Talk:Huawei

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)

For one ugh, was augmented and corrected and should stay. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 21 September 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 [1] to the information about an old case, and this version should stay. CurryCity (talk) 07:55, 21 September 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.[2][3] 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,[4] 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)

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)

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)

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)

Undue mentions

Not being selected in a country's 5G rollout is not due by itself in the lead. There was an edit conflict so I was not able to change things around exactly. Unrelated changes were also caught up in Amigao's revert. CurryCity (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Costa Rica's restriction [5] is not a ban to target Huawei because the new rule affects South Korea, Russia, Brazil and others based on a country's, not company's, position. CurryCity (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It is still a restriction on Huawei, as explained quite well in the citation. We follow what the WP:RS says. Amigao (talk) 23:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a restriction or ban against Huawei specifically, therefore it is undue about Huawei. Here is the RS wording "5G company restrictions", "decree's ban applies to tech companies", "only firms based in nations endorsing the Budapest Convention on cybercrime will be eligible." The criterion is home countries' status, not Huawei. CurryCity (talk) 23:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

You mention some edits where there is disagreement, and some edits that may have been erroneously caught up. What's the specific disagreement? JArthur1984 (talk) 23:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC)