Talk:Foxconn/Archives/2014

New Edits

I don't know your motive, but you simply cannot afford to delete the addition made by 123.192.75.224 on June 30, 2010. It contains important and widely reported comment concerning this issue. I ask you (or any other contributor) to take the information (ie. disgrace in Taiwan, suspect/fake psychologists reports) as valid. They all reveal a pattern of 1/ denial and 2/ disregard of responsibility that SHOULD be clearly outlined in this article. If you must, then go ahead and re-write. However, do your own research before deleting the new points; this issue is far more important than simply administrative matters of Apple continuing to make iPad/iPod/iPhone at those plants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.192.75.224 (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's nobody's responsibility but your own to re-write something that's clearly biased, unsourced, and not NPOV (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). Especially if you're using sources from "World Faith News" with articles titled "Perspectives: Christians and Foxconn". These are some pretty substantial claims you're making with only one valid source (regarding a petition) that does not mention anything you have been saying. For example, you have noted that Foxconn is "continuing and unashamed avoidance of all notions of responsibility", "in an apparent state of self-pity", and "in an apparent attempt to avoid negative publicity, rather than taking responsibility and fixing the problems". So, NPOV, unsourced, and a user who's only edits have been criticizing Foxconn. And please stop edit warring. -Multivariable (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apple Products

Actually I don't think that they manufacture anything computer-related for Apple anymore. The factory code on the Macbooks used to be 4H but in 07 it changed to W8 (the same as the Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs) which falls much in line with this report: http://www.emsnow.com/newsarchives/archivedetails.cfm?ID=18559 so it appears to me that the article is wrong... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.249.12 (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sweatshops

This article should discuss the new concerns over possible sweatshop labor at Foxconn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.211.149.162 (talk • contribs)

Don't say 'this article should discuss', if you think it should be added, then add it. (I just did btw).

PS: Please sign your comments using three ~ signs. DamianFinol 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this kind of bullshit should be mentioned unless A) there's proof that they use sweatshops, or B) there's sufficient evidence suggesting the use of sweatshops.(Myscrnnm (talk) 04:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC))

Jpenguin (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC) A former plating engineer documented forced forced 2 twelve-hour shifts a day, 7 days a week schedule , exposure to toxic and corrosive materials (lead, gold cyanide, sulfuric acid). Full Chinese text at http://web.wenxuecity.com/BBSView.php?SubID=finance&MsgID=1961258 . My English translation of a tiny portion : ... You know that sulfuric acid will corrode the skin, how about not wearing any gloves and dip the hands in sulfuric acid ? The sulfuric acid concentration is 50%! I have done it many times ... I did not want to abuse myself, it's because FOXCONN's conveyor belts are too fast, if I keep all the protective gear on , I won't be able to keep up with its speed, the foreman will then come.

Number of employees

the number of employees between the info box and history paragraph is inconsistent, ( 485,999 in info bar v.s. 800,000 in history paragraph ) 85.169.49.239 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the 485,999 figure (although sourced from a 2009 Fortune 500 rankings list) seems to be someone's idea of a joke based on the recent suicides (the article quotes it at 486,000). The second source is from the Chinese news media in May 2010 (quoting 800,000 on mainland China). I would go with the more recent figure (from Xinhuanet). There are other sources to back up that number (all from this year): [1] [2] [3] -Multivariable (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Numbers have been updated in the infobox with a reference. -Multivariable (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

links

I removed some external links because I couldn't figure out how they were relevant to the article. If they were relevant, please accept my apologies; and add the links back with some text in the article that explains their relationship to the subject. -- Mikeblas 18:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Corporate Vandalism

Someone with attrocious English has been editing this page to cast Foxconn in a more positive light without giving references for his information - please give your reasons for editing the page and in future give sources for your comments! —Preceding unsigned comment added by FOARP (talk • contribs) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That is the most ardently biased thing on Wikipedia I have ever read. I've cleaned it up but can't be bothered to find any citations right now. 78.86.165.145 (talk) 15:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Much better just to put it back the way it was before. I've heard that Guo Taiming has been placing a lot of importance of garnering good publicity for Foxconn recently, perhaps this is all part of the effort. FOARP (talk) 17:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone please flag this article, or at least the last section. Unverified, biassed propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.138.84 (talk) 04:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

In light of all of the above comments, I removed the final section on "Conflict with the Media" because it didn't site any references and I couldn't find any for any of the claims made (aside from the fact that Elton John did in fact sue the Sunday Mail once). Someone should mention, however, the Sunday Mail article as it did cause quit a stir. 75.8.97.57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I think someone should flag this article, because there are active users such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/84.68.128.216 who is suspecious mainly because all his edits are revolving the foxconn ACPI issue. In additon, he makes edit with reason that do not have citation such as "Wrong section and untrue", and "Removed reference to ACPI Linux incompatibility - not unique to Foxconn and certainly not relevent to the article.".--137.186.249.32 (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of suspect individuals speaking absolutely horrid English... 82.151.94.249 (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Linux ACPI issue

I do not wish to start an edit war here nor is my intention to "hide" this information, I simply feel that it is not relevant to this section of the article - the accusations being put forth that Foxconn are that they are deliberately breaking ACPI support for their products is unfounded and far more likely to be the result of sloppy code and poor testing on what is, and I don't mean to be derogatory or anything when I say this, a niche operating system - especially on a desktop motherboard. ACPI support has always been an issue with manufacturers and Linux, Foxconn do not explicitly state that their product is Linux compatible either - once again I'm not trying to defend sloppy code or pointless incompatibility.

I'm in no way trying to hide this information, there is a section for criticism which I feel would be far better suited to mention incompatibilities of certain motherboards with Linux in. The link to ubuntuforums provided is also full of conjecture and accusations, I appreciate this has annoyed people but I don't think the way the information was presented was suitable for the section of the article it was placed. 84.68.128.216 (talk) 13:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see now the criticism is in the proper place, please ignore the above. I still don't fully agree with the inclusion of ubuntuforums as a good source however, accusations were thrown around in that thread without any evidence to support them - it is however a good source of information on the technicalities of the problem. Anyone care to comment? 84.68.128.216 (talk) 13:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of wikifying the last paragraph to make it sound a little more encyclopedic. I have not added any more sources, but i do believe that 1.- there are enough proofs to state that foxconn actively tried to sabotage the acpi implementation in linux, although we can't tell by now if this active effort was out of malice or stupidity and 2.- since ubuntu forums was the place were the accusations were made, it's a suitable source since what you're sourcing is the allegation, NOT its veracity. The launchpad reference, on the other hand, documents in depth the case and the disassembly of the BIOS and solution to the problem, and, although quite technical, provides sufficient proof of the active sabotage. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To Bukharin: If (linux) { break }... I mean seriously, what's to get? I understand that not everyone is a programmer but you don't understand basic concepts as to how Foxconn is sabotaging Linux support. I think you should stay away from this article as you lack any experience on the issue at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.176.66.73 (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

would you be so kind as to illuminate me in the basic concepts that i am missing? Because i think the issue is quite evident. Bios checks for OS, passes wrong values to linux, but correct ones to windows, and then tries to lock memory regions that are harmless to windows, but crash linux. What is the critical part that i am missing? Gorgonzola (talk) 17:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are missing? Well, you're missing that this is a Linux kernel issue.--190.28.131.195 (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

ok, fine, i missed the alternative untested hypothesis of mathew, while accepting the hypothesis by ryan, tested but not falsified by his BIOS tampering, and now by the fix posted by Foxconn. I don't think you have proven anything, and particularly, you have not proven false the proposition "BIOS passes correct values to windows and incorrect ones to Linux", which is the whole point. note that mathew thinks that this could be a kernel bug. Apart form that, i think that the correct way of handling the issue would be to state a factual account of what really happened, assuming sloppiness either form foxconn or kernel hackers, and pointing out the fact that after this incident, foxconn will extend testing of their products to linux and other non microsoft operating systems. I would also like to point out that your 202.176.66.73's original comment was an unacceptable ad-hominen argument: instead of flaming me, you should fix the article. oh, and a forum and blog post and several launchpad bug entries are just as valuable a source as a blog post and a bunch o' comments. thanks. Gorgonzola (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

"BIOS passes correct values to windows and incorrect ones to Linux", which is the whole point."

