Talk: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.

Start

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

[edit] Page created

I've changed this page from a redirect to Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China to an article on general censorship in China. Here's a possible general outline for the article I came up with:

Intro paragraph

==History==

==Censored mediums==

==See also==

==References==

==External links==

[edit] Psiphon

Psiphon^[1] 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.^[2]

[edit] pornography

Although there are some political reasons, but those are not the main reasons. The pornography is also a very common reason that China bans movies. Please do not always blame China politically, there are also some common reasons such as US and Canada's. Movies are movies, please don't always see it politically. Anthony Feb 11,2007

Where in the article does it say that pornography is banned for political reasons?--Daveswagon 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PRC vs Mainland

I don't think this article needs to substitute "Mainland China" for "PRC". The intro to the article explains that the censorship does not apply in Hong Kong and Macao, so I see no reason to clumsily refer back to Mainland China over and over again.--Daveswagon 02:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the official NPOV policy on Wikipedia. Avoid using People's Republic of China or China in place of mainland China is in fact much clearer, more accurate and more consistent, and avoid making readers confused. Since the policy is already a result of consensus, no discussion and consensus building process would be necessary when it's applied to entries in the main namespace, unless there're disputes around the applicability of the policy to a particular entry. See also user talk:Daveswagon. — Insta ntnood 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't an official NPOV policy. SchmuckyTheCat 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to use a naming guideline as a guise to restrict the scope of an article can hardly be considered "NPOV" policy.--Huaiwei 17:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The official NPOV policy clearly provides that China or Chinese should not be used in place of People's Republic of China. Neither should China be used in place of mainland China. In what way did my edit restrict the scope of this article? Detail the reasons why and the rationale by referring to "difference between revisions" (i.e. [1] [2]), if you are serious with your allegations. — Insta ntnood 17:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not make such a declaration. It is the naming conventions for Chinese names which does so, so quit attempting to insist the existance of an "NPOV policy" above to lend weight to your argument. Do you have further evidence to show if either document contains any direct instruction, even if explicit, on a requirement to restrict the scope of articles for the sake of "NPOV"?--Huaiwei 18:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The specific section in that official guideline is named "Political NPOV". In what way did I ever restrict the scope of this article? What I had done was merely to avoid using China and Chinese in place of People's Republic of China or mainland China. The scope of this article was kept intact. — Insta ntnood 19:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Every other article about national censorship uses the title format "Censorship in (country name)". It would be a break with continuity to rename this article. Furthermore, I know some Chinese who believe that the Mainland encompasses Hong Kong and Macao as well, which makes such a title even more inappropriate.--Daveswagon 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the central government of the PRC itself does not directly exercise any administrative power over the two special administrative regions. Such power is rested in the governments of the two special administrative regions. Therefore the subject matter of this article remains censorship in the mainland. Afterall the PRC is the among the few, if not only, sovereign states to maintain such a way of separation with respect to its special territories. It's true that some Hong Kong businessmen who have business interests across the border own newspapers, and these newspapers may have some form of self-censorship, but that's not censorship by the PRC over the Hong Kong press. — Insta ntnood 11:53, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Internet flooding

What is it called when a government floods the internet with information of a different kind rather than actually censoring anything? A few people are trying to get an article created about just such a phenomenon, and what China has to do with it, over here (it is a rough draft in user space). Any help would be appreciated. The article has had a spotty history; it has been deleted once and is now up for a deletion review over here. Esn 01:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like disinformation. If you're accusing China of this, I hope you have some citation-worthy sources back up your claim.--Daveswagon 01:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's a Guardian article over here. Esn 01:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Legal Basis" section required

Could someone please, please undertake a section along the lines of:

[edit] legal basis

[edit] legislative definitions

It is very difficult to separate the simplifications commonly found in the press from what the actual policy and laws are (in almost any non-English speaking country).

I do not have the expertise to write such a paragraph for China, but I think that many the participants here do.

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Google-censorship.png

Image:Google-censorship.png 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 insure 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 06:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Generals three gorges dam.jpg

Image:Generals three gorges dam.jpg 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.

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) 05:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ban on horror movies?

I ran into this story[3] which seems so over the top I was reluctant to believe it. It claims the Chinese have banned all manner of spooky and supernatural creatures, just like in a Ray Bradbury story. (Usher II, to be precise...) Is this intended as an effective form of censorship, or to prevent people there from paying money to Western copyright holders? Wnt (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)