, is it possible that the etymology works the other way, that Searle picked Chinese for his thought experiment in reference to the Chinese Wall concept? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asasa64 (talk • contribs) 02:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

This etymology is silly
Too silly to keep without a citation
 * Or, the term may have originated as a reference to a traditional practice among Chinese mandarins in the Late Imperial period, where a junior mandarin who saw a senior mandarin on the road was expected to bow and present compliments; to expedite traffic in high-flow areas such as Beijing, mandarins used retainer walls attached to umbrellas to avoid seeing each other in the first place.

Roadrunner 19:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Computer Science section
The clean room design article links to a section on the Chinese wall article called "computer science", but that no longer seems to exist on this page. Was it removed for a specific reason or has it never been apart of this page?

Ashley (talk) 06:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The section was replaced with vandalism which was then removed by a well-meaning editor. I don't really know enough about Wikipedia to easily repair this, but I'm going to be bold and try anyway.


 * --99.241.97.241 (talk) 02:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wall or wall?
Should the W be capitalized? If so, the page should be moved to Chinese Wall. If not, the use in the article should be changed to lower case. Oren0 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this term would be a proper noun or any other reason for wall to be capitalized. Chillum  23:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Law firms in Britain
Yes, law firms may act for both sides in a case though it is rare - the stipulation of non-contact only refers to Solicitors... Barristers are not considered by these regulations, even if sharing 'Chambers' - due to the slightly archaic rules that govern their professional circumstances, it is not that uncommon for two barristers to act for the respective sides in a case, and being self-employed as they are it is not considered to be a conflict-of-interest.

The Law Society (governing Solicitors) and the Inns of Court (Governing Barristers) in England and Wales will no doubt have more information on this - I would look it up myself but I don't have the time at the moment.

Lastly, I would expect the regulations to refer mainly to corporate work - there is little chance of a conflict-of-interest with criminal cases due to the Crown Prosecution Service exclusively handling public prosecutions.

Divinedegenerate (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC) =='''

Sorry, but the law firms section is just wrong as it applies to English law. Solicitors cannot act for both sides of a case in a litigation scenario as the firm's duties to both sides would conflict. A law firm can act for creditors competing for the same asset in a litigation but require consent to do this. In the latter scenario they would act being "information barriers" (Chinese wall is not a term of art anymore). Barristers from the same chambers can act for opposing clients.

To be pedantic, the Solicitors Regulation Authority creates the rules for solicitors (not the law society) and the Bar Council produces rules for barristers (no the Inns of Court). CKN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.16.222 (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Internal v. External Wall
This parenthetical is a little odd: "(This may be obvious or even coincidental: a feature of the Great Wall of China is that it is an internal barrier within China as opposed to being on one of its frontiers, and hence the metaphor for an internal information barrier within a company.)"  The Great Wall of China may be located well within the P.R.C.'s borders today, but at the time it was built it was indeed on the frontier or very close to it. I'd suggest deleting the parenthetical. --Nomenclaturist (talk) 00:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spirit wall
Consider the following unsourced speculation: a "spirit wall" is a traditional feature of Chinese architecture. See Chinese_architecture: "Screen walls to face the main entrance of the house, which stems from the belief that evil things travel on straight lines."

This type of wall provides nominal isolation-- one can't see through it, or toss objects through a door so "protected," but it may be easily stepped around. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Etymology again
The Great Wall of China diff may not be really apropos here. Dicdefs (Random House, Webster's 3rd, American Heritage) mention an "insuperable barrier or obstacle, as to understanding" or "serious obstacle to intercourse or understanding" all of which are inapplicable in this context. The type of isolation described in this article depends on the good behavior of the participants far more than it relies on any insurmountable physical barrier.

That said, the article could use reliably sourced information on the origins of this use of the term "Chinese wall." Dictionaries seem to be tertiary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the term refers not to the Great Wall, but to paper walls between rooms in traditional Chinese (and other Asian) buildings. Bobbozzo (talk) 21:36, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

See https://blogs.harvard.edu/doc/2010/09/16/where-did-chinese-wall-come-from/

Also note that the ABA's politically correct version, "screen", and others' "partition" are both congruent with a paper barrier. Bobbozzo (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Criminal Prosecution
There is another use of "Chinese Wall" that is not described in the article. In criminal cases where the first prosecutor has information he is not allowed to use (as with Kastigar vs. US), a second prosecution can be set up behind a Chinese Wall. See, for example: http://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/opinions/2003Term/03-0025.htm Scott Bowden (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:56, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Chinese wall → Ethical wall – The world is (thankfully) a little more culturally sensitive now than it was when this article was created in 2004, and my sense is that the common terminology has shifted accordingly. The page title should therefore be changed per the new WP:COMMONNAME. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 08:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. J I P  &#124; Talk 10:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for same reasons. BobKilcoyne (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not heard of the term myself so I'm not going to !vote but users might want to review the lengthily discussions at Talk:Chinese whispers for a similar case.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 17:49, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not seeing evidence that ethical wall is the WP:COMMONNAME. I checked some of the recent sources cited in the article, and the first few I looked at used only Chinese wall (e.g. The Guardian, Bloomberg). I searched the New York Times for both terms. "ethical wall" gets 9 hits, the earliest from 2002. "Chinese wall" appeared in 125 articles during the same period (and it still wins handily if you narrow the range to the last 10 years, or the last 5 years). Colin M (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose If evidence can be shown that common usage has shifted with this term then I will support the change. It is not for us to make that change for the world, that would be original research. We document the changes in the world, not lead them. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 22:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be worse than original research: it would be social/linguistic engineering (which IMO English Wikipedia is already guilty of in a number of cases as it is, but no need to add to it).
 * Therefore, oppose. Firejuggler86 (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at Google NGrams data, it seems ethical wall isn't as popular as I assumed. It does seem that there's quite a bit of fuzziness around alternative terms—the article lists a bunch, and it also presumably varies a bunch by industry (from my experience in journalism, "Chinese firewall" has been nearly universally replaced there by "editorial firewall")—but the NGrams data shows that "editorial firewall" is rare enough that I'll seek to withdraw this nomination (I can't do so unilaterally as there is support above). I do still hope that the discussion around the etymology continues, and that if a stronger alternative emerges we switch to it as the world does rather than with a years-long delay. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 03:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * approve withdrawal —¿philoserf? (talk) 05:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * OK to withdraw, the point is probably correct that the change could be leading rather than reflecting change in usage. BobKilcoyne (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Need to redefine this or create new article, physical barrier application
I came to this page via a link from the South Bronx Expressway, with application to the Lower Manhattan Expressway. This term Chinese Wall has long been used with application to physical barriers. Not only has this been applied to expressways in cities, it has also been applied to overhead railroads supported by walls, such as the approach of the Pennsylvania Railroad to its Broad Street Station in Philadelphia.Dogru144 (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dogru144, per WP:SAMENAME, the appropriate course of action would be to create a new article (after confirming notability/that coverage doesn't already exist), not to add to this one. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 14:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where's your reliable published source? You will need to get hold of a reference, preferably from a railroad or engineering manual, that covers the context -- and then include the U.S. as the context. In 60 years of reading U.S. railroad and engineering journals I have never knowingly come across this usage (I think I would have noticed it, given the unusual use beyond the ethical context). I don't know of any such usage in other countries. A new article is definitely not required for such a minor un-notable use, if an appropriate source can be found. SCHolar44 (talk) 23:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)