My point is that the motherboard is ACPI compliant (sadly, the standard is a big shit). The paragraph is trying to stay the opposite. By the way, I don't know what are you refering with "original comment".--190.29.25.112 (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that both anon were the same anon. if not, i retract. Anyway, i *really* have zero interest in blaming foxconn or the linux kernel or whatever. i just think its just as valid to think its a kernel issue as it is a BIOS issue with the available info, although i personally believe that the fact that foxconn themselves chose to fix the problem in a BIOS update, and that this issue in particular has not manifested itself in any other ACPI-compliant board tends to tip the scale in their direction. The bottom line is: do you disapprove of the current wording of the article? if so, please propose an alternative. I particularly think that the bit about the BIOS patch and the extension of testing to linux platforms is a Good Thing(tm) on part of Foxconn, and that all the factual points made in the section are correct and well sourced.

Now, as to it being ACPI compliant: if it implements extensions to ACPI (even if these are necessary to make something useful out of the crappy standard) and this extensions break compatibility with a kernel that is known to work alright in other non-extended, ACPI compliant boards, then its logical to assume that the board has stopped being ACPI compliant. Note that 1.- the article only implies this particular sense in which it would not be ACPI compliant, and 2.- i could be wrong: i just wrote that to include the developments on the issue on the Ubuntu forums and comments on the story on Slashdot. feel free to correct it if you know better! Gorgonzola (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I tend to think this paragraph is totally irrelevant. See: http://mjg59.livejournal.com/94998.html This guy is a kernel dev at Red Hat, and he says this should _not_ be an issue, basically because Linux does not even report itself as Linux, but as Windows, so the 'wrong' code is ignored by Linux. Please remove this paragraph. 80.100.173.46 (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with you. the net result of the whole affair was that foxconn put up a dev build of the BIOS that fixes the issue, and that they have now extended testing to non-ms operating systems. this is relevant in the history and description of the company, even if corrections have to be made, which of course you are free to add. Gorgonzola (talk) 23:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to know: could we remove the NPOV tag? what would need to be changed to remove it? Gorgonzola (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you modify the section? If you did it, good job, it is now more fair with Foxconn :).--190.28.136.67 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, i did not. but i think its perfect. The truth shall make you free, as they say. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a clause to the third paragraph mentioning the ACPI-compliance bug in the third paragraph after someone took it out...but you know what? It's not really a big deal. If someone wants to revert that's fine with me. I understand that Foxconn has issued a patch for this and believe that they will try harder in the future. I'm sure that they're busy engineers and that they mean well.

Employee death over internal investigation

I question the addition of this section in an "encyclopedia." First, it is sensationalist, nothing more. Second, the connection between the missing iPhone and the [alleged] suicide appears to be pure media speculation, although the coincidence is hard to ignore. (Consider: if Sun had misplaced a Zune prototype, would there be any press at all?) And third, with over a half million employees, it's hard to believe this is the only "tragic" death. Should an employee lose his/her life in a car accident, should that also be included?

Since there is no proof (nor will there ever be) that the suicide was caused by Foxconn, I believe this section should be deleted.

Consider the encyclopedic relevance of this section in a year or two.

Assuming the section stays, I'd like to find out where this incident "placed questions regarding Apple's secrecy over upcoming releases of its products, where misplacing prototypes serves as a serious breach of protocol" is anything more than the author's opinion.

And I'm correcting "the top of a 12 story building" to "the 12th floor of his apartment building." Regards, Wizdar (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that given the fact that this story was reported around the world, and has involved serious allegations of misconduct, it certainly should be included in this article FOARP (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

--~~~~Insert non-formatted text here ---- <s> <gallery> Strike-through text </gallery><blockquote> Block quote </blockquote></s>

State run

It's not the convention of wikipedia to cite the affliations of newspapers. Should we also call Fox-news or New york times, "party-run", because they are heavily affliated with Republican and Democrats?192.17.205.104 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see [4]. The Southern Metropolis Daily is openly run by the Communist party of China. - Adorno Rock

You didn't address my point. Foxnews is also openly runned by republican party. You don't see discrediting modifers whenever they are mentioned. Let's talk this over in discussion section... if you still disagree. I copied the conversation here. 192.17.205.104 (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the convention of Wiki to cite all information that is relevant. That Southern Metropolis daily is owned by the communist party is both uncontroversial and relevant to its reporting - it should be mentioned FOARP (talk) 11:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

FAIL

FAIL - The only thing in this article is critcism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukes123 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, people prefer to kill theriself than working in Foxconn... Chinese economy is based on schiavism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.68.200 (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree; having a revenue figure of circa-USD60B alone would suggest a hugely successful company, but at what cost??FungasUK (talk) 14:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

How many employees in Shenzhen? What's the plant look like?

I want to know how many employees are there in Shenzhen plant? I read that there are 400,000 in the plant, and the plant has its own post office. I really want to know what it is like inside the plant. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10161633.stm Taiwan iPhone-maker Foxconn opens doors after deaths ] 111.251.204.112 (talk) 02:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC) By now there are 15 jumpers for the year 2010. Anyone help to update the jumping statistic? From yesterday to today (27th May 2010) there are continuously 4 jumpers in total. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.117.33.5 (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Azload, 27 May 2010

This is done.

There are twelve confirmed suicide jump in Foxconn China right now instead of ten. Need to be updated for the information. Thank you. HK news reported thirteen jumps already, need to be confirmed.

