Talk:Google China

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Freedom of speech (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Google (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Google, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Google and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject China (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


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 )

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 link arrives at a page very similar to the link. I don't think this is right. I went to 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 provides information that is as uncensored as, 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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Google logo cn.gif[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

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 Wikipedia: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[edit]

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






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。




这帮人一下班就偷偷去陆家嘴开党支部会议。 [ 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 (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[edit]

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

Recent events...[edit]

Regards, -- 李博杰  | Talk contribs email 09:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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[edit]

I read about this in Mashable:

which in turn cited The New York times:

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)


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? RingtailedFoxTalkContribs 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. (talk) 18:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

nor any coverage (of re-enabling filtering) in Western media[edit]

I remember such coverage. It's not hard to find references to erratic or ongoing filtering after that initial anouncement: is a typical article that talks of ongoing filtering

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

Google Hong Kong[edit]

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| talk 19:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


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. (talk) 19:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Google HK[edit]

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| talk 19:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC) still accessible[edit]

on 25th april, 2010, 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.

Newspaper don't need non-neutral qualifiers that immediately discredit them[edit]

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. (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 (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what these "articles" were but agree with 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. (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why Google Hong Kong redirected to Google China?[edit]

Why Google Hong Kong redirected to Google China? They are not the same thing. PD-icon.svg Derek LeungLM 03:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Google is the second largest search engine in China[edit]

Isn't that was? It is no longer in China though it still has display advertising in China but not a search engine. [1]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Google China. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

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

  1. ^  Missing or empty |title= (help)