Talk:Criticism of Huawei

Suggestions for editing the Espionage and security concerns section

I think the following points could be moved into a subsection, titled "evidence of hacking and backdoors in Huawei equipment". I think the other material in this section are developments in relations between governments, Huawei, and other telecommunication operators.

On 19 July 2013, Michael Hayden, former head of the U.S. National Security Agency and director of Motorola Solutions, claimed that he has seen hard evidence of backdoors in Huawei's networking equipment and that the company engaged in espionage and shared intimate knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems with the Chinese government.

In 2018, an investigation by French newspaper Le Monde alleged that China had engaged in hacking the African Union headquarters in Ethiopia from 2012 to 2017. The building was built by Chinese contractors, including Huawei, and Huawei equipment has been linked to these hacks.

On April 30, 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, while also announcing that the issues were resolved at the time.

On 16 May 2019, Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant said Dutch intelligence agency AIVD was made aware of backdoors on Huawei equipment belonging to a dutch carrier and that it was determining whether or not those backdoors were used for spying by the Chinese government.

'Tis a pity that it isn't easier to do block quotes. Jamesray1 (talk) 07:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm new to wikipedia editing / contributing, forgive me if I make a mistake. I found the criticism / controversies section of Huawei a little wanting. The 'evidence' being discussed in your blockquotes is Telnet which is a debug interface that would have only been accessible by LAN. This can certainly be classed as a vulnerability and liberally as a backdoor, however it seems factually incorrect to label this as evidence of hacking or espionage.Ebullient Prism (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

A good parallel, using a US example, would be the Dual_EC_DRBG cryptographic standard, issued by NIST, in which the NSA had intentionally created "flaws" in the way the 'random' numbers were generated, which combined with other flaws intentionally built in, allowed anyone with knowledge of the flaws to have full access to defeat the encryption. The rationale is why hack something, when you can just build weaknesses in to it, that only a very advanced adversary would be able to notice or exploit? The problem is the double-edged sword nature of this: if another nation-state or even a group of hackers discovers this, they can use the backdoor just the same as the ones who created it. Put another way, if I install a 6" thick security door at my friends house, but I put in a basic pin-and-tumbler lock (that can easily be picked with about 30 minutes of training or less), did I intentionally create that weakness, or was it just an oversight on my part? After all, the average Joe would never be able to pick the lock or know the vulnerability that exists. It would be hard to nail that answer down as a third party.jlcoving (talk) 15:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Huawei Facts"

Will it be fair to cite (and include an external link to) "Huawei Facts" from Huawei's PR team? It seems Huawei has been heavily defending themselves in recent years. Of course, if such claims from Huawei are indeed refutable, we may include those counter-counterclaims. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:30, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't see an issue with citing them directly with their claims from here, but the EL should just be industry NPOV pieces on this matter, and the company website (main page). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• That is a WP:PRIMARY source. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
• (Summoned by bot) WP:PRIMARY rules probably apply here. SemiHypercube 11:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• As other editors have noted, it is a primary source, which is to say 'use appropriate caution' when using it as a citation. That's not to say 'don't use it', merely trust but verify (also relevant). I would suggest NOT including it as an external link though in the EL section. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
• No - WP:ABOUTSELF applies here, and the entire site is written with a PR spin which violates the first two requirements of the policy: "The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim" and "It does not involve claims about third parties." Most of the content is Huawaei's description of various controversies, which should be sourced to independent reliable sources (and if it's not covered independent sources, we simply shouldn't include it.) Even the verifiable facts, such as the number of R&D centers, are self-serving and susceptible to various types of exaggeration and spin. If it's not significant enough to be repeated by a reliable source, it's not significant enough for our article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

That will do. I'm not sure if I'm going to actively edit this and other related articles or not, but I'm sure other editors will take note.

Additional question for @Dlthewave: Will it be okay to cite any of the articles in the lists curated by Huawei? They might be written in favour of Huawei, but at least they are from third party outlets.

• News & Opinions
• Voices of Huawei (those marked "Interviews" only)

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

It would depend on the reliability of the source, regardless of whether it's listed on Huawei's site or not. Everything under "News & opinions" looks to be high-quality, independent, mainstream reporting (not "press releases dressed up as news"). "Voices of Huawei" is a combination of interviews and press releases, both of should be used with caution but may be appropriate for attributed opinions.

These are both good resources for finding more information about the company. Of course we would cite the source that published each article, not the Huawei page where we found it. –dlthewave ☎ 17:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks foy your insight. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:49, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I'm always quite reluctant to include self-published sources. I can see how one can argue that we probably should include any PR self-defense with citations, but we should regard not only WP:ABOUTSELF but also WP:WEIGHT. (Summoned by bot)  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Nortel

Should Nortel be included here? There are at least a dozen WP:RS that explicitly link Huawei with the hacking of Nortel. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: Huawei and Nortel

By my reading of several sources, the hacking of Nortel was conducted by China itself and may have benefited Huawei, ZTE, and other Chinese vendors. Brian Shields does not outright state that the attacks were performed by Huawei itself. Including the information Horse Eye Jack (talk · contribs) proposes comes off as misblaming and fearmongering. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Would you consider it non-neutral to put something like Assembly does saying "Many Canadians believe that Huawei stole the core technologies and business strategies from Nortel and used that knowledge to drive Nortel out of world markets and into bankruptcy.” or is that too generic? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

"Many Canadians" is a weasel word. The only person presenting this argument is Brian Shields, and all citations are based on his statements. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The Globe and Mail has a source in addition to Shields: "But one telecom industry veteran said that around 2004, it was clear to many that Huawei was copying Nortel's telecom hardware, and even its instruction manuals.” There are others as well, this isn’t only Shields. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

• Removed, because some/most of the sources don't mention Huawei and the sources that accuse Huawei are based on Brain Shields claim which seems WP:UNDUE Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, if there are a lot of reliable sources that accuse Huawei then yes it should be included but all of them are based on Brain claim which in best case should be attributed if included.--SharabSalam (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Every single one of the ten sources mentioned Huawei... The question I have is if I did a poor job of summarizing what happened here then what did happen here? Something noteworthy must have happened for so many WP:RS to write a story about it, since every single source talks about Huawei how should we include this on the page? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

• Lets take it line by line, which line isn’t supported by the cited sources?

  Huawei has been accused of benefitting from Chinese state-sponsored hacking of Canadian telecommunications company Nortel. In the years following the hack Huawei moved rapidly from a vendor of Nortel’s to their fiercest competitor without seeming to have invested in the R&D that would have made that possible. It has been alleged that Huawei stole Nortel’s core technologies and business strategies. It was reported in The Globe and Mail that in 2004 it became clear that Huawei was copying Nortel's telecom hardware, and even its instruction manuals.

Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

References

the first paragraph. the register and WSJ don't even mention Huawei, the financialpost and other sources claims are attributed to Brain shields and we shouldn't give his voice undue weight.--SharabSalam (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Brian... Its Brian. Ok sounds good, we can remove the WSJ and Register then as its still supported by four sources. We do have to include his voice somewhere though, if all these WP:RS think his voice should be heard then shouldn’t we at least have a line like: “Former Nortel cybersecurity executive Brian Shields has suggested that Huawei benefited from the state-sponsored hacking of Nortel". What do you think of the Globe and Mail (Canada’s paper of record) piece? They rely on more sources then just one Nortel executive, and they make very specific accusations about Huawei. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree I didn't know how much authority Brian has because the financialpost doesn't illustrate that, but yea it should be attributed just like this Special:Diff/900836312 article. Also forbes article uses attribution to Brian they say: "Notably, Nortel Network’s lead investigator into the theft identified Huawei as the perpetrator of the cyberattack on the firm, and suggested that the attack was an act of industrial espionage."--SharabSalam (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I don’t like that passage because the cited sources say that Shields identified the Chinese Government as the perpetrator of the attacks with Huawei being their prime beneficiary. In general yes I think we should state that Shields is the main accuser, but it isn’t just him. On a side note this section is better sourced than the Circuit boards, Ahkan Semiconductor diamond glass, and CNEX Labs sections so if those controversies are notable enough to get a section this one should too. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Which passage? The one I gave is a quotation from the Forbes source it's not mine.. I wanted to say that the reliable sources state that Brian is the accuser, they don't just say Huawei was accused without naming the accuser.--SharabSalam (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I know, I’m just noting that the Forbes passage contradicts other WP:RS... This is without a doubt a messy story to get straight but I think we should still try. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