Azload (talk) 22:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —fetch·comms 22:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There should be a separate article on this called Employee suicides at Foxconn China. This has been documented enough by the major newspapers for a more detailed article to be written. 121.7.192.146 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Numbers of Employees fix

A new information of total employees Foxconn had on Mainland China but i don't know where to put in, can anyone put it in? Source:[5]
"Of Foxconn's 800,000 employees in China's mainland, 420,000 are based in Shenzhen. They work shifts and live inside the massive factory complex."--LLTimes (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Suicide Rate Not Notable

According to Wikipedia's own statistics, the suicide rate is about average for almost a million workers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Currently, the rate is on par with that of The Bahamas, with a rate of 1.75 deaths per 100,000. So, it looks as though this is more media spin than any real event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.109.25 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There were some statements/sources in a recent version (that have since been removed) that stated the low suicide rate compared to China as a whole (something like 1/8th the rate). There were also some sources (which have also been removed) which stated plainly that the coverage of employee deaths had been overblown. The version before August 6, 2010 should have many of the sources and statements, before someone started removing material/sources. [6] If the suicide rate is not notable, why does it take up so much of this article? -Multivariable (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Want to remove a substantial amount of text from the page

This page has a substantial amount of information about small, trivial topics and not much on the company itself. I propose to drastically reduce the amount of content on topics such as Foxconn#ACPI functionality with Linux and Foxconn#Assault on foreign reporter at a Chinese factory, as well as to copy edit the page for grammar and length. Fleetham (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "ACPI functionality with Linux", the section is summarized by saying that the problem had nothing to do with Foxconn but with the America Megatrends BIOS that resulted in problems in other motherboards. The only thing Foxconn is liable for is stating that the BIOS did not support Linux, but that would be a software specification, correct? It seems kind of irrelevant in this article since it was a programming issue by another company (America Megatrends) rather than a hardware issue by Foxconn.

The "Assault on a foreign reporter at a Chinese factory" section is based entirely on a short section from an article by Reuters (regarding a Reuters reporter). I'm not sure how much Wikipedia's NPOV policy applies here, but it appears to be an isolated incident. After all, it's a Reuters journalist writing about another Reuters reporter (no conflict of interest there). A single (subjective) source does not warrant a full section. If it is a widespread issue, then additional (objective) sources need to be added. -Multivariable (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Unless anyone object...

...I am going to revert the page to this old revision in a few days. The page is chock-full of information that is of little to no use for the person looking to learn more about Foxconn itself. Fleetham (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Reverted the page

I removed a lot of information that I did not find relevant to Foxconn itself. Much of the discussion of the 2010 Foxconn suicides can now be found at its own page.Fleetham (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Employee suicides

I cleaned up some of the information, and clarity regarding Foxconn's lawsuits (that it dropped). Foxconn sued a Chinese Media firm, not a UK firm. Also the 'experts say', and the article that was cited was subscriber only, so I blew that away. I added information regarding the suicides by it's employees. I feel it is pertinent to include the personal information about Terry Gou, but I can not think of a way to include it in an unbiased manner at the moment, but I feel that with the Wall Street Journal claiming that Mr. Gou 'runs Hon Hai with the power of a warlord', and wearing a bracelet he received from a temple dedicated to Genghis Kahn, who is his personal hero (according to him).

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB118677584137994489.html?mod=blog

Also the following slogans from his biography, that are 'on prominent display' in the Longhua facility: “work itself is a type of joy,” “a harsh environment is a good thing,” “hungry people have especially clear minds,” and “an army of one thousand is easy to get, one general is tough to find.”

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/09/10/inside-foxconn-and-the-man-who-made-your-iphone/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.184.72.199 (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Revert

All of them are online publications, the link to Shanghai daily itself requires subscriber status:

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/login.asp?url=/article/%3Fid%3D290455%26type%3DBusiness

I don't feel that including subscriber only verification helps wikipedia, nor does reverting all of the additions that I added. It is appreciated that if you deem a source that I chose to be unverifiable that you simply remove it's citation, and put that it requires one.

For instance by rereverting to my older version I have changed what others have contributed to the other article since I did so, it makes it extremely difficult to keep track, and keep from loosing other people's work.

Thank you.

Please refer to Wikipedia:Verifiablity; I reverted a 9/11/10 edit that cited a source I don't consider reliable. This is the cited source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Foxconn-Sues-Two-Journalists-for-Disclosing-the-Poor-Working-Conditions-34226.shtml I do not think "Softpedia" is a reliable new source, and I encourage the editor to find a citation that appears more legitimate. I am sure that a better source can be cited.Fleetham (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Quality of referencing

Please amend or remove referencing number [3], the reference source is about automotive vehicle strikes in China, not related to Foxconn or Hon Hai at all. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.9.229 (talk) 04:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Unbalanced

I think more of the article should focus on things other than employee mistreatment. I don't think there should be less on that subject but that there should be more about other subjects.

I too find the article unbalanced. The suicides occured in a factory campus with 450,000 employees (most in company apartments), and statistically it should be treated like suicides in a similar sized city. The article reads as a diatribe, calling the company "controversial" in the intro and then sets to prove it is controversial. Foxconn builds for practically everyone, even Japanese firms like Sony now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.25.161 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While I don't agree with you--and the worker controversy is still mentioned in the intro--I did removed the word "controversial" from the phrase, "a controversial Taiwanese company that is the world's largest maker of electronic components".

I don't think that because Foxconn has many workers that excuses the company's ill treatment of its workers. For example, look at the Sun Danyong death. He lost a prototype and was then attacked by Foxconn employees, had his apartment ransacked, and soon after committed "suicide". Saying that this chain of events is "ok" because Foxconn employs many workers and because in China many people are attacked and have their apartments burgled is stupid. I've read that the Foxconn suicides are statistically insignificant when compared to the general population, but I have a feeling that young workers usually don't commit suicide as often as the general population. So, even if the argument of "happens all the time in China, suicides do" wasn't a stupid excuse, in this case I doubt it's even based on facts. Fleetham (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of Indian-worker content

someone removed the info. on imprisonment of striking Indian Foxconn workers by Indian authorities. I don't care, does anyone else? It was mis-categorized under the "employee mistreatment" section anyway and wasn't interesting. Fleetham (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing iPhone death, edit warring

User:Fleetham you keep reverthing my edit without specifying a reason why. the citation states

"Soon after, in the early-morning hours of July 16, Mr. Sun apparently jumped to his death from the 12th floor of an apartment building in what his employer, Foxconn Technology, says was a suicide."

it is clear from the quote that Foxconn claims he commited suicide which is all my edit states could you please either explain yourself or stop reverting my edit94.168.210.8 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Addition of new content

A user has repeated added in new content as follows:

Sacred burial ground

About 200 to 300 years ago, an area where the current Shenzhen factory resides was the home of an estimated 4,000 Hakka families. The land at the time was undeveloped. At the land is Peiziyuan (皮仔园) and Ghosthead lake (鬼头潭) in the area. Ghosthead lake is the location for numerous suicides and other types of deaths. Peiziyuan in particular was the burial ground of more than 1,000 babies. This area continued to be a burial site well into the 1970s when the One-child policy was promoted. Massive numbers of girls were killed in favor of boys, and more baby corpses were collected at the site.

I'm reverting it based on the grounds that i has nothing to do with the company. Just because it was published in a magazine issue dedicated to the company does not make it relevant to a Wikipedia article. -Multivariable (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I like to hear your claims that it has nothing to do with the company. Let's hear your reasoning. Your opinion BTW is not reasoning. Benjwong (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not up to me to tell you what something is NOT, it is up to you to show that this is indeed relevant to the company. All this appears to be is some superstition in the area, which is supposed to make someone believe that these ghosts somehow had something to do with the suicides. Not only is it not verifiable (WP:VERIFY) or reliable, it is borderline speculation. Thus, it makes no sense for this to be in the article. -Multivariable (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you that this company's chairman hired fengshui and spiritual masters and paid them money along with buddhist monks etc to come to the shenzhen site to check on spiritual activities. You have plenty of western sources that mention that part. Why does the chairman of foxconn become so "superstitious" like you said. Is because he knew way back this was a burial ground. Benjwong (talk) 05:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a quick source I just grabbed to show monks were invited at one point. Source is BBC, should be ok. Please further verify if you like. Even a pro-CPC site admits as much as 30 monks were hired at one time by foxconn. CPC site usually do not ever talk about this stuff. Benjwong (talk) 05:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me if I missed something, but I don't understand how hiring Buddhist monks has anything to do with what happened 200-300 years ago. Wouldn't this be more suitable for a location article (e.g. Shenzhen)? Neither of the two articles you mentioned says anything about a gravesite. If anything, they (the monks) were brought in to deal with the suicides themselves, not for any "residual" ghosts. Quote from China.org.cn article: "After the seventh suicide took place on May 6, Foxconn officials invited eminent monks to "release the souls from purgatory"." -Multivariable (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The source explicitly said "thousand babies buried" with Terry Gou on the cover. Plenty of details about the site that foxconn was built on, and the aftermath is that he hired monks on site for treatment. That part is where western media began coverage. You can look for more sources that do suggest it is a grave site. I am not stopping you. The BBC source was just some quick link to show the media did follow through. Benjwong (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

There are (sacred/non sacred/tourist) burial grounds in every country, every state and province. It does not belong in the shenzhen article. Benjwong (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the graveyard bit is interesting, but certainly not a "controversy". I also don't like the phrase "Ghosthead lake is the location for numerous suicides and other types of deaths". I agree with Multi. that this doesn't belong in the article as an explanation for the 2010 Foxconn suicides. I propose keeping the content with the exception of the suicide phrase and moving it from the "Controversies" to either its own section or the "Production base" section. Is that an agreeable compromise? Fleetham (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The suicide info about Ghosthead lake is kept very short because the lake suicides have more to do with romance and other citizen-personal issues. Even if you split the production base info into a separate article, IMHO this still fits into its own controversial section. 1. Why is it not publicly disclosed by Gou or the government? 2. When the sites were built, what was the government's position in suppressing this aspect of the culture? Why suppress it now? 3. The Peiziyuan Ghosthead lake and the 2010 company suicides are part of an area where locals describe to sound more like a bermuda triangle. Where if animals wander off, they are afraid to bring them back. 4. Was there political motivation with ending up this piece of land or was it just a case of Ancient Chinese urban planning failing? 5. If LCD price fixing is controversial, how is all this not controversial? Benjwong (talk) 17:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

LCD price fixing is controversial because it's a breach of law. So it's "automatically" controversial (although it may not technically be a controversy: perhaps it should be removed from that section). The Foxconn suicides and this graveyard thing are different: the former is a controversy because it received much press attention, the latter is not because it hasn't. Just look at the Wikipedia page for controversy. The graveyard thing certainly doesn't qualify. I don't know if you'll agree with that, but are we in agreement that the mention of suicides should be removed? Fleetham (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

That ghosthead lake suicide reference is removed. I am in agreement on that. So I further looked up the definition of controversy. It is discussed, just not by media regularly or openly. Benjwong (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. And I think it's fine in the "Controversies" section; I don't know if it is a controversy (maybe it is in some parts of China), but even if it isn't I think it is better placed in that section than any other. I know I said it belongs in the "Production bases" section, but after thinking about it that doesn't seem the correct place. Fleetham (talk) 19:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see how these sacred grounds are a controversy. Has anyone ever linked them to Foxconn in a negative way? I think the section should have an additional sentence that clarifies how they are related to a Foxconn controversy, or be removed. Facugaich (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding my original point. It's a lot of curious history and superstition, but how it has any direct relation to the suicides is beyond my comprehension. -Multivariable (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

There were full investigations with foxconn's chairman and these supernatural incidents. The core of the issue/controversy was the burial site being the background of the area. This was all publicized in HK magazines, and was discussed (in that part of the world). If user Facugaich wants to challenge it, please show some sources that it was never a burial site, the site was not on company territory, no investigation ever existed etc. Benjwong (talk) 21:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, first of all, the existance of a burial site underneath Foxconn's facilities in not what is being disputed. The problem with the paragraph is that it doesn't explain how these burial grounds have ever been related to a controversy featuring Foxconn. None of the two articles you posted above in this same discussion say anything about them, they only talk about hiring monks to "conduct a religious rite to dispel misfortune" and "help workers". So, if these magazines you mentioned do actually explain how the suicides, the burial site and Foxconn are linked (you talk about some kind of investigation), I believe an explanation should be paraphrased into the section. Facugaich (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree here, I don't understand how these are linked either. Is it controversial because bad stuff happened before on the land and bad stuff happened recently? I think no matter how much media speculation there is, it still borders on WP:OR (more specifically, for "reliable, published sources"). Yes, people can say stuff about ghosts and the company can do some public relations stuff to appease them (e.g. hiring monks, etc.), but it still doesn't say how the land's history is controversial in any way. If anything, it would be more appropriate for a location article (Shenzhen) since the land pre-dates the company by hundreds of years. -Multivariable (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Foxconn in South America

At least in Brazil, there are 5 factories, not only one. The article is outdated. Three factories are based on the same state, São Paulo, in the cities of Jundiaí, Indaiatuba and Sorocaba. The other two are based in Santa Rita do Sapucaí and Manaus.

Those informations can be verified here: http://www.estadao.com.br/estadaodehoje/20110424/not_imp710000,0.php

4th largest newspaper in Brazil

http://g1.globo.com/economia/negocios/noticia/2011/05/diretores-da-foxconn-visitam-o-brasil-na-proxima-semana-diz-pimentel.html

G1 website belongs to Globo, largest media group in South America, 5th or 4th in the World

http://br.noticias.yahoo.com/reuni%C3%A3o-jundia%C3%AD-pode-indicar-op%C3%A7%C3%A3o-foxconn-20110416-055000-908.html And we also got Yahoo news...

Thanks to google translator! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.160.101.79 (talk) 02:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Focus of this article

This article is on the entire "Foxconn Technology Group," which includes Hon Hai Precision Industry Co. Ltd. (the Taiwan registered parent company) and "Foxconn International Holdings Ltd" (the Hong Kong holding company). Discovering the business structure of Foxconn would require a bit of digging (and we might not even get to the bottom of it), but this article is not solely on the legal entity in HK, but the entire group, as Hon Hai redirects here.

It does not make sense to create a separate article for every Foxconn entity because there are many of them, and they are centrally controlled.--Jiang (talk) 17:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The redirect is simply for convenience--there is no Hon Hai article. Even if the danger of having an article specifically for "Foxconn Holdings" is people may add info. that is actually about Hon Hai or "Foxconn Group", I feel it's important to have an article about an actual legal entity, Foxconn Internat'l Holdings Ltd, not a contrived concatenation: "Foxconn Tech. Group", which may be a catch-all term invented by Hon Hai. What specific worries or objections do you have to an article about the listed company Foxconn Internat'l Holdings? My specific objection to your suggestion is this: it will be very difficult to winkle out what info. solely regards, for example, Hon Hai from a page about several legal entities. Fleetham (talk) 18:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there are multiple legal entities, and the Foxconn International Holdings Ltd is not the most significant of them all. I don't see why we need to pick one legal entity, since we've defined the topic as a "business group" as opposed to a "corporation." But if we had to pick one, it would be Hon Hai where control of the group lies, and not the Hong Kong holding company.

The business structure is of course murky, but we cannot leave the impression that it is not by unnecessarily limiting the scope of this article. As far as I can tell, the only thing relevant specifically to Foxconn International Holdings Ltd in the current text is the listing of shares on the Hong Kong stock exchange. I wouldn't mind individual articles for the most significant subsidiaries (perhaps one for FIH), but the entire Hon Hai/Foxconn Group needs to have an article.--Jiang (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your specific concern. The page, as it stands, it about Foxconn International Holdings, Ltd. It's not about Hon Hai. My point is that it will be difficult for someone who is interested in the operations and services of a specific legal entity to find that on a page about a contrived concatenation, viz. "Foxconn Technology Group". This is a legitimate concern, and if you would like to make a page about Hon Hai why not do that? Fleetham (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how this page is about Foxconn International Holdings, Ltd. and not about Hon Hai. There are multiple Hon Hai subsidiaries with the name "Foxconn" in it. Why would an article about "Foxconn" have to be limited to the Hong Kong investment holding company rather than the various companies with legal ownership over the factories in China? --Jiang (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if anything you say is true, and you did not address my concern. Is it not far easier to weed out information related to Hon Hai ourselves rather than make an interested party do the same? I challenge you to find one piece of information that pertains to Hon Hai instead of FIH that's on the page. In all honesty, I'd rather you concede the point and move on: there's no reason to insist upon changing the focus of the article and good reason not to. Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

From FIH's website: "A truly global company and subsidiary of Hon Hai, FIH employs over 110,000 people..." This number represents a minority of total Foxconn employees. The Fortune Global 500 (2011) rankings states that Foxconn has 836,000 employees. Further, the FIH website claims the focus of FIH is on handsets: "we offer a comprehensive array of services for leaders in the handset and wireless communications industries."

Instead of purging information about the entire Foxconn group, why not just create a new article for FIH? I am not "changing" the focus of the article - it has always been about the entire business group, instead of a single subsidiary, until you changed it. You even left the Chinese name of "Foxconn Technology Group" in place after you edited it! --Jiang (talk) 04:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The first link states Hon Hai has 830K employees. But the second makes me think you have a point. Fleetham (talk) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Biased?

This article seems to me to be way biased to the negative. Given the size and nature of Hon Hai Industries / Foxconn and given the wealth of on-line sources, it seems a pity that there's not more substance to the article. Right now, it just seems more like a vehicle for pushing negative stories about the company, given the recent controversies. Note that I've actually visited Foxconn in Longhua over a number of years now (I was there today!) and, being an employee of one of their clients, I would have a massive COI so I'm not touching this in any way. Just to point out, really, that this article is pretty skewed and just appears to me to be a summary of a half-dozen articles from Western publications. It would be nice to have some neutral, disinterested editor work on building up this article.

Oh, an there are a number of Free pics of the factory complex on Panoramio here, here, here and here. Someone could maybe upload them to Commons? - Alison ^❤ 10:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I worked on-site at the Longhua plant (not just visited) for almost two years from the start of 2006 to the end of 2007, have no major beef with the company - in fact I got my start in patenting working in their in-house patent office, left on amicable terms, and used my savings from my work there to fund my legal education. I do not consider there to be a conflict of interest in me editing the article as I am not working for them at the moment.

However, I don't think this article is excessively negative in tone. If anything, for a manufacturer which suffers the kind of problems Foxconn does (explosions, suicides, attempts to silence journalists that border on human rights violations etc.), Foxconn isn't given enough of a hard time, even accounting for its size. FOARP (talk) 11:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but compare/contrast with similar industries like Celestica, Quanta or Sanmina-SCI - they all have detailed histories and introductions, etc, but Foxconn gets only two lines of history, then it's down to business of cataloging misdeeds. I'm not trying to minimize these things, or dispute them - I'm just saying that the article has little else in it. Then I see stuff like the Chi Mei Innolux fines re. LCD price fixing. Foxconn gets tagged with that one even though they're a minority shareholder and only bought-in months earlier. Contrast that with the article treatment that LG Display gets for the same offense. Spot the difference? Even a quick scan of the words used shows a certain POV creeping in. Anyways - I've said enough. I'm not going to dispute it or anything or even edit, but it would be nice to have someone unconnected go over the page, is all - Alison ^❤ 13:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see it. There's about 4-5 paragraphs and an info-box where the worst that is said is that it's secretive and has experienced prominent scandals. Having sat through job interviews when I was asked some very tough questions on 1) why I would work for such a company and whether I think it reflects badly on my judgement, and 2) how accurate the reports coming out about what goes on at Foxconn are, I can tell you that this is a fair description of Foxconn's public image. Thankfully I've managed to field these questions pretty well just by saying that it's a huge company in which it was very difficult to know what was going on, that I joined before the scandals came out, that the worst of the reports only came out after I left, and that I never personally saw such things going on although the reports were not a huge surprise to me given certain aspects of the management culture there.

Really, Foxconn's Wikipedia page is just a symptom of a general problem that Foxconn has - it's too secretive, that its responses to scandal has been to try to silence critics rather than admit problems, that it has never really tried to get its message across. The reason why the main focus of this article is on the problems at Foxconn is because Foxconn owes its prominence to its problems - nothing would make Terry Gou happier than if nothing whatsoever were known about Foxconn, good or bad.

Oh, and as far as I am aware, it's perfectly sound to treat Innolux as part of Foxconn/Hon Hai. For the purposes of in-house patenting this was exactly how they were treated back in 2006 - all their applications went through us.FOARP (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not buying the "treat Innolux as part of Foxconn/Hon Hai" argument, though. The same story is listed under Samsung Electronics and LG Display, but not on Samsung or LG Corp. (the parent companies). There were discussions on those pages to keep the stories under their respective subsidiaries. Also, I'm not sure how the Chengdu explosion falls under "Controversies"; it seems like the section should be more accurately labeled "Incidents". The subsection on the Indian protests doesn't even mention Foxconn's actions or responses (only the Indian authorities'); it seems like a pretty clear indication of trying to add negative, one-sided information. And don't even get me started on the "Sacred burial ground" section and how that's even remotely related to the company. -Multivariable (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, reading this page is the first I've ever heard of the whole sacred bruial grounds thing. Makes Foxconn sound like something out of a somewhat derivative horror movie plot. FOARP (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you've both had the opportunity to visit Foxconn and have (or have had) a vested interest in the company's success (i.e. possible COI), I'll take a look at re-wording or re-arranging some sections in the coming days. My major concerns I've mentioned above (e.g. Innolux as a part of Foxconn, labeling of accidents/incidents as "controversies", the whole sacred burial section, etc.). An expansion on the history of the company seems almost necessary as well. -Multivariable (talk) 20:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Changes: Ok, here are the changes I'm proposing to the "Controversies" section:

• Removing the LCD price fixing section, for the same reasons Samsung and LG Corp. don't include it but list it on their subsidiaries' pages. The same information is already listed on the Chimei Innolux page.
• Moving the "iPad assembly line explosion" section into a new section titled "Accidents".
• Removing the "Striking Indian workers arrested in India" section: Unless the company did something in reaction to the workers striking that was controversial, I don't find this notable especially since what was "controversial" were the actions of the Indian government (i.e. arresting the workers).
• Removing the "Sacred burial ground" section: Per the discussion above, there still isn't a firm reason why this is even relevant to the company, much less in the "Controversies" section. Nothing in the current section even relates to the company, and the history of a location would better belong in the Shenzhen article (it pre-dates the company by hundreds of years). It's also lacking sources besides a single (sensationalist) magazine (East Week).

