Talk:Huawei/Archive 3

Pronunciation

What's the phonetic pronunciation? I'm having a little trouble figuring out how /ˈhuɑˈweɪ/ is supposed to be pronounced. Is it "Wah-Way", "Who-Ah-Way", or something different? Thanks. 130.102.158.16 (talk) 07:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

The mdbg Chinese dictionary has a tool that will pronounce characters for you. If you go to that tool and type 'huawei' into the input box and click go, you'll get the Chinese characters (there are actually two entries, one is for the company). There's a '>>' icon that will bring up a pop-up menu, and if you mouse over to the speaker icon it will pronounce the characters for you. Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

But I have my own question about pronounciation. The article gives the 'wei' in second tone, whereas the mdbg dictionary reports for this fourth tone. Both tones are permissible for this character. So, is the article correct in reporting second tone, and do I need to contact the mdbg folks and have them change it to second tone? I am unfamiliar with the company, and do not know.

Well, 'wei' has two pronunciations. The 'wei' in the 2nd tone means "action", while the 'wei' in the 4th tone means "for". So both this article and your dictionary are right. And as far as I know, we Chinese pronounce the company name with the 2nd tone, as you usually doesn't end a company name with "for"... --Ahyangyi (talk) 18:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Bill Jefferys (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you not know how to pronounce an "h" or something? Why would you pronounce it with a "w" sound? Seriously, it's not that hard. Just pronounce it literally. 00:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.80.59 (talk)

It's not an English h! Chinese h is the sound in Scottish "loch" or Spanish j. --2.245.196.189 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That is not entirely true. Depending on the vowel that follows, an h in pinyin can sound like an English h, however, in this case it is like a Spanish j. I'm not that good with IPA but if I understand the list on Standard Chinese phonology correctly, it should be /ˈxwaˈwei/.There-is-life-on-mars (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is true. We are talking about the standard pronunciation here. Chinese H only sounds like English H when it's pronounced by certain southern speakers. It is [χ] by default, a sound further back in the mouth than [x], much like the Iberian Spanish J, which is also usually mistaken as [x]. It may be weaker in unstressed position, but it's definitely there. --2001:16B8:3157:3C00:E456:2B16:6DC3:CBAD (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciation in other languages

I see an earlier comment 'Do you not know how to pronounced an "h" or something?' In many languages the "h" sound simply doesn't exist, and even the English "w" sound is uncommon. Here in Slovenia, where I'm spending a holiday and watch a lot of TV, the Huawei ads refer to the brand as (English phonetics) "KHOO-ah-VAY". The Latin spelling Huawei is entirely based on English, but suggests different pronunciations in different languages. Perhaps not such a wise choice of name for an international company, as Korea's Lucky Goldstar discovered to its cost - Lucky Goldstar sounds embarrassingly comical in English, suggesting a cheap, pretentious business with no international flair, and eventually the firm switched to the initials LG. Huawei may mean all kinds of nice things in Chinese, but people outside China will have no idea about that!188.230.248.85 (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Slovenian pronunciation is perfect for Chinese names like Huawei. I don't know what your problem is. Just pronounce it like Huavej in Slovenian. The H is not an English H anyway, it's like in Slovenian. And even the Chinese W is like Slovenian V. People are just too lazy to read, Huawei can sound correct in all major languages if people stop being ignorant. --94.134.89.142 (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

List of internet providers they are serving

Wouldn't it be interesting to enumerate all the internet providing customers of Huawei? 112.198.90.99 (talk) 04:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC) I don't think so, because today almost all of the big companies and many midsize companies are customers of Huawei--88.128.80.140 (talk) 21:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

SPC or PBE switches?

I'm a bit confused about the telephone exchange switches that Huawei first manufactured. I'm seeing some sources refer to private branch exchange switches, and others to stored program controlled switches. Would appreciate if anyone can clarify the story here. TheBlueCanoe 03:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent performance -- year-dependent dates have to be changed indicating actual year

The section has to be revised to remove references such as "next year" (which apparently refers to 2010), "in the next 12 months" (seems to be also referring to 2010). 75.119.254.158 (talk) 19:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

honor

the article is missing any reference to the Huawei Honor series. --JD {æ} 18:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

Entries in List of colors: A–F contained links to this page.

The entries are :

• Huawei Red
• Huawei Red (1987-2018)

I don't see any evidence that these colors are discussed in this article and plan to delete them from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that these colors should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Tweet of Huawei's twitter account by Huawei staff by using iPhone

Wikipedia is not a news collection. I think it is trivial despite Reuters reporting it. Unlike other companies that claiming photo was taken by their mobile phone but in fact taken by Nikon/Canon or other professional camera, it is trivial . It is less trivial for soap opera on the Great Firewall, but not in Huawei article. Matthew hk (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Quoting Chen Lifang: the company’s corporate senior vice president Chen Lifang said that the incident had “caused damage to the Huawei brand.” Source: The Verge. So it went very high up in the Huawei Corporation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xmachiavellix (talk • contribs) 08:41, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Then you should add the citation to support the statement of "damage the brand" in the POV of the corporate managers. Matthew hk (talk) 11:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Arrest of Huawei employees in Poland?

Syntaxlord (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that this should be added to the controversies section? ChunyangD (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, ChunyangD, I think that it would be relevant there.
Syntaxlord (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Ownership in infobox changed as per RS

I have changed it from a primary source to this secondary one: How Huawei Took Over the World https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-huawei-took-over-the-world-11545735603.

See also this interesting tidbit from the replaced company info source: https://www.huawei.com/en/about-huawei/corporate-governance/the-shareholders-meeting-and-the-representatives-commission

In 2017, the Commission held one [!] meeting, at which it reviewed and approved proposals on annual profit distribution, ...  

Zezen (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Huawei sues US

I think merits inclusion: "Huawei sues US over government ban on its products." --Mhhossein ^talk 06:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sports teams removal

FYI - I mentioned this change at Talk:Liberty University - it is regarding my removal of the list of sports teams sponsored by Huawei. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Too much stuff in the lead

There is too much stuff in the lead of this article. Some of the contents should be moved to the main body of the article. The lead should be more concice. Aceus0shrifter (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Separate article on Controversies?

This page seems to have an outsized section on controversies. There is the issue that too many minor actors are being quoted in full, making it seem more like a timeline rather than an encyclopedia entry. Would it be more appropriate to create a separate article detailing these controversies, and creating a more succinct summary on the main page? ChunyangD (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I think creating a separate article detailing controversies would be a good idea considering that there is a similar page about Xiaomi.
Syntaxlord (talk) 01:13, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Based on the length, yes. A summary style with one or two paragraphs for each topic would be enough. The espionage section is long enough to be an article on its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowRoses (talk • contribs) 08:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A separate article on controversies may be warranted, but also caution against creating a WP:POVFORK. I would suggest that the first priority should be improving this article.TheBlueCanoe 22:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I second creating a separate article - this article is too long.BracketMaster (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

• Support There are enough sources to support a valid article on the espionage and security issue. But do leave a good summary covering the main salient points per WP:CORRECTSPLIT. The article may cover all the controversies but I think the espionage and security issue may be the more important one to be covered in a separate article. Hzh (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
• Support the article is already quite long and there's tons of info to add to the controversies section. -Zanhe (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Splitting Criticism

I started Criticism of Huawei, but I still think that the details on the cybersecurity issues need to be trimmed down and summarized better before we actually link to this page in the article. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@ViperSnake151: There has been an on-going discussion since January (see "Separate article on Controversies?" above). There is support for the split, but I think the article should be entitled Controversies surrounding Huawei like other similar articles. And I agree the controversies section should be summarized, with a {{main}} link to the new article. -Zanhe (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

However, I was going by the example of Criticism of Apple, Criticism of Microsoft, etc. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:31, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't aware of those. -Zanhe (talk) 19:34, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Look like written by the CIA

Well, none of the allegations against Huawei are proven, in a stark contrast to allegations against the US companies for which we have a mountain of evidence, thanks to Snowden disclosures. But if you ever read articles like Google, Microsoft, HP, or any other American company, you'll realize that the well-founded, evidence of proven spying is reduced to one sentence or less. On this article, however, you'll have paragraphs and paragraphs and even half of the lead section devoted to American allegations.