What should we do about the other sources though? Particularly the Globe “But one telecom industry veteran said that around 2004, it was clear to many that Huawei was copying Nortel's telecom hardware, and even its instruction manuals.” Shields was already named in the story so it cant be him. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That also should be mentioned. Also from the globe source I found this: "Cyber security experts have some doubts about the validity of Mr. Shields' claims, saying a hack of that magnitude is unlikely". You can see that Brian Shields claim is the center of this controversy in regard to Huawei. --SharabSalam (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

So I guess we have a question then... is Brian Shields a whistleblower, a subject expert, or both? We’ve been treating him as a subject expert but whistleblower or both seems more accurate, if he’s a whistleblower then its not his claim per say in the same way it would be if he was an unrelated expert. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure. How is he a whistleblower? He is someone who works/worked with Nortel and ran an investigation and he concluded that Huawei hacked Nortel company. A whistleblower would be someone who works in Huawei and he knows that Huawei hacked Nortel but instead of being silent he went and exposed the company. He is "chief executive’s terminal" per financialpost source. He is Nortel Network’s lead investigator per Forbes. I don't know what we should say before his name. I am not so familiar with this guy.--SharabSalam (talk) 18:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The main story here is Nortel#Espionage_and_hacks. Shields is a Nortel insider (Nortel appears not to have had an officer level cybersecurity post (not uncommon for companies pre-2010s), the Globe and Assembly articles suggest that Shields was quite senior at Nortel) who blew the whistle on Nortel executive’s conduct and failure to disclose the breach to the companies that bough Nortel’s various components when they liquidated. The last years of Nortel’s hundred plus year history read like a shakespearian tragedy, getting hacked and having their IP stollen wasn’t even their biggest problem. The Huawei part is secondary (even in 2012, let alone 2004, Huawei was not a household name) and is a small part of the story, much of the recent coverage of the scandal is trivial coverage in stories about contemporary Huawei issues. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, seems we have a consensus that there should be a Nortel section, thanks for the discussion all. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: Cisco patent lawsuit

This link is broken.

This source seems to be used liberally to cite various claims about Huawei and their alleged IP theft, espionage and hacking.

Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community.

The conclusive proof being discussed is an independent expert citing that the function "strcmp.c" is identical to Huawei's. strcmp.c is a basic C/C++ ISO standard and lends credit to Huawei's statement about the code originating from a third party. What is well-documented is Cisco's abuse of the IP system. The same argument could be made that Cisco copied Huawei's source code because they both use OpenDayLight.

I don't think there is any proof that Huawei has obtained a status of folklore within the routing and switching community within the sources cited.Ebullient Prism (talk) 09:50, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Did you miss this section: "Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals.” PS the conclusive proof is not an independent expert but a team of them and a false report submitted to the court would be a crime. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Also the quote "direct, verbatim copying of our source code, to say nothing of our command line interface, our help screens, our copyrighted manuals and other elements of our products” is from Cisco’s chief legal officer... Don’t know if you missed that part or are just being willfully obtuse. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

a false report submitted to the court would be a crime.

It wouldn't be the first time an IP case got an unusually strict jury or expert (see Marshall, Texas or Oracle v Google)

I didn't miss that, but the statement isn't presented as a quote from the source (60 minutes) and comes across as heavily misleading that this is some kind factual statement about sentiments within the router and switch community and that the evidence is conclusive when there is a confidentiality agreement over the settlement. My primary motivation for becoming a contributor was that I had been discussing Huawei and the implications on the global supply chain from the U.S Government's actions with my colleagues when I discovered this section of wikipedia that, frankly, came across as biased, misleading and factually incorrect in some of the sections. The blogpost published by Cisco specifically refers to an independent expert commenting on the issue you have described where he details a section called STRCMP which is a name for string comparison strcmp.c; a basic C/C++ ISO Standard. In the article, Huawei states that this was sourced from a third party. I cannot express how common this piece of code is from my experience in the tech industry.

