Talk:List of companies of the People's Republic of China

Dispute Resolution

The best way to get a consensus on this article is indeed to discuss the points one at a time:

1. Explain on the talk page why you think what you wrote is right. Read what they say as well.
2. Provide references from outside Wikipedia to back up what you think. If they do the same, read them.
3. Ask for other people to look at the article and provide advice. Even if they know nothing about the subject they may be able to help.
4. Remember that opinions shouldn't be in an article.
5. If there is a real disagreement over what the facts are, not just between two editors but between different groups of people, then the best way may be to record both views and allow the reader to make up their mind.
6. If you believe the other user really isn't listening to reason, then try Wikipedia:Request for comment to get other people's opinions.

Stay calm, stay patient and try to stay pleasant. One good thing about Wikipedia is that we have to work with people who disagree with us. In the end, though, that makes for more complete articles. - Bmicomp 07:21, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Unprotect the page

Viewing the differences between the two versions at issue shows the following issues to resolve:

1. The current version makes the claim that these are mainland only Chinese companies.
2. The current version is old and stale. It is missing information added by other users.

• A forced TOC;
• The companies organized into sections about their basic purpose (insurance, shipping, etc);
• The regional base of operations of the companies;

This talk page contains multiple arguments for and against issue #1. In practicality, it is irrelevant. These companies, no matter their region, are all companies in the PRC. The other version of the page identifies whether a company is based in one region or another with a parenthetical remark. Let it not be un-noticed: the two Special Administrative Regions continue to maintain seperate lists of companies. Nothing is lost by those promoting the autonomous nature of the SARs.

Secondly, on issue #2, by including information on the regional operations of a company, we remove the argument of POV and bias. The regional operations are factual and verifiable. By removing that information, as is with the current page, we have either introduced or maintained POV and bias, the POV of the seperateness of these regions.

Let's unprotect the page and move forward in inclusiveness. SchmuckyTheCat 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

The forced location of TOC is not necessary for the current version (mainland China-specific). In the other version (PRC version) only the regional bases of Hong Kong and Macao companies are specified. These companies are not included in the current version. Whether the list should be sorted by alphabetical order or by business nature is not part of this dispute. — Instantnood 19:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

No, the alphabetical or business nature sorting isn't part of the dispute. It's just been thrown away. It's a useful edit that's just a discarded casualty of the revert war and page protection.

The extra companies as well, have just been thrown away. With what justification? That they were the ones that had regional information - no, ADD MORE INFORMATION. Research those other companies and place the province or city where they do business.

The TOC only has relevance as another example of something missing as a result of the revert war.

So, what is the dispute, then? What are your issues? What is the purpose of keeping this page protected? If you are the arbiter of who needs to be the happy person with the result, what is your preferred result? SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I am most happy to discuss on alphabetical or business nature sorting, but the situation did not allowed. If a consensus is reached to do the either way, I'll synchronise the two versions. — Instantnood 08:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

So, what is the dispute, then? What are your issues? What is the purpose of keeping this page protected? If you are the arbiter of who needs to be the happy person with the result, what is your preferred result? SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

The dispute is over the title and the scope of the list. I requested to protect it because, as I have said [1], of the refusals to put on the {{twoversions}} tag, and the many trials to remove it. — Instantnood 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well? SchmuckyTheCat 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

" come back and talk, Instantnood. " - from SchmuckyTheCat's edit summary: [2]
You want me to come back and talk then you say around I'm filibustering? :-) — Instantnood 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I want to have the page unprotected. What is your proposal to move forward and do that? ~ SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ~

The title change itself is disputed, and was done at the time I voluntarily refrained from editing the disputed issues. My proposal, as presented at WP:RFPP, is to keep the {{twoversions}} template, together with the notice stating that the current title does not endorse the position of any party. In fact the article did not have to be protected if Huaiwei and you did not remove the tag for several times. (same proposed solution as suggested at [3]) — Instantnood 22:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion unhelpful to getting the page unprotected