-Multivariable (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I really think you need to research out these topics before accusing other editors of putting up biased contents. I am open to moving all the controversies to a separate controversies page for people who find the contents too sensitive to handle on a mainpage. If this page had 100+ editors talking about the burial site, you will not have these complaints. The people who really know the burial site topics are living in censored regions. Benjwong (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I take it you are only referring to the "sacred burial ground" section and not the other three proposals. I haven't made any accusations and I assume good faith. This is a discussion page and if there are questions, this is where they should be. You make it sound like a conspiracy theory ("The people who really know the burial site topics are living in censored regions."), when all I'm asking for is reliable sources (WP:RELIABLE). Other editors have asked the same questions, but you keep saying that you read this or heard that without ever giving any verifiable sources. East Week is a sensationalist magazine, and thus what they say should be checked against other sources (WP:RS). Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth (WP:VERIFY). But that doesn't get down to my main concern (see above) that the article doesn't state how this is directly related to the company. As it is currently, it's just the history of a piece of land. Unfortunately, there are not 100 editors pushing for this to be included; it seems to be primarily you, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be discussed. There are also other issues (WP:BURDEN, WP:NONENG, WP:REDFLAG, WP:FRINGE, etc.), but let's leave those for now. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I've already made the first three proposed changes, but was waiting on more discussion for the fourth change (about the sacred burial site). My concerns are the same (see above). Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 18:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I thought you were going to research something to put up sources to counter some of this info instead of deleting based on personal opinions. Benjwong (talk) 23:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It isn't my responsibility to counter whatever someone wants to put into an article; it's the responsibility of the person who wants to add the information to provide the necessary sources to back it up. I assumed that since you decided not to add anything to the discussion for over two weeks that you were fine with it. Apparently, I was wrong. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming by your lack of response in this discussion that you are fine with removing the section. Thanks! -Multivariable (talk) 06:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Sacred burial ground section

I am requesting comment regarding the "Sacred burial ground" section of this article (under "Controversies"). There seems to be some disagreement regarding the relevance of the section to the article and the reliability/verifiability of the source. The topic was previously discussed twice (here and here), but no consensus was reached. Thanks in advance! -Multivariable (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

• I think that to include information about this we would need some coverage in reliable sources specifically linking the company with the burial site, and saying that it is controversial. Although I don't have access to the Eastweek magazine article, it looks like the current section might be implying a connection without direct evidence in sources, which would be WP:SYNTHESIS. Unless we can find some good evidence, I think the section should be removed. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've attempted to find other sources, but all I've been able to find are ones that are blogs (WP:BLOGS), use Wikipedia as a source (WP:CIRCULAR), or refer back to the original EastWeek article. -Multivariable (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Commenting as an outsider here, I would advocate an immediate move for the section from the controversies section; a toning down of the current wording; and a request at WP:REX that the East Week article be used for verification. It seems unlikely to me that mere choice of location near something else could be controversial to this degree, and the section definitely needs to be rewritten in a less deliberately inflammatory tone. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:14, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I pulled the section. It may be relevant information somewhere on WP if better sourced, but I see nothing to suggest it belongs here. Rich Farmbrough, 22:04, 22 October 2011 (UTC).

I agree with you guys. Please remember to use edit summaries when you remove stuff, Rich. [7] II | (t - c) 16:44, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like this content was problematic or may not have belonged here but editing the subject content during an RFC is troubling. RFCBot today suggested I contribute here but it appears to be a fait accompli. Is it worthwhile going back to review previous versions or should we consider the RFC resolved? Jojalozzo 16:47, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Content widely recognised as problematic can and should be changed during an RFC. The question that remains is whether or not the current form is ideal or needs further revision. By all means go back and look at the previous versions for context though. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 19:26, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Is not even a question of verifiability. That info is there if you are willing to look. I cannot deny that this is an area probably no media is going back to revisit. There will be less and less sources. Old sources will disappear over time. In fact this company probably took way too much heat considering how open they are compared to many other mainland companies. It is unfortunate readers see it as a target on the company, when in fact it was a very notable study of the burial ground site. I cannot blame them, after all there is a whole page dedicated to the suicide victims. But the reality is that the hiring of the 10+ monks has to be some kind of record. That is a link user multivariable refuse to accept. And this was not just a regularly marked graveyard, but one consisting of people who were mistreated by fellow villagers, screwed by the justice system, neglect etc. Benjwong (talk) 17:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

My take:

• There is no mention in the article as to the burial site being disturbed during plant construction (though I think that is the implication). Without that statement there's little reason for mention of the site in this article.
• Even if the East Week piece connects the site to the plant other than by proximity, this one source seems insufficient support for the claim.
• From what I can tell, East Week (www.eastweek.com.hk) is a Chinese language publication and does not publish an English version. For [[WP:V|verification] purposes, a non-English source for a controversial topic such as this needs the original text and a translation in a footnote.

Jojalozzo 20:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

So does this mean by putting up the non-English text (here?), it is automatically good enough to keep the section? It is best if other people translate it further. Benjwong (talk) 05:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Clients?

Many of the clients remain unsourced, suggest they are removed untill appopriate refrences are given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.200.116.133 (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore citations include speculative news about customers that doesn't seem to be confirmed. This article is completely biased to badmouth companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.4.134.24 (talk) 15:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This article blows the suicide thing way out of proportion.

So, in order to balance it out, I added the following:

"Although the suicide rate of Foxconn employees is actually lower than the country's overall suicide rate, the media tried to make it look as if Foxconn had a problem with its employees committing suicide."

The reason this needs to be included is because without comparing the company's suicide rate to that of the general population, the suicide issue is completely meaningless.

Someone reverted my addition, but did not comment on why. I put it back in.

What do others think of including or not including this information?

ThFSPB (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I just added this reference as well. ThFSPB (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

..."the media tried to make it look" is a problem unless you can find a reference. Also I note the amateur demographers have not controlled the suicide rate for age, gender and employment (I believe young unemployed males are highest risk in the West). Rich Farmbrough, 19:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

Why clients choose Foxconn—Promotion-ish

I removed the following paragraph from "Major customers" (formerly part of a subsection called "Why clients choose Foxconn"):

Former Apple executives said that Apple uses Foxconn and similar Chinese companies because their employees are more flexible, diligent, and skilled than American workers, and are willing to work harder. For example, shortly before the iPhone's original release to the public in 2007, Apple redesigned the new device's screen from a plastic material to non-scratch glass. Chinese companies provided industrial engineers to manage the changeover. The glass screens began arriving at midnight. A foreman roused 8,000 workers inside the company's dormitories, gave each one a biscuit and cup of tea, guided them to a workstation and started a 12-hour shift fitting glass screens into frames. An executive said, "The speed and flexibility is breathtaking. There's no American plant that can match that."