Unfortunately the Chinese news sources are archived better than English sources of the story. This article talks about a Huawei Engineer who used to work for Cisco being responsible for the code base and manuals and that he didn't believe that the recycled material fell under copyright. This would certainly make sense if he was talking about a third party library. That the similarities are, as per his words, 'coincidence' and a consequence of them ultimately being a product of the same person. The primary problem with this story is that there is no primary source beyond what Cisco and Huawei are saying without disclosing the details under the confidentiality agreement. I simply don't believe that there is enough evidence in the sources linked to say, as the section currently says, that Huawei have conclusively stolen IP from Cisco and thus I believe if you're going to say it must be described where it's coming from in terms of the media source which is quoting statements from Cisco & Huawei.Ebullient Prism (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

With all due respect you appear not to understand how Wikipedia works, the source is clearly Network World not 60 Minutes. I understand that you are a single issue editor but please familiarize yourself with wikipedia basics before jumping in, original research is not allowed in any form. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I believe that I am acting on good faith in pointing out how the sources are presented. I am aware that OR is not permitted on wikipedia; my inclusion of my personal opinion on the case was to demonstrate the disparity between how the section presents the information and what information has been revealed from primary sources; that there is a reasonable contradiction which makes the section seem biased and misleading. Since I am a new contributor, I am obviously uncertain about proper procedures. However, I do believe that this comes under WP:WEIGHT Ebullient Prism (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

On the topic of weight... There seems to be almost unanimous consensus on what happened between Cisco and Huawei. The theory that Huawei did not in fact plagiarize Cisco’s work would appear to be a fringe one with little support. For the sake of moving forward can you clearly state what you believe is being given undue weight? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the concensus you speak of regarding the claims made in the section. Specifically "Prior to Cisco providing conclusive proof in 2012 the story of Huawei's blatant plagiarism had obtained the status of folklore within the routing and switching community." I don't think verbatim copying the source is a reliable claim given that it's three steps removed from the primary source; that is it's an opinion on a small segment of a news show that's discussing the legal filings and statements from the companies. Most news sources I have read online discuss it in terms of allegations and claims by the companies which implies a lack of credibility, especially when the original source is Cisco's statements on a small part of the settlement that is under a confidentiality agreement between the two parties. While I doubt I can find a reliable source that will directly claim the "theory" that I suggested to contrast the section based on my experience in the tech industry. The details of the court case filing and statements lend credibility to it. The court filing, for example, was filed in the eastern district of Texas, specifically Marshall, Texas which is a well-documented forum for patent trolls, pools and organisations seeking advantageous litigation, juries and experts. Specialised blogs that focus on IP litigation like techrights offer much more nuanced and neutral perspectives on these court cases than main stream media. However, given the age of the story, a lot of material that commented on the story is no longer archived and thus most sources that can be found online are now retrospective opinions within the current political climate. I believe that if the section is to be as accurate as possible, it must use appropriate language that identifies where the claims within the articles are coming from: The legal filings and statements from Cisco and Huawei. I'll reiterate that when I discussed the trivial nature of STRCMP since it's my own OR, I wasn't suggesting adding it to the article but rather as an example of the questionable legal claims made by Cisco which would I don't believe would occur to even an informed reader had the section used different sources that directly references that these are claims and allegations by Cisco.Ebullient Prism (talk) 01:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Im sorry I don’t follow... What news show? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 05:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals. Many have said it for years, but 60 Minutes put it on worldwide television tonight for everyone to know The article is talking about 60 minutes news. I don't think this is being productive though; as you've said, the errors that I perceive seem to be be a result of wikipedia policy or my inability to express them. From my perspective, the Cisco v Huawei section is the most obviously flawed section on the page, and while I can't submit OR. I don't believe that what is claimed in the section is remotely in consensus with what main stream media reports nor what specialised services that comment on IP law and the tech industry say given that it implies concrete evidence of Huawei's theft of router trade secrets, design, code and manuals. It is certainly what public opinion believes, if that's what you classify as consensus.Ebullient Prism (talk) 06:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I don’t know how to make this more clear, the article may be about the 60 Minutes episode however that first statement "Folklore within the routing and switching community was that Huawei stole router product secrets from Cisco, down to the chassis, IOS and all the way down to the spelling errors in the manuals.” stands apart from the 60 Minutes reporting and Network World is a WP:RS in its own right (albeit a specialized one that is pretty much only relevant to the IT industry). Lets be 100% clear, the source for that statement is Network World with 60 Minutes in a supporting role if that, the claim that its "three steps removed from the primary source” is false. Lets also be clear that the program is 60 Minutes (Australian TV program) not the American one. If you want to move forward from here lets identify the sources you find that contradicts the claim that Huawei stole Cisco IP. The only source you have presented so far is backchina.com which does not appear to be a WP:RS. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should establish what we classify as a contradiction first. If you're asking me to find a source that "Huawei did not steal Cisco's IP", I won't find it because that isn't my point. My point is that the claim that "Huawei stole Cisco's IP" is an allegation that was settled under confidentiality and that most sources report it in that tone in contrast to what networkworld states as well as reporting where the source comes from in 2012... Cisco themselves... I.E:

Over the years companies like Cisco, Nortel and Motorola have all pointed the finger at the Chinese firm.

Cisco filed a lawsuit alleging that Huawei ... Cisco's accusations against Huawei...

The case dates back to 2003 and relates to the alleged theft ... which Cisco said proved Huawei had used its source code in its products.

Cisco filed a lawsuit against Huawei alleging

The source for this conclusive proof statement has to come from 60 minutes which is where my confusion stems from because if it doesn't; it's worse. The article from networkworld used as a source specifically references that it's hearsay:

Cisco did file suit and it was settled out of court, so we will never know what really happened. But Huawei did it, they know it, we know and Cisco knows it. Otherwise they would have never settled the court case.

That source, in discussing 'folklore' is specifically talking about rumor, hearsay and public opinion. It does not say anything about the validation of the claim beyond '60 Minutes put it on worldwide television tonight for everyone to know'.

The reason why it is worse if it doesn't come from 60 minutes via proxy through networkworld is fundamentally the same reason why I am confused about wikipedia guidelines. I wasn't sure if the guidelines were strict or loose given the nature of your defence of the source. I originally talked about weighting because the 'conclusive proof' comes from Cisco releasing arbitrary segments of a report to challenge Huawei. I am pretty sure I don't need to quote guidelines to show how monumentally biased that is, especially given the discussion above this section talking about the merits of taking Huawei's statements; I would also say it potentially falls into the realm of [WP:OR] but as I am new, I will refrain from directly saying so. I was never challenging the source and I only gave backchina as an example of old articles that are still on the web given that we're discussing a case from 2003; English articles with sufficient details of the case are harder to find.Ebullient Prism (talk) 03:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

If someone else wants to continue to engage with you to talk you through how to use wikipedia they can but I think ironically we have come to an agreement that there is a consensus among sources, you just don’t agree with that consensus. Cisco waived confidentiality and I understand that you don’t agree with the conclusions of [1] but I will note that Huawei has never disputed the allegations made by Chandler and your entire technical argument appears to be WP:OR. As for "I am pretty sure I don't need to quote guidelines to show how monumentally biased that is, especially given the discussion above this section talking about the merits of taking Huawei's statements; I would also say it potentially falls into the realm of [WP:OR] but as I am new, I will refrain from directly saying so” please actually make a policy argument for why using this source for background information is “monumentally biased,” on wikipedia all arguments of this kind must be backed by policy. Please quote guidelines and policy if you want to contribute positively. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

As per my previous comment, the statement about 'conclusive proof' and 'blatant plaigarism' is not supported by sources except the statement by Mark Chandler, Chief Legal Officer for Cisco and directly contradicted by the same cited source from networkworld in the same paragraph:

Cisco did file suit and it was settled out of court, so we will never know what really happened. But Huawei did it, they know it, we know and Cisco knows it. Otherwise they would have never settled the court case.

Every other sources I've cited and found online, as I've stated previously, talks about the case in terms of allegations, accusations and the fact that the suit was settled under confidentiality which is backed by the networkworld source when it states 'we will never know what really happened'. The statement 'conclusive proof' and 'blatant plagarism' therefore constitutes WP:OR as it is assessing and making a judgement on the statement by Cisco rather than backed by a WP:RS. It is also at odds with WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT as it doesn't include or acknowledge any statements made by Huawei in response or about the case while, as per your own statement, directly citing Cisco as a source of proof for the claim.

