Talk:Golden Shield Project

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article hard to follow.[edit]

There are many sentences in the article that are fragmented and hard to follow...

- I can't make heads or tails of this in the first paragraph: "It started in 1998, began the process in November of 2003, the first part of the project passed the national inspection on November 16, 2006 in Beijing."

- Under history, these need to be combined so it flows well: "The Golden Shield project was started 1998. The first part of the project lasted three years, completed in 2006. The second part began in 2006. It will be finished in 2008."

- The appositive in this sentence is awkward/out of place: "According to China Central Television (CCTV), up to 2002, the preliminary work of the Golden Shield Project cost US$800 million (equivalent to RMB 6,400 million or €640 million)."

- What does "this" refer to? Also, that period at the end should be inside the quotes: In September 2002, Li Runsen, the technology director at MPS and member of the Golden Shield leadership, further explained this broad definition to thousands of police nationwide at a meeting in Beijing called “Information Technology for China’s Public Security”.

- Most of the technical information bullets start with a fragment. i.e. "IP blocking" is not a complete thought.

NOTE: I had to skip some of this due to time constraints.

- Jumping down to "Solutions," "Hosting Companies" is not a proper now so it shouldn't be capitalized. Also, where is this "list" that is referred to in the same sentence? It's probably better to provide a direct link than to refer someone relative to their current scrolling position. Other services use Wikipedia that don't list anything which makes that statement misleading/irrelevant.

74.33.156.89 12:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


It should be obvious (at least it wouldn't even occur to me otherwise) that there would be a lot of disinformation floating around about a topic such as this. The Chinese gov't can point to this or that and say for example that Tor is accessible and downloadable, and it works, and so forth. But if you actually use Tor, I would suspect, you will find things getting more and more difficult to find on the Internet.

The aim isn't to block all access to "bad" information. It is more one of surveillance and control. It is to make access to bad information so difficult and so much hassle that it just isn't worth it for the average user. The not-so-average user (having gone through all this hassle and difficulty) will find even life off-line getting more and more difficult in various ways, and may very well someday disappear along with the information he/she sought.

Just my 2 cents worth. Disclaimer: I'm not from China, and I would never, ever, travel there under that Communist regime. I will hold tight to those few freedoms that I have left in the good old U.S. of A.

130.94.162.64 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make China sound like the scourge of the world. I was born in China and I know its not at all as bad as you put it. People are mostly happy with their lives, not complaining that they can't see Playboy or listen to Voice of America. Like citizens in any other country, Chinese people don't really think their government is corrupt or horrible. If you insist that the Communist regime is so horrible, keep in mind that theres people that think the US is bad. Communism and Capitalism both has its good and bad points and I don't think that its fair to downplay Communism and praise Capitalism. Sure theres the Tiananmen Massacre, but what about the Tulsa race riot or segregation in the US? Prottos007 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MPS[edit]

What is MPS? It's not immediately clear in the introduction. Squideshi 19:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's been fixed. Now, what is CDP?
67.169.126.203 (talk) 10:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epochtimes[edit]

by putting a newspaper that is such well-known for its rumours making ability here to demonstrate what?

I do found it is very interesting that on every tags or articles that againest CCP, epochtimes always involved to be a vaild information source; however, the problem is, as a newpaper of Fa Lun Gong, can it be objective or not is really a questionable matter.

Ashes 15:23, 18th Sep 2007 (UTC)

This is why I don't think western media is credible. They are as mis-informed as they try to make China out to be. 24.222.96.138 (talk) 17:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epochtimes is not exactly western media, its just pure anti-ccp propaganda. I dislike the ccp very much, but have to say that epochtimes is totally unreliable and should not be used as a source for any article at all. I suggest we remove the part about the cost of the project, at least until we have found a reliable source. 92.227.90.127 (talk) 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should "Great Firewall" be split from "Golden Shield Project"?[edit]

I have seen that in Chinese Wikipedia, "Great Firewall"（防火长城）is split from "Golden Shield Project"（金盾工程）. Then, do anybody think that English Wikipedia should follow Chinese Wikipedia, to split "Great Firewall" and "Golden Shield Project"? QQ 16:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's all the same thing, filtering internet traffic --Pumpmeup 07:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree from the point of view of user 自由主義者 from Chinese wikipedia, and the following is quoted from Talk:Golden Shield Project:
"Golden Shield Project" has functions about filtering, but I do not agree to merge "Great Firewall" and "Golden Shield Project" because:
  • The relationship between the two things is not proven by any reliable source.
  • The concepts and contents of the two things are not the same. The announced content of "Golden Shield Project" does not include bidirectional prevention, avoidance and detection in "Great Firewall", but the general concept of "Great Firewall" does not include processing chinese public security affair, involving hotel control, entry-exit control and safety control in "Golden Shield Project".
  • "Golden Shield Project" is public, and "Great Firewall" is disclaimed. "Golden Shield Project" is the public network of the Public Security Bureau of China, and "Great Firewall" is just a description of the current status of the network communication in China.
  • From the current action of "Great Firewall", the superintendent should be higher than the Public Security Bureau of China, and may be the Politburo of the Communist Party of China. This is not consistent from the public superintentent of the "Golden Shield Project".
The action of English Wikipedia cannot not be proper. Of course, there may have the chance that the function of "Great Firewall" is a part of "Golden Shield Project", but before having any reliable source, the two things should not be merged for preventing the confusion of concepts and contents.
So I suggest that "Great Firewall" should be spilt from "Golden Shield Project". QQ 07:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "Great Firewall" is a term people use ironically to describe the whole chinese censhorship situation. "Great firewall" should be the main page, and "Golden Shield Project" should be a subsection.The current article is inacurrate. People do NOT mean "Golden Shield Project" when they refer to the Great Firewall. For example, this recent article on wired refers to the Golden Shield Project as merely one of the pieces of the Great Firewall
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/magazine/15-11/ff_chinafirewall
"The Golden Shield — the latest addition to what is widely referred to as the Great Firewall of China — was supposed to monitor, filter, and block sensitive online content. But only a year after completion, it already looks doomed to fail." TheBilly (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that 'great firewall' and 'golden shield project' are two separate things. The former is used mostly by the western media to refer to internet censorship in China, and the latter is a particular government project. I am creating a 'great firewall' separate page for a class project at Harvard - --Mfregosi (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone performed the split. This was a bad idea, I think, in that the two articles were substantially duplicates and this article is not overly long. I redirected back here. Guy (Help!) 21:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the authors of this article should consider this article from The Rolling Stone. Golden Shield appears to be much more than internet filtering: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20797485/chinas_allseeing_eye/1
I'll second who wanted to split the article. All of the Chinese netizens call it GFW but not Golden Shield Project. It is known that Golden Shield Project is led by Public Security (Gong'an) and the existence of the Golden Shield Project is made known to public. But the GFW is not, it has been mentioned rarely by the China-based or Chinese official medias (but it has mentioned before), it is used more ironically. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking obscenity and pornography[edit]

I have resided in China for a few years up until recently and found that there had been no problems accessing either domestic or international sites that were there for the sole purpose of pornography. I am not sure whether this particular point is valid thus. Any objections to classify or remove that particular line? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.43.88.187 (talk) 21:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm to you that redtube.com for example is blocked on china. Livingchina (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm since i am living in china that many website are blocked or hijacked. However it seems that depending on the location your connecting to the internet makes a large difference. In apartments owned or where they pay for the DSL there seems to be much less restrictions. IF the company is registered it seems to be ok for access but not for monitoring. As A consultant I have many proofs of man in the middle type of spying going on. Also found any connection above 1mbps to be disrupted. Out of 3 companies in Beijing this was the case, However Nanjing, Tianjin, and Xianmen did not have such problems. Shanghai, Qingdao (limited) also had problems.
So I would change the part about them not listening or monitoring to say that they monitor (keywords etc) all slow traffic and they disrupt encrypted traffic that is high speed. (true as of March 2008). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.134.85 (talk) 14:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement of foreign companies[edit]

Why no mention of the involvement of companies such as Cisco in helping China to create and implement this system?