Obviously, on Wikipedia, a random article from American tabloid is considered to be more "reliable" than a research paper from a major non-Anglophone university. So, I am not going to waste my time on arguing with super-neutral and righteous "Wikipedians". And cite WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS or whatever to justify your rationalizations. I'm done. Just saying!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.30.66 (talk • contribs)

Which claims do you dispute? Which "American tabloid"? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is biased, and acts like an arm of CIA propaganda machine. The deletion of Microsoft Spyware and Draft:Microsoft_privacy_controversies, while going on length about unsubstantiated allegations against Huawei proves that. This is probably also why Wikipedia is banned in China --Ne0 (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The first article was merely a disambiguation page linking to several Microsoft components that have been stated to have spyware-like behaviours by the press. However, the presentation of this information, as stated in the actual deletion discussion, read off as a POV fork and not enough to justify a separate article of that nature. I think information on these subjects could work better under Criticism of Microsoft (which, personally, I'm quite shocked doesn't mention them, but it does mention the NSA one). ViperSnake151  Talk  16:14, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Pronunciations in Name section

It seems that the different pronunciations of the name is simply different ways of pronouncing the word in Mandarin Chinese and Cantonese. "Hua" is Mandarin ("Huá" in pinyin), while "Wah" is Cantonese ("Waa4" in Jyutping) as given in the Chinese language box. The company is based in Shenzhen which is in Guangdong where Cantonese is widely spoken, although in Shenzhen itself Mandarin or Putonghua is also commonly used since there are a large number of migrants from other provinces where they don't speak Cantonese. Surely a simple explanation that the different pronunciations are simply due to different varieties of the Chinese language would be sufficient? The claim that the official website uses "Wah-Way" in its video in any sounds like nonsense because I hear "Hua Way" in the video. "Wah-Way" would be a mix of Mandarin ("Hua Way") and Cantonese ("Wah Wai") pronunciations. Hzh (talk) 14:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It was I who made the changes. Regardless of what you or I hear on a semantic level, there are undeniably different pronunciations in different official media from the company, and that's what he edits are intended to show. The changes made make no assumptions as to why the differences in pronunciation are, simply that they are - and that there is no official or sourced method of differentiating which is "correct".

There are many examples of terms words and names that seem to have an obvious pronunciation, but don't:

• ZX Spectrum - "Zed Ecks", not "Zee Ecks"
• Colin Powell - "Coe-lin" not "Coll-inn"
• Arkansas - "Arc-ann-saw" not "Arc-ann-zass"

Huawei is just one of them, so we list all those used, and don't make judgement. Chaheel Riens (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea why anyone would think the Z in ZX is pronounced anything except "Zed" (it's the British pronunciation) since it is a British product. The difference in Huawei pronunciations simply reflect different pronunciations in different varieties of Chinese. In any case it is original research to say it is pronounced "Wah-Way" in the videos (it is entirely your interpretation), and should not be used as it violates WP:OR. Hzh (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I had a look around, and it seems that the company started a name recognition campaign in early 2018 to get people to pronounced it as "wah way" (they used Wow Way in the campaign) - [1][2][3]. These are the sources to use, rather than interpreting yourself. Hzh (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

With regard to ZX Spectrum, that was included for exactly that reason. You & I know the correct pronunciation is "Zed", but to an American the correct pronunciation is "Zee", not "Zed". I included Colin Powell because although all logic (and the rest of the world) says that it's "Coll-inn" - it's also his name, and he can pronounce it however he damn well wants. Out of courtesy others should refer to him in that manner as well - as they do.

The current version is much better, and covers all bases, so that's good. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• It has nothing to do with Mandarin versus Cantonese. Stop treating them like a dichotomy. The name is standard Chinese and uses proper pinyin spelling. The founder is from Guizhou, an area where Southwestern Mandarin is spoken. The company is based in Shenzhen because that's where all the tech companies are, the silicon valley of China. Dropping the H doesn't make it Cantonese at all. It was solely done for marketing reasons in the past, but they have strayed away from that now. The H in the name is there for a reason, so please pronounce it. --2001:16B8:3157:3C00:E456:2B16:6DC3:CBAD (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Huawei flat logo.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Removed 5 out of date references 2000-2015. They probably were also inaccurate but I didn't have time to research.

Daveburstein deletion

Daveburstein (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC) While making a major edit to reduce the text from 6,000 words, a conflict developed about which I have no opinion. See right above. A short note about ownership was added and reversed. I invite either of the editors to improve the article as you see fit. Daveburstein (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC) Reduced 6,000 word article to 3,500. Removed dozens of outdated references, many from before 2010. Removed puffery. Cut detail such as lengthy product lists. Modest changes to make article neutral. I believe I did not change substance. daveb@dslprime.com happy to share information. I'm a telecom reporter.

Why did you remove a ton of historical information? Now this article expresses WP:RECENTISM. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)At 6,000 words, the articles needed to be shortened. I did not take out all history, only less important items.

@Daveburstein: There is no rule that says articles have to contain 3,500 words or less. Perhaps you could explain how the founding of the company is either "outdated" (as you claimed in your edit summary) or "less important" as you claim above? Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Daveburstein: Given the nature of the material being removed vs what was left I would qualify this as a very serious vandalism incident, you seriously impacted the neutrality of the article and you claim to be someone (a journalist) who would obviously know better. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Daveburstein (talk) 23:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC) Fair comment so I looked again. Per comments, reviewed my changes and accepted reversions in many cases. I left things clearly historically accurate even if old. But most of what I took out was not just old but non-neutral i.e. the Nortel section, on which I reported heavily at the time. The claim of "crucial government support" is disputed and not neutral, as the question of whether Huawei is government-supported. It is part of the attack and unbalanced. Did pull old non-neutral and possibly inaccurate claims, such as Nortel destruction and crucial government support. Because "white label" is much less important today, I replaced "provides" with "has provided." The article is now slightly more neutral and contains numerous criticisms of Huawei.

Your own experience/reporting is irrelevant, not just that but its WP:OR. You need a specific policy based reason for each change, simply saying something along the lines of “X is disputed and not neutral” doesn't fly, especially if you’re removing a WP:RS (no matter how old it may be). Age is not a valid reason to remove a source btw despite your repeated claims that it is. You also appear to be confused about neutrality and balance, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view before proceeding with further edits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Disputed information about collaborations

It's obvious that the sources for this edit about some new collaborations just parrot company-fed information in their advertorials as part of Huawei's marketing efforts. Wikipedia is no trade magazine or PR platform. Such business information should only be added, if it is noteworthy, of lasting encyclopedic relevance, and has been covered by credible non-promotional sources. Routine activities - including routine collaborations and product releases - should usually be omitted (unless they meet the noted criteria for relevance). GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, current sourcing does not suggest noteworthiness nor is the sourcing of high quality. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Outsourcing by Nortel

The AFR source does not mention any outsourcing. The Assembly Mag source is an opinion article claiming that Nortel "closed its factories in Canada, the United States and Mexico". But that's contradicted by Nortel's own annual report, which says "At December 31, 2000, we operated 29 manufacturing and repair sites occupying approximately 6.2 million square feet, of which approximately 1.9 million square feet were leased." (Annual report source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/72911/000095014401003499/t26083ke10-k405.txt)

It's also contradicted by a NY Times article, saying that Nortel "makes fiber optic products and old-fashioned phone switches at factories around the world, including several in the United States". (Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/15/business/nortel-expects-a-huge-loss-in-2nd-quarter-and-will-lay-off-10000.html) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlocciNonFacio (talk • contribs) 02:28, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

AFR source: https://web.archive.org/web/20190607204151/http://www.afr.com/technology/web/security/how-chinese-hacking-felled-telecommunication-giant-nortel-20140526-iux6a AssemblyMag source: https://www.assemblymag.com/blogs/14-assembly-blog/post/90631-did-outsourcing-and-corporate-espionage-kill-nortel — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlocciNonFacio (talk • contribs) 01:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Allegations of intellectual property theft

The reference provided for the claim that property theft occurred from Nortel is a secondary source that makes the claim "Many say that Huawei stole everything from Nortel." This is not a reliable fact, as it is stating an opinion. No factual references can be found regarding Nortel in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aarondyck (talk • contribs) 20:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced article

This article focuses almost exclusively on "controversies" surrounding Huawei. The overwhelming focus of the article is unproven allegations made by the US government. There's almost no discussion of what Huawei actually makes. The majority of the article should be about what Huawei, as a business, actually does. The controversies should not dominate the article. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Come again? Compared to an objective overview of their history this page focusses relatively little on controversies, you will find that most things are ported off to Criticism of Huawei. I would also note that almost all the controversies fall into the “doing business” category, its not our fault that Huawei has questionable corporate ethics. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion of controversies is longer than the entire discussion of the company's history and business activities. That's unbalanced. The article reads like an attack page, not an attempt to inform the reader about the company. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

It appears to accurately reflect how the company is covered in WP:RS per WP:DUE. I’m sorry if you feel otherwise. A company that lies, cheats, and steals its way to the top might end up having a less than flattering wikipedia page, thats not the fault of us here at wikipedia and we dont need to try to insert some sort of WP:False balance into the article. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I've removed the tag, primarily as per Horse Eye Jack's rationale - also as per Wikipedia's MOS, an article does not have to be balanced - if a subject article is primarily known for negative press there is no necessity to either censor that press, or to find equivalent positive press to balance the article.

The reason it seems unbalanced is because some of Huawei's history is split into its own article. If that were still present it would appear more balanced. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The overall balance of the article is very far off. Huawei is a massive company that plays a large role in several different product sectors. This is barely covered in the article, which devotes more space to detailing every accusation made by the US government. Internationally, Huawei is not primarily known for the allegations made by the US government. It was already a $100 billion revenue company when these accusations surfaced. It's the world's largest supplier of networking equipment, one of the largest smartphone brands in Europe, and of course the largest in China. It may be known in the United States primarily for the allegations made by the US government, but Wikipedia is supposed to reflect an international perspective. -Thucydides411 (talk) 16:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

And the Australian Government, the German Government, the British Government, the Dutch Government, the Taiwanese Government, the Japanese Government, the Canadian Government, the Swiss Government, and I can go on... You’re reducing the argument further than the sources allow and crafting a false narrative. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

The controversy is overwhelmingly centered on the US-China conflict. There is also a conflict with the UK government, partially due to threats that the UK will be cut out of intelligence sharing with the US if it uses Huawei equipment. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Hang on - are you now saying that there should be more controversy added, not less? Wikipedia reflects a perspective relevant to the article in question. If a company is overwhelmingly known for a given topic - regardless of the nationality or geographic location of that topic - then it is not undue to expect more focus on that topic than another topic. If you disagree with this veiewpoint you only have to find sources to back up your own stance, but bear in mind that the article currently contains 218 sources, of which approx ~90 support the current contents and stance. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with both ideas presented in this discussion. It is an unbalanced article and the focus of it should be more on the extremely large Huawei business (there are a lot more details that could be added i.e. subsidiaries, OS, AI, etc.). I also agree that the article fails to properly cover many details of the international geopolitical situation centering around Huawei and dealing with the conflict between US and its sphere of control versus China and its sphere (a lot of actions against Huawei have been left out). My thoughts are that there should be a separate event article just to cover the 'controversy' section in this article but I am not clear about the precedence for that or what exactly it should be called (maybe someone more knowledgeable knows guidance for this). I am currently working on some biographies of some additional Huawei staff that are involved on various parts of the controversy but have not submitted them yet nor am I sure they will be accepted. Also the Meng Wanzhou biography could also be cleaned up or parts of it merged by having an event entry rather than dispersing things amongst this article and her biography article. --Ian Korman 07:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by IanKorman (talk • contribs)