Whether or not Huawei responded to Cisco's blog post or not is irrelevant. It doesn't prove anything. However, if it interests you; they did respond and their statement to Cisco is in the inquirer source I had linked previously. Since we are to come to concensus, I would suggest directly referencing, within the statement, that the citation for conclusive proof is coming from Cisco themselves (since you've established that's where it is coming from). Rather than including 'blatant plagarism', you can leave it open-ended and include the quoted details referencing the identical nature of STRCMP. You'll still be able to make nearly identical claims as the original statement, but at least any software engineer worth his weight will be able to see through it. I have been open and honest from the beginning and making an effort to improve the section in regards to accuracy; I don't believe you're engaging or giving any due attention to detail about what I'm saying or even acknowledging the core point of my last statement. The fact is you've claimed something that no other WP:RS has claimed: That Huawei stole IP from Cisco. You said my technical arguments appear to be WP:OR. I said this myself at the beginning of the conversation and the reason for the inclusion was not to insert it into the article but to shed light on why I found the section so blatantly biased and, frankly, false. I believe I have acted on good faith to have an open and honest discussion about the section and my attempts at giving my technical insight into the problem was an attempt to demonstrate some of the core issues with the conclusions of the section. I had assumed that 60 minutes must have been the source because, frankly, I did put some time in to learn some of the guidelines before posting and I thought that using Cisco as a source for a claim such as this was so patently biased and wrong that I didn't think such a mistake could have been made except maliciously and had been acting on the idea that it was written in good faith.Ebullient Prism (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Look at Huawei’s comment again, they don’t deny the claims... They just deny that the claims have legal merit, a point on which they are technically correct (but one which is misleading). They say the way Cisco released information was "selective and misleading” but not factually inaccurate. The WSJ also backs up the core points here[2], unless you can present coverage with equal weight (per WP:BESTSOURCES) then I believe that the claim that Hauwei didn't systematically copy Cisco’s tech and procedures is WP:FALSEBALANCE if it goes much beyond “Huawei criticized these claims as...". Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I have looked through the new article you've cited with great consideration for instances of the author making the same claims as you and haven't found it. As per my previous comments, the author talks in terms of allegations and suggestions. As per my previous comments, your assertion that Cisco has provided conclusive proof of blatant plagarism is your own opinion and thus falls under WP:OR; I'm going to be direct now. You are not the judge and jury for the IP case or a specialised WP:RS for commenting on an IP law case, nor do you have access to the confidential settlement and report discussed. You are not an authority to give your opinion through wikipedia. Your view that Huawei systematically copied their tech is just that and no more appropriate for inclusion in the article than my own technical opinion from reviewing the legal filings and statements by the companies. My objections do not fall under WP:FALSEBALANCE as I am not claiming that Huawei did not do so. I am claiming that the WP:RS that you cite does not claim it; to use an analogy it is the equivalent of saying an atheist believes there is no god. If you do not recognise the difference then please tell me and I will be even more verbose. As per my comments on WP:WEIGHT if you want to include descriptive details of the case and statements from the POV of Cisco, then you should also include Huawei's statements regarding the matter as well. My comment on WP:WEIGHT also extends to if you did manage to find a WP:RS that does state, as a matter of fact, that Huawei systematically stole IP from Cisco. In that case, the weight would be fringe as all other WP:RS that have been cited in our conversation so far have only spoken about the case in terms of accusations, public opinion and suggestions.Ebullient Prism (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not a new article... Its been included on the page since way before you started posting, you should have reviewed it in full before ever posting on the talk page. You came in with a position and have been unwilling to modify it. I came in with a position and have been eminently willing to modify it if provided with additional WP:RS which you haven’t been able to provide. Thats what consensus is all about, stop throwing around accusations of WP:OR when that is currently all your argument stands on. If you want to have a discussion over whether Cisco is more trustworthy than Huawei we can but thats an entirely separate argument. If you can be so sure that any additional WP:RS which does not support your argument will be fringe then its hard to continue to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Its been included on the page since way before you started posting, you should have reviewed it in full before ever posting on the talk page It was behind a paywall.