This has been well documented in many reputable publications.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22great+firewall%22+cisco+american+companies —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobbozzo (talk • contribs) 09:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Why are Britain and USA fighing terrorism in the middle east when they should be taking down this disgusting breach of human rights? Lovefist233 (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

while i understand the sentiment, this is not a forum Gailim (talk) 02:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because China has nukes and a large army. Actually doing anything is extremely likely to result in a much worse state than the current situation. 85.221.147.63 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The US shouldn't be doing anything, either fighting Iraq or fighting the Chinese. The reason is quite complicated. While I understand what you are trying to say, please note that this is a discussion forum to improve the quality of this article, it is not a place for general discussion about the article's subject. Thank you for your understanding.--Faizaguo (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should the US or Britain fight EITHER Chinese Firewalls OR Middle-Eastern "terrorists"? Enjoy the country you live in rather than sending soldiers to kill and be killed in a place you will probably never even go, and may have never even heard of. Ghost of starman (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st person?[edit]

"Everything will show up if you search it but it will say page can not be displayed if you click it."

Sounds like a 14yo's blog entry. Is this formal for wikipedia? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs 04:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Unblocking[edit]

I believe that this section uses too much iffy language. I will remove the “according to BBC” and “probably” The former because whomever put that in the article should do a formal citation instead of a vague unverifiable reference, the latter because of it's pure iffyness. Oddly enough I believe that this page has NPOV problems against the Peoples' Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.22.44.165 (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent a good deal of the last 3 years in China, and Youtube was usually unblocked. Right now, however, it is blocked. This is the opposite of what is stated here. Bienfuxia (talk) 00:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History should be updated[edit]

That same year the Golden Shield project was started. The first part of the project lasted eight years, completing in 2006. The second part began in 2006. It will be finished in 2008.

2008 is now long gone -->If the second part is finished yet, this should be changed accordingly, if not, a new date (if available) should be mentioned. --Scartelak (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bypassing..[edit]

This is not a way to bypass the "firewall": "Software incorporating steganography such as Hacktivismo's Camera/Shy."

That's a way of hiding+encrypting content in html pages, (and finding encrypted+hidden content). That may aid if you want to comunicate with people securely.. But the "firewall" doesn't work like that, it filters the requests not the content (well, sometimes the content), but in that case using other software that allow secure communication (such as OTR, Simp, Fishy, etc..) is a most more secure AND easy way to communicate.

The others examples are OK. --Livingchina (talk) 18:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it is a way to bypass the "firewall", isn't it a way to avoid the censorship which the "Golden Shield Project" entails? Or have I misunderstood? Also, the existence of more secure and easier methods has no bearing on whether this is a method. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snake Oil Services[edit]

I've already changed the title of this section from "Snail Oil," which I think was a misspelling on the part of the original contributor. However, what are the reasons that these services are "snake oil"? What makes them worse than a regular proxy?

Marsilies (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have a technical meaning? If so that article should be linked. If not, and it means what snake oil typically means in English - a con or deception - then the term is pejorative and violates NPOV. 24.18.198.220 (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshots[edit]

I know this appears to be silly. However i just go ahaed...would someone from within China be able to provide some screenshots how it looks like if a site is blocked ? (with translation)(oh and perhaps with internet cafe environment in the background ?) Because many people (like me) never seen something like this and it would make the whole topic more imageable. Just thinking journalist.

It probably just shows either a 404 error (not found) or a 403 error (forbidden). Charwinger21 (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases, the connection resets, and you get a "Problem loading Page" screen.

Here's a screenshot of facebook (without using a workaround such as a VPN service):

http://www.flickr.com/photos/sujinyan/6859329812/

twitter and youtube yield the same results.

Sujinyan (talk) 11:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Term[edit]

Although the "Great Firewall of China" is very self-explanitory, it is an offence to the Chinese culture. Tying internet censorship which is preceived as a "bad thing" to the glorious Great wall is unacceptable. Who coined this term? I'm not even Chinese and I find this disturbing.