Placed note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies on 6 June 2020 requesting further input from editors. Reviewed Apple Inc. article for editorial guidance. Changed Huawei#Criticism and controversies section in this article to match that article section Apple Inc.#Criticism and controversies. Next step is to follow Wikipedia:Summary style to properly summarize the section in this article and move bulk of material to the main Criticism of Huawei and clean it up. Further additions regarding criticism and controversies of Huawei should first be placed in that article and only a summary placed in this article. --Ian Korman (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Don’t forget that we also have to cover all the major controversies in the history section! Oddly enough we currently don’t cover *any* of their controversies and this is a company *primarily known for its controversies.* Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Not all criticisms and controversies that were in the Criticism of Huawei were ever covered in this article. Work that was done was to cleanup this article first while respecting and preserving additions by other editors and moving things over to the criticism article. That article already had maintenance issues of its own. Note: Both this article and the criticism article have various problems with age of items as well. Suggest history be updated in the criticism article before accurate summaries are added in this article. To follow Wikipedia:Neutral point of view "representing fairly, proportionately" if a new criticism area is summarized in this article balance should be considered. Only porting over criticisms to this article without adding relevant facts in the same area may reintroduce the NPOV issue.

--Ian Korman (talk) 08:25, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes we should represent fairly and proportionally that this company is primarily notable for their controversies... I don’t suggest we update the history of the criticism section I commend that we cover their major controversies in their history (not all of them, that would be close to a hundred, just the dozen or so super notable ones) as we are generally required to do. What do you mean by “reintroduce the NPOV issue”? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Section: U.S. business restrictions - Remove Maintenance Notes

Migrated full and unedited section to Criticism of Huawei. Summarized section in this article. Suggest maintenance messages be removed as per Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove item #2. Note: Previously neglected to sign this. --Ian Korman (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

No further input received. Removed all maintenance templates from this article to include the one for entire article for no recent updates. Though note that article remains protected --Ian Korman (talk) 09:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

• Huawei 1.JPG

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue and non-neutral addition

An entire paragraph was recently added about one claim of a shoddy contracting job: [4]. The addition is both undue, as it's an entire paragraph about a single, relatively minor allegation, and non-neutrally written. For example, the text says the computing system installed by Huawei was riddled with security flaws and intention backdoors [sic]. "Riddled with" is obvious non-neutral. I removed the addition: [5]. Horse Eye's Back restored it: [6]. Horse's Eye Jack suggested it was "due", though I don't know what they're basing that on. I think this material should be deleted. In included at all, one short sentence is really the maximum that could possibly be due. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

My revert was entirely procedural. You can make a WP:DUE argument for reducing the text, however an argument to completely remove it can’t be made under WP:DUE when there is a feature piece in a WP:RS as is the case here. I propose we move the entire section to Criticism of Huawei except for a single sentence summary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Coverage is RS doesn't automatically make the material due. Huawei is a massive company. There are many articles written about it in reliable sources every day. This single allegation does not merit an entire paragraph. -Thucydides411 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

A feature piece in a WP:RS about a previously uncovered aspect of a subject does in fact automatically pass due. I agree that on this page the allegation merits only a single sentence, however it does merit a full paragraph at Criticism of Huawei. None of that explains why you reverted the paragraph rather than editing it down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If what you're saying about DUE is correct, every feature piece in an RS merits a full paragraph on Wikipedia in every article it relates to. That's just obviously unworkable. And it's obviously not what DUE means. -Thucydides411 (talk) 08:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

