Talk:Huawei

Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.?

This article Huawei should have a redirection to Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. I was writing the article on VRRP and when i tried to link against the word Huawei Technologies, nothing shows up. I feel Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd is more correct than Huawei. If someone manage to introduce a redirection, do you mind updating the article on VRRP to use the whole vendor name, just in case in futire the word Huawei becomes ambiguous

2006 revenue for Huawei

REVENUE: The 2006 revenue for Huawei is USD 8.5 billion instead of USD 11 billion, this number can be easily found from the annual report which can be downloaded from Huawei's website. Seems like the original writer didn't do much research. Don't get me wrong, I like the company, but nationalism is not an excuse to make up data on wikipedia.

-

Really? I just checked (Aug 4, 2007) at http://www.huawei.com/corporate_information/financial_highlights.do and this is what I found

"Contract sales reached USD 11 billion in 2006, a 34% increase from last year"

Should I blame on your stupidity for make up data on wikipedia?

-

Please don't be rude. Contract sales does not equal to revenue. Some of the sales are scheduled to be transacted in the next fiscal year, only contracts have been signed. The official figure is $8.5 billions, and it can be found from the annual fiscal report that can be downloaded from Huawei's website. Download the annual report here: http://www.huawei.com/corporate_information.do As you can see, the Revenue and Contract Sales are two separate figures.

-

OK. My mistake. About being rude, you were the one who blamed me for being nationalistic and making up data. Why did you assume that I made up the data? Should I blame on racism? - Please be profesional in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.63.106.231 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Why sources should be cited according to Wikipedia:Citing sources

   * To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism.
   * To show that your edit isn't original research.
   * To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor.
   * To help users find additional reliable information on the topic.
   * To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia.
   * To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise.
   * To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

The parts about quality are correct

I (am) working for Chungwha Telecom in Taiwan. We bought Huawei datacards. We are now sorry (that) we did. I am sad to say (that) Huawei cards are not very good. Every thing about quality in this (article) is very much correct.

---

Has Chungwha Telecom done any testings before it bought Huawei datacards???

I haven't seen any reports about the quality problems. Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Batteries, and see how it really should be done (i.e., fact + reference). Also, when you edit this article, please focus on the facts, not put your personal feelings (for or against Huawei) into it.

---

Hey, Huawei won Vodaphone's yearly High performance Award. Do not hesitate to let Huawei know your product problem. They could do something to correct it.

Someone Keeps Removing information stuff they dont like

It seems someone(s) from Huawei is stipping off perfectly valid information on their products from this page. They've done it often. This page should be locked for editing to prevent this.

---

I just want to make clear that I am not working for Huawei. If you are so upset about Huawei's "quality" problems, please add references to newspaper articles(s). I haven't seen any myself. Fact! Please! I also think that the page should be locked for editing to prevent people writing their VERY PERSONAL views here.

---

There's little newspaper articles(s) to support ANYTHING in this article. Huawei is a DPRC (Watch Your Mouth!!!) Company and therefore has little transparancy. The information on products in this page comes from people working in the industry and people who have used the products. If everything that goes into Wikipedia has to first be printed in a newspaper then Wikipedia is worthless...

Why don't you find FACTS that what is said about the products isn't true?? Have you ever used a Huawei product?

---

Who do you work for? My advice: if you don't like Huawei, don't waste your time here. Get another brand! Nobody asked you to buy Huawei. You need to add reference to support the stuff you wrote. By the way, Huawei is a private company, so there is no need for "transparancy".

Also, how could you write that "someone(s) from Huawei is stipping off perfectly valid information"? How do you know that this person is working for Huawei? Who says that your info is "perfectly valid information"?

Relationship with Cisco

would someone write about huawei and its relationship (in term of its product) with north american's Cisco?

• As far as I know there are competitors. They have very similiar network equipement, somewhat cheaper but also inferior with regards to some operating characteristics. --Lord Yaar 09:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• I heard that Huawei has been sued by some companies about the operating system that powered Huawei equipements. They said that it was a copy of the Cisco IOS. As a result, Huawei had an interdiction of sale in several countries. Rodary 18:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The case with Cisco: Personnally, I think that the key evidence given by Cisco is not true but not fair: Huawei was simulating Cisco's CLI interface so that their end-users can shift to Huawei's products easily without much training. However, the truth is that almost the whole datacommunication industry is dominated by Ciscso in late 1990s, everybody got used to Cisco's CLI, which is something like an actual standard. So if some small companies want to enter this market, the first thing he has to do is to do similar with Cisco product, espcially the CLI interface. Otherwise, it is not easy to survive. Even today, the same thing is still happening, not in Huawei but other small datacomm companies.

Hence, I believe that copying Cisco's user interface is not an innotale beviour. Because not like faking other products, this won't mislead the user, instead, the end users know clearly they are not using Cisco products.

---

Re the case with Cisco - the case was more than copying the CLI. Huaweri stole the whole operating system by reverse engineering it and adding what they wanted. They were caught out when Cisco found identical bugs between IOS and Huawei's OS.

Company's History

Does anyone have more information on this company's early history? Especially these points which don't appear on company's website.

1.History (if any) before 1988 2.Precise establishment date: When was this company registered officially in China? 3.Founder(s): Who or what group of people started this company? 4.Funding: Who funded this company? It's in manufacturing business so it needed a considerable amount of money to get started. 5.First product: What did it first sell?

--Revth 03:18, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

---

This article reads more like an advertisment than anything else... --Mamboman 06:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

They start to sell some PBX dina...evicers. Buy in HKG and sell in ch

"The case with Cisco: Personnally, I think that the key evidence given by Cisco is not true but not fair: Huawei was simulating Cisco's CLI interface so that their end-users can shift to Huawei's products easily without much training. However, the truth is that almost the whole datacommunication industry is dominated by Ciscso in late 1990s, everybody got used to Cisco's CLI, which is something like an actual standard. So if some small companies want to enter this market, the first thing he has to do is to do similar with Cisco product, espcially the CLI interface. Otherwise, it is not easy to survive. Even today, the same thing is still happening, not in Huawei but other small datacomm companies.

Hence, I believe that copying Cisco's user interface is not an innotale beviour. Because not like faking other products, this won't mislead the user, instead, the end users know clearly they are not using Cisco products."

This comment is completely untrue. I've been working in the Data Communications industry for going on 10 years now as a hardware engineer and I've worked with switches from: Cisco, to Juniper, to Extreme, to Foundry. I can say with pretty good certainty that the CLI interfaces between these manufacturers is NOT the same or even similar. A command such as "Show Port Statistics" will do very different things on a Cisco box vs. an Extreme box. Therefore, the operating systems employed by these switch manufacturers is very different. Huawei's CLI commands and bugs being similar to Cisco's clearly points to stealing of intellectual property as it doesn't take much Operating System know how to change these things. Finally, to all you Huawei supporters, please put away your "Racist" cards as I AM of Chinese decent. I simply choose to defend those who innovate rather than copy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gugers (talk • contribs) 01:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding bias template

This article sounds too much like a advertaising for the company. There is no data to support the claims of market share, sales amount or "No. 1" on the market. --Lord Yaar 09:10, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This Lord yaya guy sounds just like a bitter Cisco employee. :)

Never worked for Cisco, probaly never will. This article really looks biased and if you read entire contents of the talk page you will see that I am not the only one who does not agree with the information provided. --Lord Yaar 14:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lor Yaar. This article does sound like a company advertisement. Of course, Huawei is a leading Telecommunication equipment vendor; no doubt about it. But it also has many mnay shortfalls, which I think should be mentioned in the article make it unbiased. Some of the points that go against Huawei are:

• Pathetic work culture (I know it is already mentioned)
• Lack of transparency in company structure and financial reporting (Huawei keeps mentioning "contract value" but never discloses the revenue. (I know Huawei is a privately owned company and hence need not report any numbers; but it is rather strange for a company of Hauweis size to talk about contract value rather than revenue
• Disregard for intellectual property| Attempts to steal intellectual property: Of course the widely known Cisco suit is mentioned. Another equally famous (at least in the Telecom and Networking industry circles) scandal involving Huawei is not mentioned. It happened in one of the Spercomm shows where a Huwei employee was caught taking pictures of competitor equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.16.115 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership

There are some serious doubts about the long-term viability of Huawei. The firm received a multi billion dollar bond from a Chinese state operated bank which allegedly is used to undercut prices. Also, the company is said to have ties with the People's Liberation Army and was banned from bidding on a contract in India over a perceived espionage risk.