"Great Firewall of China" is the most common term in reliable sources, so that's what we should use. "Offence to Chinese culture" and whether or not the "Great Wall" is glorious, is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 18:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. In English it may be offensive. But when Chinese use it as 防火长城, GFW or Great Firewall, it is not felt much offensive. The abbr "GFW" also has appeared on Chinese official media. Sometimes Chinese authority and the departments for propaganda may prefer to use terms like "Great" (伟大的), "People's" (人民的) and something like these without feeling satirized. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't censored, and is NPOV. Wikipedia doesn't give in to the demands of a particular group for censorship or change because it's not affiliated with them.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psiphon[edit]

Ok, so the psiphon software doesn't get much press mention. Do you think it belongs? Family Guy Guy (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Golden Shield Project → Great Firewall of China — A textbook case of COMMONNAME. Golden Shield: 2, 140, 135. Great Firewall: 38, 762, 680. --Marcus Qwertyus 07:28, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm very reluctant to support this, as the majority of references to the "Great Firewall" are delimited with quotation marks, marking it as merely a very common pun and not accepted usage. Powers T 13:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Chinese use the term Great Firewall. See discussion two sections up. Marcus Qwertyus 00:14, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: It's a humorous but misleading pun. When misused as I have seen on articles, it implies that there is some tangible "Great Firewall" software or technical barrier, rather than a policy or project of censorship. Quigley (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, "Golden Shield Project" implies there is a scheme to create a giant shield made of gold that will block all unwanted content. Common names are not always literal explanations but are the terms most recognizable. Someone seeking information on this title is not likely to be both familiar with the term "Golden Shield Project" on the one hand and also tricked by the term "Great Firewall of China". — AjaxSmack 03:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Google's Un-blockage[edit]

The somewhat-recent China vs. Google fiasco seems extremely important to this article. I'm Digitxpsp3 and I commented here! At: 22:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying scope[edit]

Now that this article, which was renamed from a title with a clear scope and contents ("Golden Shield Project") to a colloquialism that refers to internet censorship in China generally, in what way is this page distinct from the Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China article? Is there any reason why this article should not be merged into that more comprehensive article? Quigley (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page's title is slang after all.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Shield Project is not GFW[edit]

Golden Shield Project is one of Golden Projects, GSP. At least GSP is not mealy the GFW, GFW may be a part of GSP.--刻意(Kèyì) 20:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is not something about move, This is about split into 2 articles: Golden Shield Project and Great Firewall of China. Dr. Fang Binxing, infamous among the Chinese netizens, is widely considered as the "Father of GFW" even by some Chinese official media, but no one would say he's the father of GSP.--Tomchen1989 (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support:see chinese wikipedia : 防火长城(GFW) and 金盾工程(GSP). --Fdcn (talk) 09:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: 金盾工程(Golden Shield Project, GSP) and 防火长城(Great Firewall of China, GFW) are completely different. GFW is only about internet censorship in China, but GSP includes security management information system (治安管理信息系统), criminal information system (刑事案件信息系统), exit and entry administration information system (出入境管理信息系统), supervisor information system (监管人员信息系统) and traffic management information system (交通管理信息系统). GSP also includes Bureau of Public Information and Network Security Supervision (公共信息网络安全监察局, or 网监局 for short) , which may possibly be GFW. As a result, GFW may possibly be one of the sub-projects of GSP.

Live in Beijing, and willing to help[edit]

I originally put this on the talk page of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

but haven't heard anything.

I live in Beijing. Have lived here for five years. Looks like the information is a bit out-of-date. For instance, I just checked Picasa Web Albums (https://picasaweb.google.com/home), and it worked for me. Same with zh.wikipedia.org. Likewise, my blog -- http://sujinyan.com/ -- which is a wordpress blog works just fine, so putting "All Wordpress-powered blogs are still blocked as of November 2011" isn't correct. docs.google.com is working for me as well.

The restriction of access to websites in China is a big deal, so I think folks should probably spend a bit of time to get the information on this page updated... and keep it updated.

Perhaps some sort of table format, which sights the last time a page was checked?

Also, perhaps saving screenshots of the messages that occur as proof?

Sujinyan (talk) 07:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden Shield Project. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging[edit]

It doesn't look like merge proposer created a section discussing merger. I am against the merger as the articles can be of distinct topics:

  • Internet censorship in China - about internet censorship in general
  • Golden Shield Project - about implementation of Golden Shield
  • Great Firewall - about technicality of the blocking aspect

--Voidvector (talk) 14:52, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Golden Shield Project. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Shield_Project&oldid=1218269351"