Talk:Google China/Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:Google logo cn.gif
Image:Google logo cn.gif 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 Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The Truth
To be translated by someone: Google总部在声明退出中国之后，立刻取消了所有中国工程师访问Google代码服务器的权限. 他们都是在上班后发现服务器的home目录进不去了. 事先根本没有通知. 很多人写到一半的代码，就没法动了，要等几个礼拜之后，调动到美国才能继续写

特工这次的窃密行动，使Google有面临全面破产的危险（Google官方博客也说了，牵涉到知识产权的问题），说白了，再在中国呆下去，可能要威胁到整个公司的生存，所以才如此仓促的把中国部门的一切工作全部停掉

所以Google一开始还说打算和中国谈判，但是今天马上就放弃谈判的打算了，因为就算政府让步，Google也不能再留了，再留就有性命危险. 也不是中国市场赚钱不赚钱的问题了，赚这点小钱，把整个公司的性命搭进去，风险太大了

里面一共三个卧底，里面居然还有共产党支部.

里面的支部书记是国安四年前就布的局.

这个朋友本科就是交大出来的，后来去了信安部.

信安部派他会交大信安学院念计算机，天天做算法题,        毕业就进了Google.

之后发展了两个内线，其中一个内鬼暴力破决Gmail的源代码系统， 把代码偷出去给了政府.

政府主要是要监控用Gmail的反共分子.

里面不得了，居然还有国安局的党支部小组.

这个老兄拿了100万奖励，外加公务员待遇.

这帮人一下班就偷偷去陆家嘴开党支部会议. [http://www.peacehall.com/news/gb/china/2010/01/201001160959.shtml Unattributed/unverified story of what happened with #googlecn 谷歌员工曝光内幕：中国员工突然被取消权限 (博讯北京时间2010年1月16日] Arilang   talk  22:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

原来truth是这样啊！如果是这样就好了，Google美国总部也不用开了，中国再拍一些特工进去即可完全摧毁. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.92.89 (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is called Unattributed/unverified story, but then, who knows? Arilang   talk  13:48, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Video: China's attack on Google explaine Elinor Mills explains what happened to Google, how it happened, who did it, and who else was affected.

The Truth in English
To be translated by someone: The Google headquarters withdraw from China after the statement, cancelled immediately has possessed Chinese engineer to visit the Google code server the jurisdiction. They all are after go to work discovered the server the home table of contents could not go in.Simply has not informed beforehand. Very many people write about a half code, had no way to move, after had to wait for several weeks, transferred can continue to US to write
 * The Truth About   The Google Affair (01/15/2010)  (Douban)    This is a translation of an anonymous blog/forum post by an omniscient person    who is somehow privy to confidential information from all sides. Again, I must say, this is unverifiable.  Arilang   talk  02:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Controversy
while most of the information found on Google China's search for tianmen square appears to have been chosen by the government of China, if you look at the text results you should find this. Eyeballing Tiananmen Square Massacre - [ 翻译此页 BETA ]Students from more than forty universities march to Tiananmen Square in protest of the April 26 editorial in the ... This is a May 27, 1989 photo of student leader Wang Dan in Tiananmen Square Beijing calling for a city wide march. ... (in case they have removed the result here is the page http://cryptome.cn/tk/tiananmen-kill.htm )

For another note that linked automaticly Cool :)

By the way I now have an wikipedia account beno howard

The original version of this article has one pair of links for comparison, a remark about the Chinese Internet censorship controversy, and an uncited reference to Google's "eunuch edition". There is no information about Google China's business, management, employees, function as a company, or markets. I have therefore split the censorship information into a "controversy" section and flagged it for NPOV review. As time permits I will collect links to neutral point-of-view articles concerning the decision of Google's management to comply with China's censorship policies, and criticisms and defenses of this decision. Banazir 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the two links comparing Google image hits for "Tiananmen Square." Specifically, the Google.cn link arrives at a page very similar to the Google.ca link. I don't think this is right. I went to Google.cn and typed in "Tiananmen Square" myself and found much more inoccuous images. In other words, it looks to me like someone tampered with the links in order to make it appear that Google.cn provides information that is as uncensored as Google.ca, when in reality this experiment, when performed properly, demonstrates censorship.

I have change it back, apparently it was some "covert" work by the Chinese censorship supporters. And I am going to remove the disputed tag now. Mr.Clown 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Is Google Hong Kong grouped under the Google China 谷歌 company?


 * My understanding is that they operate separately. Our search terms certainly are not the same as those in the PRC mainland. L talk 06:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent events...
Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Chad Perrin, January 15th, 2010, How China exposed Google's hypocrisy, TechRepublic

Benlisquare, I think Rebecca Mackinnon kind of answer Chad Perrin's question: Google, China, and the future of freedom on the global Internet

"But the biggest problem with Google is not its intentions or the extent to which specific actions and policies align themselves with civil liberties lawyers, free expression groups and human rights activists. The biggest problem is how Google says they advocate a free and open Internet, positions themselves as global leaders of this cause, then says "trust us, we're good people, we're working in your interest." Then we're just supposed to trust them. When has that been a good idea in any other human governance situation and why exactly are we supposed to expect that to work for us in this case? Is Google really run by Vulcans and not humans or something?"

"The Internet has enough diverse interests and players that it demands governance. No traditional state is in the position or willing to assume that role. So Google governs the Internet.One could read this showdown (as I do) as a classic international power conflict between a major traditional state and a new, virtual state: the Googlenet.Google is taking a risky stand to defend the Internet generally. This is what a weaker, threatened state would do. Now, if I had to choose between the Chinese Communist Party as my government or Google as my government, I know in a heartbeat which one I'd choose. But that's like choosing between one king or another - you choose the one with the most benevolent behavior and cross your fingers. I would prefer something else completely."