The reason is that it sounds like a press release or other promotional material, and in addition it too closely resembles the wording of the New York Times article. In addition, the cited article did not necessarily attribute the glass redesign to Foxconn. I'm not sure how to work the information back into the article at this time, so I might ask someone else to do their best job at it. Also, the text of the paragraph that followed it I moved into "Operations," so that "Major customers" is now solely about major customers. Michael Patrick (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

(1) It's not promotional. This is an article in the New York Times, which rather than promoting Foxconn was attempting to be balanced and was quite critical, especially when discussing working conditions.

Foxconn is obviously successful, and it's important to ask why. The NYT interviewed Apple executives who actually made purchasing decisions and explained why they favored Foxconn.

The only sense in which it's promotional is that it was quoting executives who finally decided to use Foxconn as a supplier.

In any case, according to WP:PRESERVE, if you think it's too promotional, instead of deleting it, you should find a WP:RS that says something to the contrary. I don't think you'll find one. Most people agree that Foxconn and the other Apple suppliers do their job very efficiently. But if somebody disagrees, I'd like to see it in the article.

(2) It's not plagiarism. First, it cites the source. Plagiarism is an unattributed copying.

Second, it doesn't follow the NYT article too closely. This is a 200-word paraphrase and summary of a 5,000-word article. If I copied anything directly, I put it in quotes. If you look at the original article, you'll see that.

When you use WP:RSs, you have to follow their wording to some degree. Otherwise you'd just be writing whatever you felt like. You could distort their meaning.

Many WP articles contain blocks of quoted text that are much longer than these 200 words. That's why we have block quotes. Would you prefer to replace it with a block quote?

This summary would comply with any university rules for any term paper in any accredited college in the U.S., and it would meet the standards of any academic or popular publisher.

If you think this is plagiarism or resembles the NYT article too closely, I'd like you to explain why.

I'd like to see you try to rewrite it yourself, without eliminating any essential content.

The essential content, don't forget, is why suppliers think Foxconn is so successful. -- Nbauman (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

On WP:PRESERVE, we're told, "Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't." Sorry to remove the text, but I couldn't figure out a way to fix it at that time. At least I put it on the talk page for potential future return to the article.

On plagiarism, some of the text and structure is almost exactly the same as the New York Times article. "A foreman immediately roused 8,000 workers inside the company's dormitories" is text from the NYT article that also appears here exactly the same except with the word immediately dropped. The text here that says "The glass screens began arriving at midnight" strongly resembles the NYT's "New screens began arriving at the plant near midnight" in the way they are used as structural elements in each statement's respective articles. (Not to mention this moment the text called "midnight" works in the context of a journalist's analytic writing but not necessarily in an encyclopedia's fact-reference writing.) Attribution and changing around a few words are not enough; unplagiarized text should be either original text summarizing the source's ideas or direct quotes (with quote marks), in each case with a citation. Whether that matches WP:PLAGIARISM or not, that's a pretty common standard of avoiding plagiarism.

Finally, the NYT article uses artful ways to attribute that quick-turnaround feat with the glass screens to Foxconn. When I first read the article, it wasn't fully clear that Foxconn achieved that feat; an anecdote midway through the article tells an anecdote that is apparently but not explicitly the same moment. That ambiguity combined with the WP text's very close similarity to the NYT's earlier mention of the glass-screen moment seemed to raise a flag. Maybe I was too quick to move the text to the talk page, but now that it's back I think I'll be refining it for the above plagiarism reasons. Plus, it probably belongs more under the Chinese-operations subsection than either "Major customers" or the general "Operations" heading. Michael Patrick (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

One more thing I forgot to mention—the second paragraph from what used to be "Why clients choose Foxconn" (a heading which I might note also set off a flag) I did remove but merged into the Chinese-operations section. That's why you now see in Chinese operations the references to the 230,000 workers, the "a quarter of the employees live in the dormitories," and the "12-hour days for 6 days each week," which weren't there before. Also, the bit about 40% of consumer electronics I merged into the first sentence of "Operations." So when I move and revise the "Former Apple executives said" paragraph, I'll be removing that second paragraph, because it's no longer necessary. Michael Patrick (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's how I reworded the paragraphs (which I moved into the China section). I tried to keep the same points in there, including the recently added Krugman point on industrial clusters. Michael Patrick (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No, your rewrite doesn't say the same thing, and you don't express it as well as I did or the NYT did. For example, the NYT story quoted an executive: "The speed and flexibility is breathtaking. There's no American plant that can match that." That makes the point of why they're using Foxconn. You deleted that quote and buried the subject in the middle.

This NYT story is an important story. It's being discussed all over the Internet -- in other words, it meets WP:WEIGHT. If this article on Foxcomm is going to make any sense, it has to explain why Foxcomm is so successful. The NYT article got it across. You didn't. They know how to write. You don't.

Once again, plagiarism is unattributed borrowing. If you attribute, it's not plagiarism. I've been paraphrasing articles like this (for publication) for a long time. This is standard rewriting. This is the way the NYT itself summarizes articles elsewhere. You can do a Google News search for this NYT story and see how other WP:RSs quote it. Many of them use block quotes, like Krugman. If you don't want to use my paraphrase (which is shorter), then I'll use block quotes. You can't explain it as well as the NYT does. -- Nbauman (talk) 04:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Really, if a piece of text uses nearly the same words that another writer so carefully selected but then passes it off as the WP editor's own phrasing by omitting quotes, that's less than fully honest, even if it has a superscript 11 next to it. Anyway, I'm not sure in what way my edits omitted the "why" of Foxconn's success, as it made the same points in summarized form without copying Duhigg and Bradsher's words. Nevertheless, my rewrites, including the points you wanted included, were mostly removed as of this recent edit. You might like to have a chat with the user who made those edits, since most of that "why" is now deleted, including the glass-screen anecdote. Michael Patrick (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not "less than fully honest". (I don't think you realize that you're calling another editor dishonest, which of course would violate WP:NPA.)

Anyone who has read the Modern Language Association style book, or written a term paper, or clicked on Internet links, or checked citations against the originals should understand that the text is a paraphrase of somebody else's words. Everything in Wikipedia has a source. You can paraphrase it accurately or inaccurately.

Yes, the superscript 11 makes a big difference -- a citation is the difference between proper research and plagiarism.

I personally prefer to use block quotes, but some people on Wikipedia don't like that. I think the solution here is to use block quotes. --Nbauman (talk) 04:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I want to employ that foreman who "roused 8,000 workers inside the company's dormitories, gave each one a biscuit and cup of tea" - that would have taken me most of the 12 hour shift. Rich Farmbrough, 19:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC).