(response to Instantnood's comment at 08:34, August 3, 2005) I dont think the TOC is anything up for discussion. It was clearly not disputed until Instantnood decides unitarily that he is justified to revert every single edit back to an ancient version he prefers.--Huaiwei 08:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stop the accusations. I'm pretty sure you know well why that version was chosen. — Instantnood 08:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Erm...what accusation? I am simply stating what happened. And yes we all know why you chose that version. It is simply the version which suits your "sinophobic agenda"? :D--Huaiwei 09:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at my edit summaries at [4] and the first sentence of [5]. And bear in mind most Hongkongers are Chinese and there's no such thing as Sinophobia out there. — Instantnood 09:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Its not like we have not read that claim of innocence before. Well, the editing history shows otherwise, however, especially when there are also some interesting comments in the 3RR which appear related to this one. And btw, racism does exist within a single race. Sinophobia applies not only to non-Chinese, but also to Chinese who show contempt towards fellow Chinese, usually accompanied by a reluctance in being associated with them as being from the same race.--Huaiwei 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

There are subgroups among Chinese people, and there are self-identities among these subgroups. But that's not Sinophobia or denial of the broader (broader with respect to that of the subgroups) Chinese identity. — Instantnood 10:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are exactly fit to say these things thou, especially when one is racist, but is trying very hard not to let the truth spill out into the open?--Huaiwei 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Is there any sysop watching? Or should I report these labellings and accusations to the ArbCom case which is in progress? — Instantnood 12:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Its your choice, really. Afterall, its only a matter of time before it gets brought up anyway. ;)--Huaiwei 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I would consider being called a racist a personal attack, and I would remove it if it were directed at me. I am not familiar with your RfAr case Instanthood, but if you feel it is relevant to it then you should present it as evidence. Thryduulf 16:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Title disputed

I would like to propose to add a notice, such as the following, to notify readers there is not only a content dispute, but also a dispute over the title.

— Instantnood 09:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I have added this notice to the article (above the {{twoversions}} notice). — Instantnood 10:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Which version to be displayed

I have explained [6] why the current version was chosen in the edit summaries before, that is, according to what the list was like and was intended for at the time of creation, prior to the disputes and point of view-pushing edits and renaming. The {{twoversions}} tag states precisely the version displayed is not, and should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions. Further, I've added a notice telling that the title is also disputed. Nevertheless, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat has tried to swap to the other version [7]. I would like to request for third party opinion to decide on which version should be displayed, with acknowledgement of the edit history of this article. Third party opinion will also be requested if there's a similar disagreement over other articles on which version should be displayed. (Please see also articles relevant to the political arrangements and situations, and Wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese).) — Instantnood 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

While this page was in cold storage for almost a month by the request of User:Instantnood, he took no effort in initiating dialogue or to encourage dispute resolution. Even after much proding by others, he continues to either play blind, or show an obvious reluctance in resolving anything by talking in unconditional terms and repeating past arguments with no signs of compromise. It was only after it was finally unprotected, did he quickly trip over himself in enthusiasm in some form of dispute resolution, with the latest exercise asking for "third party comments". Leaves me wondering why this was not done ages ago, be it when the disputes first arose, during the revert wars, or during the three weeks of cold storage. In the latest reverts, he again calls for "good reasons", as thou he has "good reasons" for keeping the current version. Like it or not, it is obvious that a slow-mo revert war is already occuring. Is he ready to admit this? I wonder...again.--Huaiwei 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

User:Huaiwei does acknowledge that there is an ArbCom case in process (in fact there is a motion to have him joined in the case), and that my advocates, as well as some other users, have advised me to refrain from contentious edits. Nevertheless she/he and user:SchmuckyTheCat has taken the advantage of this opportunity to edit and rename the titles of many articles massively, including this article (edit history) (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al.#Request for Injunction, #Additional Requests for Movement/Injuntion and User:Instantnood/RFAr). Much efforts have been paid at the time this article was protected and after it was unprotected, but it was fruitless. And now she/he is shifting the responsibility of the "three weeks of cold storage" to me.
All these asides, third party comments should always be welcome on any talk page on Wikipedia, or else apparatus such as WP:RFC would not have established. But in the past third party opinion was far from adequate. By requesting for it explicitly I am actually beseeching for their participation, to help resolve all these troubles. Therefore I'd look to plead, again, for everybody's opinion. Thank you. — Instantnood 08:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