Benlisquare, I think Rebecca Mackinnon's essay is much better than Chad Perrin's, even though Rebecca Mackinnon's article is quite long, it takes a bit of reading to take in all the points. Arilang   talk  12:41, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

China Censors Google Hong Kong
I read about this in Mashable:

http://mashable.com/2010/03/23/china-censors-google-hong-kong/

which in turn cited The New York times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/technology/24google.html?hp

The article needs to be updated to reflect China's response to Google's tactics. I'd do it, but I'm busy at the moment. TwoBitSpecialist (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Censorship
The Windsor Star reports that Google China is still censoring *some* results via Google Hong Kong... perhaps the main page should be updated to reflect this? RingtailedFox • Talk • Contribs 17:07, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Google isn't really getting around censorship at all because it's HK site will be censored as well.  The frontage should definitely reflect this. 142.176.144.158 (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

nor any coverage (of re-enabling filtering) in Western media
I remember such coverage. It's not hard to find references to erratic or ongoing filtering after that initial anouncement:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/17/google_china_uncensorship/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/china_says_google_to_bear_consequences_if_censoring_stops/ is a typical article that talks of ongoing filtering

Dependent Variable (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Google Hong Kong
Probably a notable subject, or at the very least it should be explained here how Google China is different from Google Hong Kong. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline is correct, but it implies that the hacking attacks occurred after Google declared an end to censorship. While the attacks where traced to the Chinese government in February, they occurred in January or before. Of course, it's difficult to find out which actually came first, as press releases are hardly proof. 65.196.214.163 (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Google HK
I wonder if there should be a section about the Google Hong Kong service, when it was started and by who, how it is different than the Mainland service, and if users in the Mainland can still access the Hong Kong service to what kind of degree, currently and before the redirection. OOODDD (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just what I suggested two threads above :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Google.cn still accessible
on 25th april, 2010, Google.cn is discovered to be still accessible via mobile browsers (opera mini 4.2 chinese edition), with the "content censored" still visible at the bottom of the page. i didn't check whether the standard site behaves the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.151.106.242 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Newspaper don't need non-neutral qualifiers that immediately discredit them
To Kintetsubuffalo: You don't see FOX news gets labeled "republican party controlled" news source whenever it is cited as reference. Similarly you don't see NYT being labeled, "extremely liberal leaning" news source. So the same have to apply here. The links are still there for the readers to check what kind of news source, Chinadaily or Huanqiu are. Even though you say "it may not be immediately clear to the reader", which I agree, but similarly some reader NOT from US would also have no idea of the dynamics of news organizations, such as NYT or FOX. It would be biased to not present every news source in the same way.76.199.2.88 (talk) 02:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks but you're wrong, "state run" does not equate to left-or-right bias, it does however directly speak to motivation. In this article it is pertinent, just as an article on media coverage of Obama would explain FOX's right lean. An article on a train crash or flood, however, don't need such qualifiers. Should we seek a third opinion?--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "An article on media coverage of Obama would explain FOX's right lean" this doesn't happen though. Normally there is no qualifiers. You don't see "according to republican mouthpiece FOXnews, Obama...", or whenever there is some issue on US geopolitics, you don't have "American Washington Post wrote an op-ed arguing that..." to clarify that this paper would possibly be biased toward US on geopolitical issues.
 * Also, the issue is not only the qualifier "state-run", there are also the qualifiers "nationalist tabloid" and "Chinese search engine with close ties to the government". Those not only violate the convention above, but they are also unjustified and uncited. "Nationalist tabloid" according to who? Is there a general consensus of independent sources that impose such a negative name to Globaltimes? Where is the proof that Baidu have "close ties" to the Chinese government? There is no citation of any kind of that claim, even on the Baidu's own wikipedia page if you check. Just in case, I am 76.199.2.88.130.126.28.5 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what these "articles" were but agree with 76.199.2.88 here. We link to US government provided information all the time as well as sources from the UN, UN run organizations, other national governments *and* sources form the Chinese government on other wikipedia articles.  I don't see why this article should be treated any differently.  Chinese sources in China are often more reliable than non state-run sources anyway. 173.80.102.159 (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Google Hong Kong redirected to Google China?
Why Google Hong Kong redirected to Google China? They are not the same thing. Derek Leung LM  03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Google is the second largest search engine in China
Isn't that was? It is no longer in China though it still has display advertising in China but not a search engine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.120.245 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Google China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100404130802/http://www.google.com:80/prc/info.html to http://www.google.com/prc/info.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Taiwan
Looks to me I found Google Taiwan for users living in the Republic of China. But it has more freedom than the PRC has. Anyone want to add that information since there's no Google Taiwan wikipedia article here. 135.23.144.167 (talk) 00:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140103202130/http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm to http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:23, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Repeating information
There is so much information repeated in this article in different ways. The Great Firewall of China is linked at the bottom, but there is a reference to it in the middle, and before that, there's the Golden Shield Project. The hacking situation could be summarized in one section. The article could be better organized, and I imagine that is the truth for all of Wikipedia. It needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.241.52.242 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Google China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100328165130/http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017511426?Congress%20to%20Investigate%20Google%20Charges%20Of%20Chinese%20Internet%20Spying to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017511426?Congress%20to%20Investigate%20Google%20Charges%20Of%20Chinese%20Internet%20Spying

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)