NYT story on working conditions

Here's a good WP:RS for working conditions. It's part of the NYT series.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/business/ieconomy-apples-ipad-and-the-human-costs-for-workers-in-china.html?pagewanted=all Human Costs Are Built Into an iPad By CHARLES DUHIGG and DAVID BARBOZA Published: January 25, 2012 --Nbauman (talk) 04:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Foxconn's Other Dirty Secret: The World's Largest 'Internship' Program

http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/2/15/foxconn-s-other-dirty-secret-the-world-s-largest-internship-program 85.76.103.182 (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected 12 hours

Due to the same sourced info being removed by more than one IP I have semi'd the page for 12 hours. Meanwhile and after the semi expires, of course, please keep any newbies informed politely of the way WP works, and encourage them to edit collaboratively. Rich Farmbrough, 02:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC).

The child labour thing should be clarified. "Some amount" is clumsy and it should be made clear if we are talking "underage" i.e. illegal to work at all, or "underage" where limited working hours and conditions are the legal requirement and are these being broken? "Child labour" sounds like 8-12 year-olds (which is a real problem elsewhere in the world) so if this is 15 year olds where the limit is 16 it is misleading. Rich Farmbrough, 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

OK I changed it to reflect the source. Rich Farmbrough, 03:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

There is more in the sources about hexane. Rich Farmbrough, 03:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC).

Foxconn Hires Top Spinners To Defend Its Image

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/12/02/25/0139247/foxconn-hires-top-spinners-to-defend-its-image 85.77.107.128 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

This American Life story retracted

Here's the press release that TAL released. It's been picked up by many WP:RSs.

http://www.chicagopublicmedia.org/sites/default/files/Retraction%20Press%20Release%20Final.pdf

This American Life Retracts Story Says It Can't Vouch for the Truth of Mike Daisey's Monologue about Apple in China

This American Life and American Public Media’s Marketplace will reveal that a story first broadcast in January on This American Life contained numerous fabrications.

This American Life will devote its entire program this weekend to detailing the errors in the story, which was an excerpt of Mike Daisey's critically acclaimed one-man show, "The Agony and the Ecstasy of Steve Jobs." In it, Daisey tells how he visited a factory owned by Foxconn that manufactures iPhones and iPads in Shenzhen China. He has performed the monologue in theaters around the country; it's currently at the Public Theater in New York. Tonight’s This American Life program will include a segment from Marketplace’s Rob Schmitz, and interviews with Daisey himself. Marketplace will feature a shorter version of Schmitz's report earlier in the evening.

When the original 39-minute excerpt was broadcast on This American Life on January 6, 2012, Marketplace China Correspondent Rob Schmitz wondered about its truth. Marketplace had done a lot of reporting on Foxconn and Apple’s supply chain in China in the past, and Schmitz had first-hand knowledge of the issues. He located and interviewed Daisey's Chinese interpreter Li Guifen (who goes by the name Cathy Lee professionally with westerners). She disputed much of what Daisey has been telling theater audiences since 2010 and much of what he said on the radio.

During fact checking before the broadcast of Daisey's story, This American Life staffers asked Daisey for this interpreter's contact information. Daisey told them her real name was Anna, not Cathy as he says in his monologue, and he said that the cell phone number he had for her didn't work any more. He said he had no way to reach her. ... --Nbauman (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkey?

Foxconn also has a factory in Corlu, Turkey. http://www.foxconn.com.tr/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.238.91.132 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Vague expression, "are thought to be"

In the History section, there is a sentence, "In addition, employees at overseas companies are thought to be more flexible, diligent, and skilled than American workers.[16]" This is kinda weak wording (are thought, by whom?) that implies that most everyone thinks this way - quite an implication for such a controversial statement. On the other hand, it is a very close paraphrase from the source, but the source says "Apple executives believe..." instead of "it is believed." I think the wording should be changed to reflect who thinks this, namely Apple executives, and then we could also take it into active voice. Should I go ahead and make this change, or let an editor do it? 72.95.158.125 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

At the very least the sentence should make clear that this is the purely view of Apple executives. Without an unambiguious statement from Apple stating that the company in fact believes this the whole sentence should probably come though.Rangoon11 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted that sentence, as you suggested (this is the OP of this talk thread). 128.237.226.164 (talk) 15:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Students say they are forced to work on new iPhone 5

http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/?id=511136 Palosirkka (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Troubles in Mexico

I was wondering if anyone considers the "Troubles extend to Mexico" section worth keeping. It seems like an overly long treatment of a inconsequential issue. There have been a few recent incidents such as the company acknowledging use of child labor and a possible strike at a Mainland China production base

I say the Mexico section should go and the two above incidents should be included on the page. Fleetham (talk) 17:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The heading is certainly non-neutral and should be changed. The incidents included in the section do also appear pretty trivial in the context of the scale of this company. A sentence or two would suffice.Rangoon11 (talk) 19:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I see the title has been changed to "Riot in Mexico", but the consequentiality hasn't been addressed. For a company with 1.23 million employees a very lightly-sourced incident from three years ago does not seem to warrant a full section. The fact that no one has added better sources (the only two at present are a Gizmodo article linking to a pay wall-site and a Bloomberg article detailing the company's anger at media sensationalism regarding the incident) makes me think the section should be entirely removed. Even if there's a case to keep it, the section needs to be better sourced. -Thomas Craven (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Patents, Android, Kindle

See: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Apr13/04-16FoxconnPR.aspx

I was surprised since I thought they manufactured iPhones and not Androids. Can't see that I'm wrong. See my edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Foxconn&diff=557753522&oldid=557308883

Note Kindle Fire runs (a "fork" of) Android, but the ref for Kindle didn't support Kindle Fire (note original Kindle has nothing to do with Android), not even Kindle as a whole (or its software), just screens it seemed. Maybe they are about to manufacture "Android hardware" or use its software, I'm not sure what the patents relate to (and note they can be used against non-Android stuff). Maybe the deal should be mentioned or my Kindle-edit be clarified further so no one mistakes Kindle for Kindle Fire. comp.arch (talk) 23:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Please take care when editing; the cite states that Foxconn assembles Kindles not e-ink screens for same. Fleetham (talk) 18:16, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. Still it looks like it's only the 'original Kindle', or 'Kindle (with e-ink screen)', not Kindle Fire or later. Maybe the article should reflect that in some way (either quote).

Anyway I still can't see what they have to do with Android, except for the patents. They might me noteworthy or any Android devieces that I don't know to exists. comp.arch (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

While the term Kindle may, in fact, refer to Amazon's entire range of tablets and ereaders, I believe that few are likely to think you're referring to anything other than the ereaders unless you explicitly mention "Fire." That said, if you prefer please change the mention to something like "Kindle ereader," "Kindle reader," or "Kindle ebook reader." Fleetham (talk) 16:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Maybe this is a non-issue. I was just surprised they made an "Android Kindle", that was a mistaken assumption. Not sure the above would prevent that misunderstanding. Maybe "Android non-Android version", I'm not sure that is justified as a good phrase or "Android (e-ink)" assuming people don't link that to Android (and know what e-ink is..) comp.arch (talk) 09:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Kindle readers run android. The Fire(s) likely do. Fleetham (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the page, but it turns out that Foxconn likely does make or has made at least one version of the Fire. See these 2011 articles: [8], [9], and [10]. Sorry I only checked up on this after you made the change! Fleetham (talk) 07:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox OS

http://www.techhive.com/article/2040584/foxconn-developing-5-firefox-os-devices-could-include-tablet.html

Not list until something produced? As manucaturer for Mozilla? Or just a partner? comp.arch (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)