It merits inclusion, I never said it merits a full paragraph on this page. Where are you getting that from? For the sake of reaching consensus will you propose a single sentence summary to go here after we move the main part to Criticism of Huawei? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I can do the legwork of making an expanded section (I’m thinking two paragraphs) for Criticism of Huawei, other WP:RS seem to think its important [7][8][9][10][11] etc. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm getting it from your repeated assertions that my statements about DUE are incorrect. I said that an entire paragraph is undue. You reinstated the entire paragraph. I also said the text is not neutrally written. It should avoid phrases like "riddled with", and should clearly attribute this allegation to the Australian government. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that an entire paragraph is undue on this page, however no coverage is also undue. Due weight is a goldilocks like concept of “just right.” Now do you have a sentence suggestion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I shortened the section to two sentences: one describing the allegations, and one giving Huawei's response. -Thucydides411 (talk) 11:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I added one more sentence to cover the PNG reaction, I think all our based are covered now.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Discuss Adding A New Section pertaining to countries that are banning the use of Huawei products?

Just want to get some feedback and consensus from the group about adding a section discussing and listing the countries that are implementing bans on the use of Hauwei products. Tepkunset (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gvl5195.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Provide Coverage of Huawei Enterprise Networking business

This article could be improved with the addition of historical and current information on Huawei's Enterprise Networking business. This topic may appear to be covered because it falls under the Carrier Networking division, which includes the heavily covered Mobile (5G) Networks equipment, but these are entirely different topics. Huawei is the ~3rd largest global supplier of enterprise networking equipment, making them very relevant to the millions of companies purchasing in the $50 Billion market for IT Networking equipment.

In particular, this reader was hoping to find information on the extent to which their networking technology was developed in-house or gained through M&A activities. Note that this a relatively difficult topic for a lay-person to research as search engine results for relevant keywords are dominated by commercial interests without relevant info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.73.35.133 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Izzywu21 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Izzywu21 (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Headquarters

Assignment 43.229.90.3 (talk) 15:16, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kaisery (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by XingboGao (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Maintaining WP:NPOV on espionage allegations

Kindly do not revert to prior header as it is pushing a partial POV on espionage allegations, given the obviously undue amount of content related to allegations and the comparatively little information on Huawei's response.

Lede

To much of the lede is devoted to a debate about the state control of the company. All of this information belongs in the article, but the lede should just summarise it, rather than be a back and forth. It also relies to heavily of mentions of unnamed "experts" and similar vague wording to push a POV with assigning the POV to a source. Ashmoo (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

It appears some Wikipedia editors have been working overtime again to pick which quotes to fill the lede with against Huawei while excluding other useful information. CurryCity (talk) 10:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Some people might be on Wikipedia purely for Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Every article they want to load with the same thing over and over and over and that's it. CaribDigita (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Are there concrete proposals on what to trim? In my view at a minimum "Despite claims that it operates as a private company, questions regarding Huawei's ownership and control persist." is a sentence that does essentially nothing for the article. It is the kind of false balance that we should avoid. We should stick to the concrete facts about its status as a national champion and state policy support. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

What is the false balance in the given quote? That part actually appears to be one of the ones which does the best job of summarizing the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

It unnecessarily suggests doubt on whether Huawei operates as a private company. It does. The salient issue is the extent of state influence, not private operation. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Our sources say that it does not effectively operate as a private company, the doubt appears to be the status quo with the idea that they are effectively private being the minority opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Not good. We should improve the sourcing. Maybe I'll try to circle back to this. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

You're more than welcome to, but as far as I can tell all of the high quality sources appear to take more or less the same position on this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't have concrete proposals in mind as to where to begin. I just happened to notice that over the years the lead has grown steadily from being questionable to a "juggernaut" too big to sort out. CurryCity (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed that the lead (a lede is similar but not what we have on wikipedia) is too long and needs to do a better job of summarizing rather than repeating. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Some is inaccurate. For example Huawei is still for sale in the USA. You can buy Huawei stuff right on Amazon right now. I just checked. CaribDigita (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The current lead does not appear to claim that Huawei products are not for sale in the US. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

For one, I corrected and added [12] to the information about an old case, and this version should stay. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The lead or lede should be a summary and not a collection of details picked from the body and a few items not even in the body. It has been growing longer and longer. The onus is on editors who seem to want to include everything in it. CurryCity (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Sun Yafang

The employment information about Sun should be noted as contentious. The source quotes and relies on other open sources that Amigao has yet to verify. CurryCity (talk) 21:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why would you consider employment by the Ministry of State Security to be "contentious"? In the local context, it is considered to be quite prestigious. Amigao (talk) 23:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Because it is being used for accusations of espionage. CurryCity (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly. The sentence is about government ties, not espionage accusations against a person. Amigao (talk) 23:54, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It had been about espionage until you changed the article [13] right before replying to me. CurryCity (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Nortel

The source actually says Shields doesn’t know who hacked Nortel and doesn’t believe it was Huawei, at least not directly. I don't understand how a certain editor has been able to keep pushing an alternative version with misleading statements in the intro.[14][15] CurryCity (talk) 07:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I am paywalled and can't read the source to check this myself and see what other context exists. A discussion of this also appears in the body. Unless there's some context I'm missing, your quote raises the question to me whether Shields should be in the article at all. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Which bit is misleading? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

They actually had a good relationship for some time, with Nortel outsourcing to Huawei a lot of work that was less profitable to do itself. The hack is widely believed to be from China but Huawei's part if any was very speculative. Nortel got into a lot of other mishaps,[16] and the hack may not have been as game-changing as Shields has described. Some in the industry swear by the story, however, and it makes for notable headlines, so here we are. Reporters just don't bother interviewing most other workers. CurryCity (talk) 22:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

We don't say that they had a bad relationship the whole time. We cover those mishaps, we do not say that the alleged Huawei stuff was game changing. So what was misleading? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:05, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

You and Jagmanst wanted to include different versions of the text for different reasons, even though the source doesn't support either Nortel the company or its former employee attributing that hack to Huawei? CurryCity (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

My view is the Huawei hacking Nortel claims are so speculative and lacking in evidence, it shouldn't even feature in the article, except perhaps to show an episode of media craziness. However at least some editors want to insert the claims into the article, in which case at bare minimum the claims should be stated accurately. Jagmanst (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

It is likely that Huawei took advantage of the good relationship but need not speculate further. Sources speak for themselves. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't get to second-guess the reliable sources because we think that this is a case of "media craziness" (unless of course you have a RS which says that this is a case of media craziness) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:34, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

1) Not every unconsequential thing has to go into the article. Wild unsubstantiated speculations by one former employees does veer towards inconsequential. 2) If it must be included, then it should be stated accurately. No second guessing needed. Jagmanst (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

We have significant coverage so it clearly wasn't unconsequential unless one wants to second guess the sources which covered it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

More importantly the changes Dunns made re-introduced inaccuracies even taking the sources at face value. CurryCity (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

The way that it has been presented in Criticism of Huawei, where there are additional sources, shows that these charges of industrial espionage have factual basis rather than being media craziness. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It was not traced back to Huawei according to the sources here and on the criticism page. The onus is on you. Do not restore inaccurate information. CurryCity (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

This statement is well-supported: Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

several rivals like Nortel and Cisco Systems have traced industrial espionage and intellectual property theft back to Huawei. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't just the hack into Nortel that Brian Shields discovered, there was also the fibre card purchased from a Nortel facility in Texas that Huawei disassembled and reverse engineered. I'm not surprised that recent reverts have removed mention of the Texas incident. [17] DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

That was a belief it is not due to be highlighted in the lead. CurryCity (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

On one hand you wanted to highlight the Australian telecom hack in detail while omitting any mention of Nortel in the intro, although there are several instances of espionage that Nortel documented. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. Qiushufang (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Not exactly sure what you mean by "taking the sources at face value." One is supposed to follow what multiple WP:RSs have reported. Amigao (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)