The above commentary directly confirms what I have been suspecting, which I mentioned over in Talk:List of airports in the People's Republic of China, in particular my commment from [8]:

But is that merely the only reason, or are you simply showing your displeasure against others whom you think made changes without your consent? Are you showing so much concern for just these two articles, because you felt others are "taking advantage of the situation" while you are being scrutinised during the arbcom?

I believe it is becoming quite clear, that the latest slew of edit warring is not merely one based on factual disagreements. It is also based on the frustrations of a single editor who feel he is being "taken advantaged" of. This then, in turn, explain the overly emotional and irrational edits which has ensued. I suppose admins should take note of this, since dispute resolution may have to go beyond merely factual debate?

Next, pardon me if I am wrong, but from the above, it appears to me you are suggesting I am part of the arbcom. And when I chose not to be involved, you must be speculating why this is so, and perhaps assumed its related to my "taking advantage" of the situation? You assume too much, and may I point out, that just as you cry fowl over what you deem as my unfounded "accusations" of your motives and intentions here, that you are clearly guilty of the exact same thing. Like I said many times, I certainly dont deny that I label you, or that I form theories based on your behavior here. In comparison, you avoid admitting that you engage in the same actions, and you somehow think you have the moral right to accuse others of the above acts. Perhaps you may like to reflect on your own position before commenting?

Putting aside the issue of whether I am part of the arbcom or not, you go on to accuse both of us of making contentious edits while the arbcom is on-going. Pardon me but let me ask two questions. First, did the arbcom come to know that the way Hong Kong is being displayed in country lists is also under contention? Second, do you dare say, that you have not made any contentious edits during this arbcom or the previous one?

There was not "much of an effort" in dispute resolution since this page was protected. Really? See the section up above in this very page [9]. Or in [10]. Or in [11]. Or in [12]. Or in [13]. Who has been the one initiating dispute resolution? How has the dicussions gone? How is it that we can have comments like "the person requesting protection has done nothing to attempt to resolve the issues related to his request for protection"? In the wake of the arbcom, you attempt to use all sorts of mechanisms in wikipedia to advance your course. Of coz, the few we remember most fondly include the 3RR, Wikipedia:Two versions and WP:RFPP. Are these the best dispute resolution mechanisms out there? We leave it for others to judge. May I also note, that these are often used, sometimes all three in succession, without a single word uttered in the respective talk pages. Speaks volumes on the "dispute resolution" capabilities of the above said user of these three mechanisms. And so you again now say I am "shifting the responsibility of the "three weeks of cold storage" onto you? In the first place, has the responsiblity ever shifted away from you, and have you ever recognised, accepted, and acted accordingly with the expectations of this responsibility?

Oh, so at least you are calling for "third party opinions". Ever wondered why that has not been forthcoming in just about any dispute we are involved in? I leave it to you to reflect on this!--Huaiwei 10:05, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not a result of frustrations, and those are not emotional and irrational edits. Taking advantage in this way is somehow unethical and immoral to a certain extent, and I have to spend at least some efforts to halt Wikipedia being disrupted in this way. I now start to wonder while you're speculating I'm frustrated, emotional and irrational, did you recall the following: " I must say the reason why I am probably doing it now is because I am reacting to the edits made by Instantnood. I once gave a warning to him to stop scrutinising all of my edits day after day, failing which I may do stupid things. ", " This is the fruit of his arrogance. I have since sworn to myself that I am going to counter his behavior, whatever it might take, from then on. What you have seen so far are basically part of this little exercise. " [14].
I can't tell exactly if any of my edits are considered contentious by anybody, but what I was doing was merely restoring to what things are like prior to the contentious edits. If you are familiar enough with what I have been doing you may already know it does not even matter whether the original states represent my point of view. I did restore things to original states that contradict my point of view. But anyways I can understand that even you know about it you would tend not to mention it here.
As for my willingness to dispute resolution, let's leave it for others to judge. In the meantime we shall await third party opinion on which version to be displayed on this list of companies. — Instantnood 11:23, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that quote, for that is precisely the point. Here we have a wikipedian who gets so personal, that he goes through the tediousness of checking through every single edit made by specific people in wikipedia. I am clearly one of your victims. I put up with this kind of intrusive behavior for months, until the point whereby I issued a stern and final warning that I am going to respond if you do not back off. You laughed off my comment. And yes, this is precisely what I would call "stupid things". Why, for example, do I have to spend hours checking through your edits? Why do I have to engage in silly revert wars? Why do I have to spill virtual blood by getting involved in arbcoms? Why do I have to spend a few more of my minutes writing this very commentary? It is plain stupid as far as rational people are concerned. So why all these? Because someone seems so emotionally attached to me, that he finds it neccesary to watch my every step. Not emotional and irrational?

So its not "frustrations"? Well, I do not find it a big deal over whether you like my choice of words. But the plain fact is you just expressed your displeasure over you being "taken advantaged of". That is more than enough to confirm my theories, so I simply do not have to spend any more precious time with you arguing over a single word. And heck, I am not exactly the first person who publicly admonished you for your love in taking words or phrases completely out of context. Not emotional and irrational?

So you think being "taken advantaged of" is unethical and immoral. Oh I agree too. However, what kind of evidence do you have to suggest that I do have the intention to take advantage of you? Do you know me that well? You react to this perceived notion of being taken advantaged to irrational proportions, which seems quite similar to your strong believe that anyone who write "HK, China" is an anti-HK person. Worse, you sterotype opinions based on geographical location. I am sorry, but as I said time and again. If you cannot outgrow this insecurity of yours, than I really do not think wikipedia is a place for you. No, you do not have to expend "efforts to halt Wikipedia being disrupted". Your presense is equally disruptive, if not more. As the arbcom noted, your first edits in wikipedia were already advocating a political viewpoint. I was much happier keeping myself busy writing content articles until I stumbled upon someone going round with an obvious political agenda. Not emotional and irrational?

So you cant tell if your edits are considered contentious by anybody. Amazing. I suppose this means you do not know what anyone is opposing all these while? You do not think any of your edits are contentious? You consider your edits justified, since no one disputes them? What a convenient bout of severe amnesia. So I suppose I too "can understand that even you know about it you would tend not to mention it here"? I do not think I want to bother deciphering the bunch of clumsily strung sentences in the last para above. My familiarity lies in your edit history, and it contradicts what you claim. You explode like a fits patient in your aggresive editing campaigns, then retract back into your shell, feign ignorance, and whine like a poor pitiful cornered cat once your efforts backfire. Not emotional and irrational?

So yeah. Lets "wait" for third party responses. So what are you going to do in the meantime? And what happens when none are forthcoming?--Huaiwei 12:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Title and scope disputed

The title and the scope of this list is disputed and has not been settled. The dispute over the scope of this article was between mainland China alone (Hong Kong and Macao excluded) or the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong and Macao included). The title is disputed, accordingly, between list of companies in mainland China and list of companies in the People's Republic of China.

The current content and title do not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two.
You may also read the other version and the difference between the two. See also the edit history and move history. — Instantnood 17:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC))

Companies founded by Overseas Chinese

I'm puzzled by the inclusion of this section - has the founders of the listed companies in this section formally stated that their respective companies belongs to the PRC or is set up on behalf of the PRC, or is this section included because the founders are from the PRC but not necessarily have any affiliation with the nation? If it's the latter, I don't know if this section belongs in this article because we would have to list all the companies in each country (i.e. the United States) with founders of various nationalities as their country of origin being the nationality of the company (for example, Goldman Sachs would be listed as a German company because its founders were either from Germany or were first generation German-Americans).Satanstorm (talk) 20:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)