Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Transwiki:Bypassing the Great Firewall of China

Transwiki:Bypassing the Great Firewall of China
A big load of POV-pushing balderdash. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 08:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hong Kong doesn't receive the same treatment as mainland China. See Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China and Golden Shield Project. – Adrignola talk 13:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. As I will put in history of Hong Kong later, Hong Kong is a special administrative region which means the daily administration will be handled by HKers; the central government's responsibility is to handle foreign affairs and other important stuff. But it's still POV-pushing. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * . I think these issues are resolvable. Another look says delete. — I-20 the highway  13:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment There are clear issues with this page, largely due to its Transwiki status - it is a bit too short and unstructured. Probably it does belong to Bypassing Internet Censorship. But the POV issues are truly minor. "Great Firewall of China" is, even if a common term in western media, not exactly neutral due to its satirical nature. Then we have a brief lead paragraph which states the Great Firewall "censors international communications over the Internet" and declares the page is meant to provide ways to route around it. "Censorship" is a negative and somewhat loaded term, but as far as factual accuracy is concerned there is nothing wrong with these sentences. The rest of the text contains the actual technical instructions on Golden Shield bypassing. This brief dissection leads to the conclusion that if the two debatable manual of style issues (and not content issues) - which, really, are just two expressions - were dealt with there would be no reasons for complaints about POV. --Duplode (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Less than five years ago this was an enwiki article referred to on multiple occasions by Jimmy Wales in response to queries on his talk page concerning the process described. I would like to know what point of view those people recommending deletion see it as attempting to advance. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)