All according to a recent Newsweek story [6]

---

Well Inida just does't wanna buy stuff from China, espionage risk or not.

---

There are too many rumors on Huawei Technologies in these several years during the rising of this company from China to the world telecommunication market. Among them, two key ones are mentions here, I would like to explain something I know: (1)The relationship with the Chinese army: There are two major 'connections' between Huawei and the People's Liberation Army: one is that Renzhengfei,the CEO, was retired from PLA. However, because he was only a middle level techincal officer, traditionally not influencial in Chinese army, Renzhengfei can not take much advantage of that career.

Another is Huawei have been got some contracts from PLA all these years. But those contracts should not bigger than 0.1 Billion USD or less than 2% of the revenue of Huawei.

---

The founder of Huawei was actually laid off by PLA, so PLA was nothing more than a former employer of Ren Zheng Fei. It's ridiculous to accuse the company is controlled by the PLA just because Ren used to work for it.

这里的确有不少胡说八道。欺负中国人不懂英语，外国人不懂汉语(should be 中国人不懂英语 instead?)，所以不来纠正你。一个退伍军官半公司，全世界到处都是，偏偏就中国人不行 --210.21.229.218 05:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Could you please repeat that in english? --Lord Yaar 06:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will do a translation of the guy above. "There is so much BSing here. You guys are taking advantages of Chinese people's lack of English skills. Foreigners don't understand Chinese, so they don't correct you. A retired army officer starts a company is very common in the world, only doesn't work out with Chinese". I know it sounds a bit incoherent but this is the exact translation. It seemed like the poster didn't think too much before posting it.

Thanks for the translation. It seems that it would be useful to find out more about the founder of Huawei. --Lord Yaar 07:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That translation is pretty bad. Maybe the translator should improve his/her Chinese first. He/She (who wrote in Chinese) meant that a retired army officer can set up companys every where in the world, but NOT in China (because non-Chinese dislike the "connection" between PLA and Huawei).

I write this chinese sentence longlong ago. I mean, Renzhengfei is a normal army officer. He leave PLA, and create huawei.

Huawei is a normal private company.

But this article private too much rumours guess. Why? may because author don't like chinese govormnet, may he didn't like chinese arm, didn;t like huawei. I don't know, but don't cheating, please.

I was working in Huawei few years before, and leave it to other company.So I know this compnay , but havn't any releatione with it. 116.25.232.97 (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

---

I believe this article doesn't just seem to be advirtising, it IS advertising : i copied and paced in Google search the whole sentence "Its ASIC designing capability is among the most advanced in this field worldwide." and I found... 24 results, for instance : www.tcn-uk.org/ cb.aspx?page=D6763515-BCF4-4B86-816D-887E79B66089 or www.bm.ust.hk/ismt/seminars/LiuNanjie110306.doc or www.cbcglobelink.org/cbcglobelink/ events/NIF05/Sponsors.htm

All these were pages or websites where the text about Huawei was clearly written by Huawei itself.

---

You can contribute to this article yourself.

---

Wouldn't any company of the nature and size of Huawei not work with their local army, here the PLA? Does the PLA have about 700 military bases outside their own country? Just asking.

Where we are dealing with mega bucks, there is always some hanky panky going on. I remember a radio interview with someone from the Australian telecom, who installed phone systems in Vietnam, just before the sanctions were lifted by President Clinton. And then the interviewee said "As soon as the US lifted the sanctions we could not even hire a vehicle any more in Vietnam and had to withdraw." Bad behaviour by one is not a good reason to do likewise, but some people should come off their high horses. I had never heard of Huawei until last night, and as a novelist, machinations and history of telecommunication companies do not rate highly in my life. Expose bad behaviour, yes, but do not be one eyed, please. 144.136.177.7 (talk) 06:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cease and desist

I would like to ask the IPs from Japan (yes, you) to cease and desist vandalizing this article. CJK 01:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing valid information from this page. If this continues the page may be locked down. --Lord Yaar 09:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

---

I don't wanna discuss politics with you (user CJK, who is "a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy") here. However, considering that people have very different view about the "International" embargo against Iraq and the second Iraq war, the stuff you added is NOT appropriate on this page. I intend to keep deleting it. Anyway, who don't you add the information to the "Iraq Embargo" page?

Also, who is this Lord Yaar guy? Why do you have problems with Huawei?

---

I do not have any problems with Huawei. The information about involvement with Iraq is valid and cites its sources. Therefore removal of that section is unwarranted and constitutes POV pushing. Plase not that the disputed section does not condemn Huawei, it merly states that Huawei supplied Iraq regardles of UN-imposed sactions. Personal view of anybody of such sanctions are irrelevant in this case. On the other hand, the line

In particular, the fiber-optics enhanced Iraqi air defenses during a time when Iraq was firing upon Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones.

may be considered a POV and I wasn't able to discern this exact and particular usage from provided references. That's why in my last edit I have not included this line. I think that this considers a good compromise and that the information should be kept. On a personal note, to the poster above me, could you at least sign your question so that I may know who is curious about me? --Lord Yaar 09:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

---

OK. I removed the references to IraqWatch.org and GlobalSecurity.org though. I don't know anything about them. Who are behind these organizations? Very skeptical! I found one BBC article from 2002 though.

Please stop. These are valid sources, and it is quite notable that this company installed such a vast system during a time when there was international sanctions. You attempt to obscure the issue by pointing out that other companies did this too, but it doesn't matter in an article specifically about this company. Furthermore, language like "according to" is weasel-wording. CJK 00:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

While I don't have any knowledge about IraqWatch.org, you can easily get information about GlobalSecurity on Wikipedia itself. Therefore I agree with CJK at least regarding this reference. In my opinion the BBC article should stay as an additional reference. CJK, could you point an exact excerpt of the cited references that proves the "In particular..." claim, as I was unable to find such passage. Admitably I just briefly scaned over the documents. --Lord Yaar 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT say "according to". It's from the BBC article at "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2591351.stm". Read it first! About pointing out other companies, it is very interesting that CJK (and BBC) named only Huawei, even though many companies from US, UK, France, Japan etc were also accused. Vankenta 07:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---

I had enough. I will keep deleting it.

The relevant quote is

One of China’s leading makers of communication networks; established in 1988; in 2000-2001, helped Iraq outfit its air defenses with fiber optic equipment, without UN approval, and thus in violation of the international embargo against Iraq...

I changed the wording to avoid confusion. The anon clearly does not want to discuss these facts, unfortunately there seem to be any way to stop him (them?). I suspect they have ties to the company and don't want its image to be tarnished. CJK 23:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

CJK the wording now looks really proffesional and encyclopedic. I just hope that the anonymous won't start his silly reverts. If he does we could go for semi-protection of the page. --Lord Yaar 13:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

142.58.xxx.xxx, the address that the most recent anoying reverts come from. So who are you, anonymous user? A student interning in Huawei? A member of the faculty on a grant? Or did you just spoof the address and are the one and the same as 133.15.xxx.xxx? Please have the decency to sign your edits. --Lord Yaar 09:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I am not working for Huawei and have NO connections to Huawei. OK!? Do CJK and Lord Yaar work for IraqWatch.org or FOX??? Yes, I am the one and the same, so do NOT publish my personal information such as IP addresses online! I have just registered! By the way, who are you (i.e., CJK and Lord Yaar)??? Vankenta 08:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for semi-protection

To the user who "had enough": Since you obviously intent to continously vandalise the page without providing any reasons for removal of the section in question I have filled a request for semi-protecting this page. I hope that you will register, stop doing anonymous vandalism and will part take in meaningful discussion while providing valid arguments for re-wording or removing the section you so reverently vandalise. --Lord Yaar 09:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The request for semi-protection was denied, citing not enought recent activities. I have added additional references to the disputed section and added dates to all the references that had them missing. Citied references are from FOX News, The Washington Post and LA Times. I think that the anonymous vandal should have heard about these sites. --Lord Yaar 14:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fox News? :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vankenta (talk • contribs) 08:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

Huawei and Iraq

Wikipedia is NOT a place for CJK's right wing propaganda. So back off CJK (and Lord Yaar)!!! I can agree on that the United States alleged in 2001 that Huawei has assisted Iraq in its telecommunications in violation of United Nations sanctions. No more than that!!! Vankenta 06:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Its not an allegation when there is overwhelming evidence of its existance. CJK 21:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Really!? Don't be so sure. As far as I know, no weapon of mass destruction was found in Iraq even though the "fact" was presented to the UN and the whole world by the U.S. goverment. I will NOT discuss this issue with CJK ever again. Vankenta 01:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Who talks about weapons of mass destruction? We are talking about and providing evidence about installing telecommunications equipement in a country that was subject to UN sanctions. As to your sarcastic reaction to mentioning FOX news is silly. While I do not have much respect for this news outlet, I have included is as a reference to have both left- and right-wing sources cited. As to who I am - just a wikipedian, european (so I care little for US politics). I just want a valid fact backed up by good and many sources to stay in this article. --Lord Yaar 09:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Lord Yaar? It does not sound so European to me. Well, we are not talking about weapons of mass destruction, but the question is can right wing media such as FOX be trusted? I have no problem if you make reference to e.g. BBC and even CNN. I suggest that we go through the formulations here in the discussion session before you publish it on the main page. Here is a couple of points we have to make clear: (1) Washington has ALLEGED that Chinese companies have assisted Iraq in its telecommunications in violation of United Nations sanctions. However, the United States has not accused Chinese workers of building fiber optic cables specifically. (see CNN's report at http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/east/03/08/us.china.iraq/index.html). (2) China did NOT acknowledged any wrongdoing. China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan said "Chinese enterprises and corporations have not assisted Iraq in building the project of fiber optic cable for air defense". (also from the same CNN report) (3) The United States and Britain carried out airstrikes on Iraqi air defense systems near Baghdad in Feb 2001. The United States said the radar systems had recently been upgraded, allowing Baghdad to fire more accurately at planes patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq. (CNN) Vankenta 18:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why does my nick has to 'sound european'? What does to sound european mean to you? Coś napisane w języku środkowo-europejskim brzmi przekonująco? Може би нещо на кирилица искаш? Please note that references I have provided were not only from FOX but also from Washington Post - as far as I know they are not right-wing, although my grasp of american politics is weak.

I propose that we work together on rewording the section. Things to include in it: a) the fact that there was accusation of Huawei involvement in Iraq, citing sources which carried such accusation, b) refutal of the accusation - citing the CNN article you provided would be good here c) BOTH points of view - some sources say that Huawei did the alleged works in Iraq, some say they didn't - let's just present them both. Things NOT TO INCLUDE: a)any opinion or analysys of the cited facts - accustion took place, was refuted, that's all; b) any weasel words or expressions ie. saying Saddam Hussein's Iraq - Iraq is a country it does not belong to one man; also "The system was used for both military and civilian purposes and represented the most open breach of the sanctions to date" sounds pushy to me and I think that this fragment should be removed.

So I propose following wording: In 2000 Huawei allegedly installed a telecommunications system in Iraq, in violation of U.N. sanctions. It was claimed that Iraqi air defenses were outfitted with fiber-optics during a time when Iraq was firing upon Allied aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones. The accustation was denied in 2001 by China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan who stated that Chinese enterprises and corporations assisted Iraq in building "the project of fiber optic cablefor air defense".

Please note that appropriate references should be added in the above paragraph - I say let's keep AT LEAST CNN, Washington Post and GlobalSecurity.

So, Vankenta, CJK, what do you think? Can we finally come to an agreement and stop this silly revert thing? --Lord Yaar 11:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta here: I am pretty tired of this. I think that Lord Yaar's proposal is acceptable. By the way, the last sentence should be "China's foreign minister Tang Jiaxuan who stated that Chinese enterprises and corporations DID NOT assist Iraq ...". HWDEF 06:58, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta here: Well, it seems that there is no hope for CJK. HWDEF 18:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I updated the article with the proposed wording by Lord Yaar. HWDEF 15:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a FACT, not an allegation, that this company had the gaull to violate UN sanctions against Iraq by installing a tellocommunication system. China's government alleged that Chinese companies did not insist in building the fiber-optics cables for air defense and their objection has been included. Their statement does not leave out the possibility that they sold the cables or that they installed them for other purposes than air defense and were diverted. Why must you persist with this BS? Are you concerned that this damages stock value? CJK 01:05, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is a fact according to CJK. It is easy to tell where CJK stands by checking his contributions to Wikipedia; and it seems to me that CJK is not here to present facts. Also, Huawei is not listed, so what stock value? Why "Saddam Hussein's Iraq", how cheap can you (i.e., CJK) be? Should I tell you (i.e., CJK) who really supported Saddam Hussein? HWDEF 16:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact according to multiple sources presented. If you are trying to argue that no such business was conducted with Iraq, cease and desist. There is no good reason for you to obscure well-known facts. CJK 20:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Expanding this article in other languages

I plan to translate this full article into Polish and Bulgarian (currently stub there) as soon as we come to agreement with Vanketa and CJK. I hope that this will be proof enough to Vanketa that I am indeed european. --Lord Yaar 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vankenta: OK. Please do. HWDEF 07:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Lawsuit with Cisco removed.

As far as I know, the part about the Huawei-Cisco lawsuit has been removed. Shall I revert and repost what have been said?

If you agree, post on my talk page, I will revert it. By the way, the IP address of the person that removed it is 203.197.168.166, and he removed the section on 27th May, 08

--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Since no one seemed to be interested, I reverted it.--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 08:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually intentionally came looking for info about the Cisco lawsuit. I think it would be good to add it back in - maybe in a separate section? http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/corp_012303.html Zinger (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I also intentionally came to the Huawei article to find more information about competition with Cisco. Of which the lawsuit is key information. A section on it should be resurected. That there was a lawsuit is a well known fact - not even mentioning it here deminishes the credibitilty of this article. --- Dr_Unix (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is it acceptable Wikipedia policy to add some information on the proper pronunciation for non-Chinese speakers? Probably in a dictionary-style format. (Is it wha-way, wha-wee, wow-wee, something completely different?) Andyross (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

wha-way -munford (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you know?94.230.80.85 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It's whah-way - I know - I'm sitting in the Huawei headquarters in Shenzhen, China right now Metadaddy (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article currently includes this: 'pronounced as "who-are way" in English', which doesn't make sense. If anyone is certain of the (western) pronunciation, do edit away. 82.81.2.161 (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

GPL Issues

I believe the statement regarding Huawei's violation of the GPL may be incorrect. While the reference is to a forum post where no one responds by providing a link to the code, there is a related forum post where they give appropriate contact information for receiving the source code on CD. As far as I can tell, that would be within the scope of compliance with the GPL. The link is here: Copyright Notice and Warranty Disclaimer

The article should probably be updated to reference this information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.196.136 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I removed the entire section, which has been heavily edited recently with heavy bias from both sides. The section was poorly sourced, and part of it was simply copy and pasted from the sources, a copyright concern. If anyone wants to add it back, feel free, but remember it needs to be npov. Beach drifter (talk) 02:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I can see how these two diffs are problematic [7] and [8]. The information about Huawei's connection with the PLA are important, however. An Australian journalist recently wrote a long story about that in the Financial Review. I'll find it and summarise information in it, and do some research on this otherwise. I was quite surprised to look through this article and not find that information. Generally I think the idea of a "controversy" section is a little cheap; why not just put that information in a theme based way throughout the article? Makes more sense to me.--Asdfg12345 16:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Like this: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/australian-it/huawei-in-asios-net/story-e6frgamf-1225770085462 -- there are also a bunch of links at the side. Maybe will take 45 mins or an hour to summarise them all and add a section about PLA links. Worth it though.--Asdfg12345 16:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone keeps vandalizing this section - maybe the article needs to be locked after all.

Agree on the quality of some links (not familiar with The Register or The Australian as news source - credible?) - however, the rest of the material is rock solid and adds the matter to the picture. FYI, a similar section exists on major competition - look Cisco Systems and Juniper Networks up. Corporate history cannot be rewritten with a flick of a mouse on wikipedia.

Yes, the Australian is highly reliable. --Asdfg12345 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed improvements

I would like to help improve this page, however I believe that it is important that before making any suggestions or non-minor edits, I disclose that I work with Huawei. I recognize this means I have a potential conflict of interest, so I will be very careful, and I have read quite a bit about Wikipedia policy and so will strive to meet and exceed standards for WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY, WP:RELIABLE, WP:CONFLICT and all applicable guidelines. I have been writing a draft of the History section, which especially would benefit from re-organization and expansion, and I will put up my suggested version of it here shortly. Thank you, and if I can be a resource for anyone with questions about Huawei, I'll try to answer if I can. --Bouteloua (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

History section draft

There is now a draft of the History section available to read in my userspace, here: Huawei History draft. I have written this draft as an improvement on the current History section and would like if another editor could read it and offer any comments, or replace the current section with the draft if they think that it is better. As much as possible, I have tried to keep my draft neutral since I am aware that, because I work with Huawei, I have a possible conflict of interest (as I have noted above).

The reason that I have written a suggested new version of the article's History section is that the current version does not comprehensively cover the company's history. In addition, the current section is lacking citations for some pieces of information and includes many technical terms that readers may not be familiar with. The inclusion of the timeline in the current History section is rather confusing as some information is repeated, while other information in the timeline is not mentioned in the paragraphs above it and has no citation.

For my draft, I have used the current section as a basis and tried to expand on information currently in the article to create a more complete history of Huawei. I have added citations to reliable sources for all facts and have tried to provide context or explanations for any technical terms. I have removed the timeline that is in the current section, to reduce repetition and confusion, making sure that any information from the timeline is included in my text with a citation. The draft section is written chronologically and I have added subheadings to break up the text and make it more accessible. The subsections that I suggest are: Early years, International Expansion, Investment and partnerships, and Recent performance. In particular, I have expanded the sections on the founding of the company and the expansion of the company, to include important information not present in the current section.

I would appreciate if another editor could read my draft and provide constructive feedback, if necessary, for any improvements that can be made. If you find that the draft significantly improves on the current section, and it is appropriate to do so, I hope that you will make the replacement. If you have feedback or questions on the draft, or about improving the Huawei article, I will be pleased to respond to you here or on my talk page. Thanks --Bouteloua (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above message, an editor has responded to my request for help on my Talk page and has now replaced the History section with my draft version. I can answer any questions you may have about this new version of Huawei's History section and would be happy to receive suggestions or help with further improvements to the article. Thank you --Bouteloua (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Corporate governance

Continuing from my messages above, I have now written a draft of a new section that I believe would be a good addition to the Huawei article, and would like to ask for an editor to read through and provide comments. This is a short draft section detailing the company's corporate governance, and in particular provides a list of the board members of Huawei. You can read the draft in my user space here: User:Bouteloua/Huawei Corporate governance draft. As with my previous draft my aim has been to write as neutrally as possible and to add important information to the article. If another editor could read my draft and advise me of any improvements that can be made, or if it would be okay to add this to the article. Thank you --Bouteloua (talk) 18:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now added this section (now named "Corporate leadership") to the article, per this note from an editor who reviewed my draft. If there are any questions or suggestions that you may have with regards to this section, I would be happy to respond to them. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Competitive position draft

I would like to help update and fix the Competitive position section, and in order to do this the right way, I would again like to ask for assistance from another editor in reviewing a draft version. The draft is available in my user space here: User:Bouteloua/Huawei Competitive position draft

Instead of adding much new material,what I have tried to do is verify and correct what is there now. The draft is split into three parts: details about Huawei's sales are now all under a "Sales" subsection, while all information on awards is under a subsection named "Recognition". The section now provides current information on Huawei's ranking as a telecom equipment manufacturer. I have also added up-to-date information on the number of patent applications, and patents granted. Within the new "Recognition" section, recent awards have been added, including those Huawei received at the LTE World Summit in May 2011, bringing this section up-to-date. Details on the company's rankings and market share prior to 2008 have been removed as they were outdated. I have also removed the paragraph on softswitch licenses, as this was outdated and less relevant than the global market share ranking. I would be grateful for another editor reading my draft and offering any feedback they can provide, or replacing the current section if the draft is not found to need significant changes. If I can answer any questions or you would like to send me any comments, I can respond here or on my user page, and welcome your input. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Following review of the draft section by another editor, on their advice (see Talk page note), I have now replaced the Competitive position section with my draft. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have about this section, or if you would like to assist with further improvements to the article. Thank you, --Bouteloua (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Products and services

I have now added to the article a rewritten version the "Products and product deployment" section, which I have now re-named Products and services. If you have any questions about this updated section, I am happy to reply here, and appreciate any feedback. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Assessing and improving "Criticisms and controversy" section

Since late May I have contributed new content to this article in reasonably uncontroversial subject areas. Now I would like to suggest changes to the "Criticism and controversy" section. I believe the suggestions I would like to make are not in of themselves controversial, but the subject matter is certainly one to be very careful with. I therefore wish to start carefully, and focus just on the current Alleged technology theft subsection. In order to be very clear, I will include both the current paragraph and my suggested revision in the body of this Talk page. First, here is what currently appears in the entry:

===Alleged technology theft===

In February 2003 Cisco Systems filed motion for preliminary injunction against Huawei Technologies, quoting the defendant to be "engaged in blatant and systematic copying of Cisco's router technology". Cisco examined Huawei's operating system (VRP) and "found telltale signs that it was developed using Cisco's source code". In July 2004 Cisco, Huawei and 3Com filed a stipulation and order of dismissal with prejudice in the lawsuit filed by Cisco against Huawei in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, which means that Cisco can't bring another lawsuit against Huawei asserting the same or substantially similar claims.

Huawei Technologies became the focus of a major intellectual property scandal again later in 2004, when a Huawei employee was examining and photographing circuit boards from a competitor's booth at the SuperComm tradeshow. In February 2009, the President of Indonesian mobile carrier Excelcomindo Pratama accused a visiting Huawei employee of trying to steal data from his firm, but confirmed that no data was stolen. Huawei suspended the employee. In July 2010, US-based mobile vendor Motorola Inc filed an amended complaint against Huawei claiming loss of confidential information to the Chinese company.

The version I propose instead:

===Intellectual property rights===

In February 2003 Cisco Systems sued Huawei Technologies for allegedly infringing on its patents and illegally copying source code used in its routers and switches. In July 2004, the case was resolved with Cisco dropping its charges against Huawei, with Huawei and its partner 3Com winning a court order preventing Cisco from bringing another lawsuit against Huawei asserting the same or substantially similar claims. In June 2004 a Huawei employee was caught photographing circuit boards from a competitor booth at the SuperComm tradeshow. The employee denied the accusation, but was later dismissed.

In July 2010, Motorola filed an amended complaint that named Huawei as a co-defendant in its case against Lemko for alleged theft of trade secrets. The case against Huawei was subsequently dropped in April 2011. In January 2011, Huawei filed a lawsuit against Motorola to prevent its intellectual property from being illegally transferred to Nokia Siemens Networks ("NSN") as part of NSN’s US$1.2 billion acquisition of Motorola's wireless network business. In April 2011, Motorola and Huawei entered into an agreement to settle all pending litigation, with Motorola paying an undisclosed sum to Huawei for the intellectual property that would be part of the sale to NSN.

In a further move to protect its intellectual property, Huawei filed lawsuits in Germany, France and Hungary in April 2011 against ZTE for patent and trademark infringement. The following day, ZTE countersued Huawei for patent infringement in China.

Note, I don't know how to show references at the end of each section only, so you will have to verify for yourself. However, my sources are primarily Reuters, New York Times, industry journal Light Reading and similar sources.

Anyway, my perspective on the existing section is that it is written with bias against Huawei, and presents some information that is not significant within the context of Huawei's dealing with intellectual property rights, let alone its dispute with Cisco. My draft aims to provide a more balanced summary of the Cisco case in 2003, explaining the basis of the court case and the final outcome. The existing section uses quotes rather than summarising the case, resulting in a biased and idiosyncratic description of the events.

Next, the current section mentions events involving actions taken by two employees of Huawei. Huawei acknowledges these incidents, and took action in each case, and these employee actions should not be considered representative of the company as a whole. I have rewritten the sentence about the SuperComm tradeshow to remove the phrase "major intellectual property scandal" which does not appear in the source, and is an inaccurate description besides. Next, I suggest removing the sentence on Excelcomindo Pratama, as this event was related to a single employee acting on their own initiative, as confirmed by Excelcomindo, and who confirmed that no data was stolen.

Meanwhile, I have also made two additions to the section, first to the Motorola case, providing a more complete explanation and detailing the results of the case. In the existing section, there is no mention of the outcome or that Huawei was a co-defendent in the case, and nothing at all about the agreements which settled the case. This seems like an important thing to mention. To the end of the section, I added a short paragraph on Huawei's recent lawsuits against ZTE and the countersuit by this company, to bring the section up to date. And because there is more to Huawei's involvement with intellectual property than being accused of theft, I have renamed the section "Intellectual property rights", which is more appropriate as the section focuses on intellectual property, and does not simply detail instances of "alleged technology theft" as the current title suggests.

I invite other editors to review these changes and if you agree they are an improvement and reasonable, to implement them directly. I will not act on these suggested edits for the time being, but hope to find consensus to do, and make this section more accurate. If there has been no comment for a week, then I may add some or all of these myself. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 18:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I have now made the suggested changes in the article as there have been no objections, but I will continue to check this page for any comments from other editors. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the sources for Cisco - Huawei intellectual rights dispute and it is fairly evident that Huawei have done changes to documentation and software (VRP?) even before the lawsuit was dropped. This has been acknowledged by Cisco, so the case was resolved to benefit of both parties, which is worth saying. I could not get an official Huawei's acknowledgment of change, please let me know if there is a need to find more sources / evidence on this case.

With respect to Huawei - ZTE lawsuit, I do not see much value in this information unless it there is an injunction (or out-of-court-regulation as with Cisco) Ckt2packet (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• I have undone the edit that an anonymous user has made to this section, per the BRD cycle. I think Bouteloua did the right thing and proposed his change here, as well as his reasons, then made those changes after no objections were made, forming a silent consensus. While consensus can change, changes should be discussed as opposed to simply reverting back to the old version. If there are objections to the new wording of the section please discuss them here. Thank you. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not a place for political discussions, it is a collection of cross-referenced material. I see nothing wrong with additions by Bouteloua and other users; removing material is vandalism. Ckt2packet (talk) 00:57, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• • Political discussion? From what I could see most of their addition was removed. Please correct me if I am wrong. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please be very careful assessing the body of edits. I have just grepped the entire version (01:46, 10 September 2011) to (21:50, 8 September 2011). The former has 141 citations, the latter 146. I have not identified any links or content that was removed. Please update me if you see any. As for quoting Huawei's official responses and efforts clearly and separately, I think it is proper and expresses the balancing views. So I have renamed the section name to match it. Ckt2packet (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvement to "Western security concerns"

It has been a short while since I have been able to spend time on the Huawei article, but I am now able to continue suggesting what I hope are agreed to be improvements. Following from my note above, I would like to make some additional changes to the "Criticisms and controversy" section. I have prepared a new draft, which I propose be used to replace the current Western security concerns section. As the current section addresses concerns in India, as well as Western countries such as the UK and U.S., I suggest that it be renamed "Security concerns". As mentioned in my previous messages above, I am not sure how to list the references on this page, but if you look in the "Edit" tab, sources include The Times, Wall Street Journal and Newsweek and all information is verifiable.

The new version I propose:

===Security concerns===

Huawei has been challenged in some business deals, due to perceived ties with the Chinese People's Liberation Army, given that Ren Zhengfei, the founder of the company, served as an engineer in the army in the early 1980s. In the UK, the Conservative Party raised concerns about security over Huawei’s bid for Marconi in 2005, and the company's equipment was mentioned as an alleged potential threat in a 2009 government briefing by Alex Allan, the Chairman of Joint Intelligence Committee. In December 2010, Huawei opened a Cyber Security Evaluation Centre where its hardware and software solutions will be tested to ensure their ability to withstand growing cyber security threats. In the U.S., some members of Congress raised questions about the company's proposed merger with communications company 3Com Corp in 2008, and its bid for a Sprint contract in 2010. In addition, Huawei withdrew its purchase of 3Leaf systems in 2010, following a review by the U.S. Committee on Foreign Investment.

In a 2011 open letter, Huawei stated that the security concerns are “unfounded and unproven” and called on the U.S. government to investigate any aspect of its business. U.S.-based non-profit organization the Asia Society carried out a review of Chinese companies trying to invest in the U.S., including Huawei. The organization found that that only a few investment deals were blocked following unfavorable findings by the CFIUS or had been given a recommendation not to apply, however all large transactions had been politicized by groups including the U.S. media, members of Congress and the security community.

In October 2009, the Indian Department of Telecommunications reportedly requested national telecom operators to "self-regulate" the use of all equipment from European, U.S. and Chinese telecoms manufacturers following security concerns. Huawei's contract with BSNL, India's national network, was subsequently delayed in December 2009. In June 2010, an interim solution was introduced that would allow the import of Chinese-made telecoms equipment as long as the telecom operator guaranteed that the equipment does not pose any security threat.

The current section appears to have been written with bias against Huawei and some information included does not represent the situation correctly. This is particularly true with regards to the paragraph on Huawei's contracts in India. My draft summarizes the current section and notes the response from Huawei and the Asia Society to security concerns that have been raised. I have added an explanatory note at the start of the section to provide some background on why security concerns have been raised in the past. Following the information about concerns in the UK, I have added a sentence about the testing center that was subsequently established.

In addition to rewriting the currently present information, the draft includes a new paragraph regarding Huawei's open letter in 2011 and a study by the Asia Society on perceived security threats from Chinese telecoms equipment manufacturers, including Huawei.

I have rewritten the paragraph on Huawei's contracts in India to more accurately represent the situation. For instance, the sources used currently do not actually suggest that there was a security concern from Huawei's equipment that led to their contract being placed on hold, and I do not believe this claim has been previously lodged. This has therefore been omitted.

As with my previous drafts, I would like to ask that other editors review this new draft and make the edits if they are acceptable. For the moment, I will not carry out the changes directly, however I may do so if there has been no comment for a week. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

As there have been no objections, I have now added the rewritten section to the article. I will continue to check this page for any comments. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the rewrite, it looks good. I have also recently had a chance and check the sources quoted. I found two interesting things: (1) the interim solution not merely calls for "safe equipment" but explicitly lists authoritive agencies and (2) Asia society is sponsored by Huawei, which adds a new angle to their research. I am adding both notes and hope we can keep this article neutral and close to facts. Ckt2packet (talk) 03:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggested improvements to History, Products and Services and Competitive Position sections

There appears to be a lot of overlap between those sections, which makes the article look hairy:

• "recent performance" lists recent sales figures, which also are relevant to "competitive position / sales"
• "investments and partnerships" includes Grameenphone award that should go to "competitive position /recognitions'
• not sure if it's worth to provide revenue breakdown in Telecom/Global Services/Devices sections. These figures are internal and do not add much value as vendors are generally free to distrubute revenue between business units as they see fit.
• not sure if there is a need to quote financial data older than 2010 - if there is, it would be better have a graph.

Hope someone can do the clean-up ) Ckt2packet (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussing "Security concerns"

Ckt2packet, I have a question for you about the "Security concerns" section of this article. As you know, in August I proposed a replacement "Security concerns" section on this page. Because of my declared COI, I sought input from another editor who had been involved on this page, and once it seemed clear there weren't any objections, I moved it a few days later. That version of the section can be found here. Within a few days, you started making numerous changes to this very section, and the current version is here.

I think that we may have some disagreements about what should be in this section, but my initial concern is that your edits have reduced its readability. Some of the formatting is simply wrong and the writing is now less clear. In the interests of making the section easier to read and accommodating all relevant information, I'd like to suggest that we replace the first three paragraphs of your current version with the first two paragraphs of my previous version, and then discuss content changes on this page. In this way we can restore a higher quality of writing but also work out our possible differences about details to include. Let me know if this is OK with you. Thanks, Bouteloua (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I was asked for my views on this by Bouteloua. My opinion is that the prior wording was far better in terms of writing and readability, and in my view a pretty balanced description of the issues which was not overly favourable to Huawei. Much of the new wording is in my view overly general for this article and is better suited to an article dealing more generally with US-China/China-US FDI. I would support going back to the prior wording as suggested above, and then discussing any necessary edits here. Rangoon11 (talk) 23:59, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Rangoon11. I have gone ahead and made the change I outlined above: replacing the first three paragraphs of the section with the first two paragraphs from the version I drafted. Do you have any thoughts on the rest of that section? The paragraph on Huawei's contracts in India now mentions the cancellation of a contract with BSNL in 2005, which is unrelated to the later security concerns. I would suggest that this sentence be removed and the following one amended to give a clearer version of events. Currently that sentence states:

In 2010, Indian security intelligence (CBI) insisted on canceling the rest of the Huawei contract with BSNL and pressed charges against several top BSNL officers regarding their "doubtful integrity and dubious links with Chinese firms".

This wording gives the impression that the security agency canceled the contract, however, according to the sources used it was BSNL who canceled the contract. In addition, the sources do not mention charges being pressed against the BSNL officials, rather allegations were made against them in reports sent to India's Central Vigilance Commission, so the end of this sentence is incorrect.

Regarding the information about possible security concerns in Australia, this paragraph does not seem to add any useful information, would you agree?

Thanks again for your feedback so far, I hope that you are able to help further with making this section more accurate and readable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

To Bouteloua: Your edit from Oct 03 is not acceptable because it violates main Wikipedia principles: neutrality, no self-research and proper citations. In particular, please consider the following examples: the perceived ties of Huawei to PLA were entertained by US Congress and should be linked to their background material (Pentagon files etc), not Huawei's statements from 2011. The latter should be properly referenced as company's response, not the original statement. Likewise, Asia Society report well explains media outcry over Huawei in US - but comes at a cost of being sponsored by Huawei. These are all well-referenced facts. I am all for expressing alternate views over matters and would welcome you to participate, but let's keep known facts straight Ckt2packet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 5 October 2011 (UTC).

Ckt2packet, thank you for your note here, however, I think that you may not have examined my edit closely. There is no original research (I believe this is what you mean by "self-research") in this section that I am aware of. I'm also concerned by your statement that the perceived ties to the PLA are not referenced correctly - I compared my edit with your current one and can see no difference in the references used other than I had omitted the Pentagon reference (which I am happy to add). I am uncertain what you mean by "the latter should be referenced as company's response", the edits I made were clear what was the response of the company (i.e. the open letter). In addition, you have mentioned that the Asia Society is "financially dependent" on Huawei, whereas from the reference you have added it is clear that Huawei is just one of 13 major corporate sponsors, each donating over $50,000, therefore it is unlikely that the Society is "dependent" on Huawei.

The main issue with your edits is that you have reduced the readability of the section and introduced incorrect formatting. There are multiple errors of grammar and missing punctuation, all of which make the section less clear. An uninvolved editor who has read the section has also agreed with this, and supported the edits that I made. If you read through the version of the section I had edited closely, you will see that it is all the same information included currently, but it has been edited to better follow Wikipedia's summary style and present the information logically. This makes the section more readable, while including the same information and same references.

As stated above, I can add the Pentagon reference into my version of the section and I'm happy to address any specific issues that you bring to my attention. Since my edits have been supported by uninvolved editors I will revert (and add the Pentagon reference) and suggest that we discuss here any changes needed to the section. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Bouteloa, the issue at hand is that this section describes multiple viewpopints (two or more). They should be clearly represented, but not mixed. For one example, your edit restores the 2011 Huawei's self-issued statements as a reference to US congress doubts. This is not the place for it. For another example, in your edit there is an implication that US congress probed Huawei due to the chairman's former PLA duty. Again, this is not the only concern in the source document and should not be linked to chronologically different article. For third example, in UK the creation of Security Test Center came as company's (rightful) response to a probe. For a fourth example, it is very appropriate to note that Asia Society is financially supported by many organizations - including Huawei.

In a nutshell, when expressing multiple points of view, it is easiest to separate them in distinct paragraphs and avoid mixing references between them. Whatever one side says is not necessarily true or relevant to the other side.

This said, your October 5 edit does not add information - but subtracts from what's already available. This is not good, as we should strive for clear and concise summary of references with minimum intepretation. I hope you will understand and reconsider your changes. Ckt2packet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC).

Hi Ckt2packet, I appreciate you discussing here on the talk page before making any edits. To respond to your notes: first, the citations for the Congress probes are both secondary sources (the Washington Times and New York Times), not self-issued statements from Huawei. Secondly, it is clear from the source material that, while other concerns are mentioned, the source of security concerns (the focus of this section) about Huawei is the perception it has links with PLA, and a reason for this perception is that its CEO was once an officer in the PLA (this is mentioned in the New York Times source). Thirdly, from context it is clear that Huawei's security test center in the UK was established as a response to concerns in that country - the sentence follows logically on from the previous one mentioning the security briefing. Finally, it would be inappropriate to raise doubts about Asia Society unless a reliable third party source has so written about it. Can you provide a third party source which mentions concerns about Huawei being a donor to the Asia Society?

And as far as I am aware, it is quite usual in Wikipedia articles to include the response to an opinion within the same paragraph, and I do not think that there is any confusion caused by this in the "Security concerns" section. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I still think there are several issues unresolved in this section. For one - I believe the quoted sources should whenever possible be valid at the time of referenced action, not second-added past the original events. Best example - perceived military ties of Huawei. By the time of US congress inquiry, the employment record of Mr. Zhengfrei was out of concern; in fact, the quotation from Pentagon came based on their suspicion that Huawei (as a company) remains an active defense supplier. For another example - I do believe the opposing view points are still not properly marked. For instance, Asia Society report is (along with other similar activities) - a clear lobbyist effort on Huawei side. In US, lobbying is legal whenever it is clearly identified and illegal otherwise - hence hiding information about sponsorship would normally be scandalous. Overall, I believe this section is gradually getting better but still has a long way to go. Ckt2packet (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC).

Hi again, Ckt2packet, thank you for your note, I appreciate you raising these points here. I understand your point about the Pentagon report, but I do not think it is correct to say that the perceived ties with the PLA is due to "suspicion that Huawei (as a company) remains an active defense supplier", as this is not specifically stated in the report. With regards to the Asia Society, as previously mentioned, it is not appropriate to raise concerns about it "lobbying" for Huawei unless this has been mentioned by a third party. The society is not actually a lobbying organization - as you can see from its website - and Huawei is just one of many sponsors of this large organization (in fact, not even a major sponsor - per this list from the Asia Society website). I hope that this clears things up a little. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving article introduction

Over the last few months a lot of improvements have been made to the Huawei article, however the article's introduction has not been updated to reflect these changes. Some information is out of date, such as the number of telecoms operators served, while other information is incorrect, such as the date the company was founded. The current introduction also lists all of the research and development centers, which does not seem necessary. I would like to suggest some edits, to bring this up to date and provide a better introduction to the article. I have replaced some of the current citations with more recent ones, new sources include Businessweek and China Daily, you can see these by viewing the edit tab.

The proposed new introduction:

Huawei (officially Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.) is a global networking and telecommunications equipment and services company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. It is the largest networking and telecommunications equipment supplier in China and the second-largest supplier of mobile telecommunications infrastructure equipment in the world (after Ericsson), serving 45 of the world's 50 largest telecoms operators.

Huawei was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei and is a privately held company owned by its employees. Its core business segments are: Telecom Networks, building telecommunications networks; Global Services, offering global equipment, operational services, and consulting services for enterprise customers; and Devices, manufacturing electronic communications devices. Huawei has more than 110,000 employees, 46% of whom are engaged in research and development (R&D). In 2010, the company invested CNY 16,556 million in R&D. Huawei has established 20 R&D institutes in countries including the U.S., Germany, Sweden, Russia, India and China.

In 2010, Huawei recorded revenues of USD$28 billion, and its products and services have been deployed in more than 140 countries.

This new version includes updated information about the revenue of the company and the number of employees. It also provides an overview of the business areas of Huawei and summarizes information about its R&D activities. I have also updated the number of telecoms operators served by Huawei and corrected the date that the company was founded.

I will not make these edits directly for the time being, as I would appreciate if any interested editors could review this draft, to provide feedback or make the edits if they find them to be acceptable. I will wait for comments, but if there have been no objections to the changes, I may make the edits myself. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm largely supportive of the new lead. I have made a few tweaks as shown in the draft below, which are mainly aimed at tightening up the text.

Huawei (officially Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.) is a multinational networking and telecommunications equipment and services company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. It is the largest China-based networking and telecommunications equipment supplier and the second-largest supplier of mobile telecommunications infrastructure equipment in the world (after Ericsson), serving 45 of the world's 50 largest telecoms operators.

Huawei was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei and is a private company owned by its employees. Its core activities are building telecommunications networks; providing equipment, operational services and consulting services to enterprise customers; and manufacturing electronic communications devices for the consumer market. Huawei has over 110,000 employees, around 46% of whom are engaged in research and development (R&D). Huawei has 20 R&D institutes in countries including China, Germany, India, Russia, Sweden and the United States, and in 2010 invested CNY 16,556 million in R&D.

In 2010, Huawei recorded revenues of USD$28 billion, and its products and services have been deployed in more than 140 countries.

I have nothing against the wording 'serving 45 of the world's 50 largest telecoms operators' if it can be properly cited, otherwise I feel it is a bit too promotional.

Rangoon11 (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rangoon11, thank you for your feedback and the helpful edits. A Businessweek article from September 15 notes the "45 out of 50" figure, so I have added the appropriate citation into the draft you edited above. I hope that this will suit? --Bouteloua (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes that works for me. I wonder if it wouldn't be better to move that bit of text to the third paragraph though, purely because it is rather short at present, giving this:

Huawei (officially Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.) is a multinational networking and telecommunications equipment and services company headquartered in Shenzhen, Guangdong, China. It is the largest China-based networking and telecommunications equipment supplier and the second-largest supplier of mobile telecommunications infrastructure equipment in the world (after Ericsson).

Huawei was founded in 1987 by Ren Zhengfei and is a private company owned by its employees. Its core activities are building telecommunications networks; providing equipment, operational services and consulting services to enterprise customers; and manufacturing electronic communications devices for the consumer market. Huawei has over 110,000 employees, around 46% of whom are engaged in research and development (R&D). It has 20 R&D institutes in countries including China, Germany, India, Russia, Sweden and the United States, and in 2010 invested CNY 16,556 million in R&D.

In 2010, Huawei recorded revenues of USD$28 billion. Its products and services have been deployed in more than 140 countries and it currently serves 45 of the world's 50 largest telecoms operators.

Rangoon11 (talk) 17:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The change you suggest looks good to me, you're right that it does work well to include that information at the end of the introduction. Thank you again for your input on the draft, it is much appreciated. I think that if there are no other comments within the next day or so, I may make the edits, however I welcome any further changes you might have in mind. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. I think that the new lead could benefit from expansion in due course but this is a step forward over the current text. Rangoon11 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have now moved it into place. --Bouteloua (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve "Treatment of workforce and customers"

Hi, following from the improvements to the rest of the "Controversy and response to criticisms" section, I have prepared a new draft for the "Treatment of workforce and customers" section, which I believe is an upgrade on the current section. I would like to suggest that the draft be used to replace the current section, which contains some irrelevant information and inaccuracies, and does not provide Huawei's response to any of the described events.

The suggested new version can be viewed in my user space here: User:Bouteloua/Huawei_Treatment_of_workforce_and_customers_draft.

The information in the draft section has been reordered so that the first half focuses on customers and the second half focuses on treatment of employees. I have removed the sentence that appears at the start of the current section (regarding the employee who was suspended for attempting to copy files from Excelcomindo Pratama) — this was previously part of the "Intellectual property rights" section and does not fit with the topic of this section, as it pertains to an isolated incident and does not speak to how Huawei deals with clients or employees in general.

The paragraph on Safaricom did not accurately represent the information in the source material, nor did it appropriately attribute opinions to the source. For example, the statement that the Safaricom CEO "struggled to cancel a deal sourced by Huawei" should be attributed to the Wikileaks cable. I have edited this paragraph to include correct attribution and remove information that was not included in the source. In addition, I have added a response from Michael Joseph regarding the Wikileaks cable. The paragraph regarding Huawei's operations in India also needed editing to provide a factually correct version of events and attribution of information to the sources. Here too, I have added Huawei's response to the allegations. Finally, I have made a few small copy edits to the material regarding Huawei's workforce and also added in a detail about Huawei's recent efforts with regards to health and safety.

If any editor would like to review my suggested edits and provide feedback, or make the edits directly if they find them to be an improvement on the current version, that would be most welcome. For the moment I will not make any changes and will wait for input from other editors, however I may make the edits myself if there are no objections. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 22:25, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Australia security concerns

At the end of the "Security concerns" section, there is currently a short paragraph on alleged Australian security concerns. Having read the source material carefully it does not seem to me that the first statement is an accurate reflection of the source. The first source, The Australian reported that all of the vendors bidding for the contract with the Australian National Broadband Network were being reviewed by a government panel, and the newspaper placed emphasis on previous claims made against Huawei. Despite that, the article does not state that the bid for the network was "threatened" due to the proposal by Optus of using Huawei as a vendor. (This Wikileaks article states that the implication that Huawei posed a security risk to Australia may have begun with Telstra, following their rejection from the bidding process.) The news item from Reuters does not mention Huawei at all, and implies that the tender was cancelled due to wider issues with the bidding, rather than any of the vendors. Additionally, it explains that the tender was "controversial" due to the rejection of the bid from Telstra, and does not mention security concerns. The source for the final sentence, regarding ASIO investigation does not contain any confirmation from ASIO that there was such an investigation. The Australian reports that it believes an investigation is taking place, however it is not clear that this is definitely the case, and in the article this is denied by a Huawei spokesperson.

I would like to propose removing the material and adding the first citation (The Australian article "Chinese spy fears over broadband story") to those supporting the first sentence of this section, about Huawei having been challenged in some deals. Due to my potential conflict of interest, I'd be grateful for another editor to review my suggestion and make the change if it seems acceptable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Note on edits

A few days ago an editor added a new sentence to the introduction, cited to a Wall Street Journal article. It's a legitimate topic, but its placement is problematic: it was added to the article's introduction. According to MOS:LEAD, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." For this reason, I have moved it down to the "Security concerns" section. I'm not certain this is the best overall solution, and the sentence should be rewritten, but it should work for now.

Secondly, in the two sections directly above on this Talk page, I had offered suggestions to improve this article. Because of WP:COI I am very careful to seek input from other editors when making signifcant changes. Regarding the two requests above, I have made several attempts to seek comment from other editors, but a few weeks have elapsed with no response. I am confident that the edits are reasonable, so following from WP:SILENCE I've now implemented the changes and removed the request tags I had placed. As always, I am open to discussing any changes with this article. --Bouteloua (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting an addition

Just over a week ago, a sentence on Iran was added into the introduction of the article and, per my note above, I moved this into the "Security concerns" section. As Huawei has now published a statement in response to the Wall Street Journal article (the source for the sentence), I would like to suggest an addition to the section and also a rewording of the original sentence. The current sentence is poorly written and implies that Huawei intentionally aided censorship, when this is not stated in the source article.

The original wording is:

In October 2011 Wall Street Journal revealed Huawei Technologie has offered censorship equipments to Iranian government against Iranian people.

The wording I propose is:

In October 2011, the Wall Street Journal reported that Huawei had become Iran's leading provider of telecommunications equipment, including monitoring technologies that could be used for surveillance. Huawei responded with a statement claiming the story misrepresented the company's involvement: "We have never been involved and do not provide any services relating to monitoring or filtering technologies and equipment anywhere in the world".

Since I work with Huawei, I am aware that I have a potential conflict of interest. Due to this, I would greatly appreciate if another editor could review my proposed edit and make the change if it is acceptable. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I have not yet received any response to the above note, and I would also like to propose a change to the sentence on the Taliban in the "Security concerns" section, I have also made a request at the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

First one, done - per WP:BRD; later one, please be more specific and re-request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  22:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, I linked to the noticeboard where I'd posted the request, but did not note here the change I propose to the Taliban sentence. This sentence was added to the "Security concerns" section early last week and it implies that Huawei was shown to have a connection with the Taliban, when this is not the case according to later news articles.

The original wording of the sentence on the Taliban is:

Huawei's ties to the Taliban were criticized in 2001.

The wording I suggest is:

In 2001, it was alleged that Huawei Technologies India had developed telecommunications equipment for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and newspapers reported that the Indian government had launched a probe into the firm's operations. Huawei responded, stating that the company did not have "any link with the Taliban", as its only customers are telecommunications carriers and its facilities "always operate according to U.N. rules and the local laws of each country". On December 15, 2001, the Indian authorities announced that they had not found any evidence that Huawei India had any connection to the Taliban.

If you think that this is an acceptable addition, I would appreciate if you could make this edit. Thank you. --Bouteloua (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I was asked to check this request [9] but I'm sorry, I'm not confident in adding it, as is. In looking at news coverage, it doesn't seem as clear-cut as the paragraph above suggests. I accept that Huwei, and indeed India/Chinese press, seems to deny any connection - but other press - including more recent - contradicts that, e.g. this article says Huwei deny any connection, but adds However, in a letter to US Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, a group of top lawmakers accused Huawei of having "ties with the People's Liberation Army, the Taliban, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard". And Washington Times describes it as A Chinese company with ties to Beijing's military and past links to Saddam Hussein's army in Iraq and the Taliban in October 2007 [10].

Therefore, I think we need to be very careful to cover this in an appropriately neutral manner, presenting all sides of reliably-sourced opinion, with due balance.

I'm going to leave this request for others to assess.  Chzz  ►  18:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Chzz. The point you raise is valid, there have in fact been echoes of the earlier allegations, in spite of emphatic denials. However unfortunate and unfounded, I can understand it is noteworthy that U.S. lawmakers have raised the matter. So I have made a new addition to the end of that paragraph, making note of this and using the Telecompaper source that you have provided. You will see I have not added much because there is not really any new information in these reports, merely continued speculation:

In 2001, it was alleged that Huawei Technologies India had developed telecommunications equipment for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and newspapers reported that the Indian government had launched a probe into the firm's operations. Huawei responded, stating that the company did not have "any link with the Taliban", as its only customers are telecommunications carriers and its facilities "always operate according to U.N. rules and the local laws of each country". On December 15, 2001, the Indian authorities announced that they had not found any evidence that Huawei India had any connection to the Taliban, although speculation to the contrary has persisted in the U.S.

If you feel this is now better balanced, please move this over, or share whatever feedback you may have. Thank you, Bouteloua (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I came to fulfill the edit request, this looks like a reasonable request. The only problem is that those references dont offer url's which makes it hard to assess the accuracy, all were accessed on 16th November is it possible for urls to be included especially AP newswires sourcing. Gnangarra 14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Gnangarra, thank you for taking the time to look into this. I'm afraid that the sources I used here are from an offline news database, and I do not have urls, however I can provide the relevant quotes from each. Hopefully this will suffice?

Indian state government puts Chinese firm under microscope

by Jay Shankar

Agence France-Presse

December 10, 2001

The government of India's southern state of Karnataka has summoned senior officials of a Chinese firm based here to clarify reports that it had built equipment for the now-routed Taliban in Afghanistan, an official said Monday. "We have told company officials to be present before the Ministry of Information Technology by Thursday," said Vivek Kulkarni, Karnataka's secretary of information technology. Kulkarni, however, said officials from China's Huawei Technologies were presently out of the country and were not immediately available for comments.

"We have told them to inform us about what Huawei Technologies is doing and clarify" the media reports that the firm helped the Taliban upgrade their telecommunications network in Afghanistan, Kulkarni said. The Karnataka government earlier Monday sent officials from the Software Technology Parks of India autonomous agency to investigate the firm's activities in Bangalore, the hub of India's software industry.

---

India probes unit of Chinese firm for Taliban link

Reuters News

By Y.P. Rajesh

December 11, 2001

J. Gilbert, a senior public relations officer at Huawei's office in Bangalore, said reports linking the firm to the Taliban regime were baseless. "First of all we don't have any link with the Taliban. We are a telecoms solutions firm and only telecommunications carriers are our customers," Gilbert said by phone from Bangalore. Gilbert said Huawei India was a research and development firm which made high-tech software and did not manufacture any equipment in the first place.

---

Chinese firm denies reports that software center in India helped Taliban

Associated Press Newswires

By ELAINE KURTENBACH

December 12, 2001

"As a private company, our offices always operate according to U.N. rules and the local laws of each country," Huawei spokesman Fu Jun said in a telephone interview from company headquarters in Shenzhen, southern China. "There is no possibility that we are providing telecoms technologies to the Taliban," he said.

---

No evidence of Taliban links to Chinese firm, Indian authorities say

Associated Press Newswires

By S. SRINIVASAN

December 15, 2001

Local government officials said Saturday they have found no evidence a Chinese software company in Bangalore, India's information technology hub, had developed telecom surveillance systems for the Taliban. Huawei Technologies provided Indian officials details of the company's software research projects but none revealed any connection to the Taliban, said Vivek Kulkarni, information technology secretary for the southern Indian state of Karnataka.

If you agree this provides the information that you need, I would very much appreciate if you could make the edit. Thank you again. --Bouteloua (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)