I'm struggling to assume Wikipedia:Assume good faith too as you have been unable to demonstrate, at any point, that you understand any of my objections to the section. I don't need new sources, what the section says and what the sources say are different but you don't seem to understand this or are being willfully obtuse about it. I.E:

If you want to have a discussion over whether Cisco is more trustworthy than Huawei we can but thats an entirely separate argument.

I don't know why you keep saying things like this when I keep saying that it's irrelevant what my opinion or your opinion is on the matter; I have said so since the beginning of this conversation. That my 'technical opinion' is not relevant here. You still don't seem to understand that what your section is saying and what the articles are saying is different. If you can't acknowledge this, then maybe I'll give up or maybe I'll try dispute resolution. I'll need to take some time to read over the guidelines when you encounter an eidtor who cannot understand their own mistake.Ebullient Prism (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have already addressed your two concerns, "The conclusive proof being ... OpenDayLight.” and "I don't think there is any proof that Huawei has obtained a status of folklore within the routing and switching community within the sources cited.” Is there another argument I’m missing? You have yet to demonstrate that there is *any* inconsistency between the page and the sources cited, if you do in fact have such an objection make it and make it specific. As for your other argument hearsay is not a problem for wikipedia, sorry you didn't know. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Content dispute: Consumer electronics

G5 Report

The epoch times is not a reliable source, the article itself frequently uses quotes and makes claims that aren't found in the report being discussed. When it does attribute them; they are frequently misused to support a conjecture offered by the article itself. The report that the article discusses states

The G DATA security experts are certain that the manufacturers are not the perpetrators in the majority of cases. Renowned companies will not risk their reputation by distributing

The headline and content of the second citation also mirrors this opinion. But the quote from Huawei is sourced from the epochtimes which seems redundant. From the content of the second article and the G Data report being discussed it seems misleading to claim that the security issues can be attributed to Huawei but rather is the result of supply chain tampering.Ebullient Prism (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

FCC Investigation

I'm not sure what the FCC investigation is demonstrating in regards to espionage, security concerns or within the scope of "consumer electronics" and I'm not even sure if Christopher A. Wray is a reliable source for commenting on Huawei's security concerns given his current active role in targeting Chinese immigrants and companies. It seems biased.Ebullient Prism (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like you’re just figuring out the ropes, CNBC is the WP:RS not Wray. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Compromised Mediapad M5

The article talks about the device sending data to Amazon and then leads the reader to conjecture about Facebook, Google, Huawei and the U.S government sharing information. I don't think the article is remotely reliable as the applications named in the report are basic phone services. I.E: HiCare Ebullient Prism (talk) 11:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a joke... In no way does the article do this. Please re-read it. [3] Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Misleading disinformation

I noticed a paragraph that is probably outdated, stating -

"On 30 April 2019, Vodafone announced that it had discovered backdoors on Huawei equipment in 2011 and 2012, ...Vodaphone engineers had discovered backdoors in home internet routers in 2011..."

However that is infactual. Vodafone criticised Bloombergy and stated it wasn't a backdoor but the 'backdoor' that Bloomberg refers to is Telnet, which is a protocol that is commonly used by many vendors in the industry for performing diagnostic functions.

"It would not have been accessible from the internet," said the telco in a statement to The Register, adding: "Bloomberg is incorrect in saying that this 'could have given Huawei unauthorized access to the carrier's fixed-line network in Italy'

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/04/30/huawei_enterprise_router_backdoor_is_telnet/

I feel that it is inappropriate to keep that paragragh in light of later and more updated articles with Vodafone's statements. As it is just inappropriate and misleading when bloomberg has given no valid evidence to back any of it whilst Vodafone reported it as factually incorrect and grossly misleading.202.52.36.51 (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Update - Have completed removing the nonfactual Bloomberg story myself.

Also should note after quick review, I noticed the page bias appears heavily one sided. I.e. Huawei has been criticised many times by the American gov for alleged spying, yet produced no proof and there has never been evidence publicly produced to back those serious criticisms. That is big news that is on the media constantly yet currently the page still lacks basic major info as below.

"Plummer and Huawei have long complained that when the U.S. House Intelligence Committee released a report in October 2012 condemning the use of Huawei gear in telephone and data networks, it failed to provide any evidence that the Chinese government had compromised the company's hardware. Adam Segal, a senior fellow for China Studies at the Center for Foreign Relations, makes the same point. And now we have evidence – Der Spiegel cites leaked NSA documents – that the U.S. government has compromised gear on a massive scale."

https://www.wired.com/2013/12/nsa-cisco-huawei-china/

Not a single mention or link to that specific info.

It seems the info that somewhat defends huawei against criticism is underreported.

Since the page is afterall about significant criticisms. I have included the Vodafone's public criticism of Bloomberg's wrongful criticism or smearing of Huawei. Also added in Poland's official statement to Huawei's staff espionage case as I feel that is only fair to document that in..If you have issues with that then reply here.

202.52.36.55 (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Cleanup Assistance - Aligning with Main Huawei Article

The neutrality of the main Huawei article is in dispute. It appears that a major cause of this is that criticisms and controversies that should have been placed in this article and only summarized in the main article did not happen in that order. Items were placed in the main article as either duplicate information contained in this article or as items that are not even covered in this article. To move forward with fixing the neutrality of the main Huawei article, migrating information from that article to this article and then cleaning up the main article so that it only has summaries of what is in this article is proposed. For some items in the main article, facts can be moved to this article and for other items passages need to be combined. The goal is that the main article only contains brief summaries of all of the information contained in this article. Editors are asked to assist in this goal. Until this is done, a cleanup template has been posted at the top of this article. --Ian Korman (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Why put a cleanup template on this article if its Huawei thats under dispute? I also don’t see a neutrality issue, can you be more specific? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The cleanup template was due to possible conflict or redundancy of information moved over from the main Huawei article. If any editor checks the work done they can remove that template. There is no neutrality issue template in this article, this article was only edited as part of the neutrality issue with the main Huawei article. Request editorial assistance in verifying the main Huawei article and removing the neutrality template from it.

--Ian Korman (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

What neutrality issue with the main Huawei article? The only issue I can possibly see is that we don’t cover their controversies extensively enough on the main article. Also putting a cleanup template on a page because *you* may have broken it is just lazy, fix any problems your edits cause or don’t make the edit in the first place. I am removing your tag. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Huawei Mate 10 Pro.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Checked Wikimedia Commons and there are no other image files to use as a substitute that are not also nominated for deletion.--Ian Korman (talk) 04:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Removal of content by IP editor as "inacurate"

The content looks sourced to me, the only statements which may have merit to remove are the sentences cited to the Medium articles which is a blog hosting service. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 00:08, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Everything looks ok to me for sources. I agree with the issue with Medium. SuperHeight (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

To Maintain 'Neutral Point of View'

The whole page should be reorganized with TWO main headings:

1. The Allegations
2. The Facts (The Evidence)

Any dirty tactics company can defame another company with public allegations to remove them from the competition. Eva Kaln (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Misleading language about Tappy robot

The current text "committed industrial espionage in United States, and Huawei was ordered to pay $4.8 million in damages" alters the meaning of the sources by cherry-picking words and connecting two different events. According to this source,[4] "The jury said T-Mobile should be awarded $4.8 million in damages because of this breach of contract. But the jury also decided that Huawei’s misappropriation was not “willful and malicious,” and it did not award any damages from the trade-secret claim". Another source [5] says "The jury found that T-Mobile suffered no losses due to the misappropriation of Tappy and declined to award punitive damages". The only damage was that Huawei "broke a handset agreement. For this action, the jury awarded T-Mobile $4.8 million". Nor does this source [6] say anything about the jury agreeing with T-Mobile on "espionage". CurryCity (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Missing and missleading article

Nowhere is it mentionned that despite intensive research from the American imtelligence (and allies), not a single backdoor has ever been found. I think this is worth mentioning and at the same time questioning the reason for Huawei's ban, don't you thing so!? I do not consider an article based on rumors (and fake assumptions) very objective. 77.56.51.110 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)