Talk:Concerns over Chinese involvement in 5G wireless networks

Point of view problem
The way the article is currently written is trying to setup a narration that would have an effect of persuading readers that allegation by the Western countries against Chinese involvement in the 5G network are unjustified. Such bias shall be corrected.C933103 (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) The narrative is limping because one aspect is usually not mentioned, i.e. the new generation of networked weapons. I have seen that expression somewhere but can't remember where. This indicates that some people believe the/a war against China will involve weaponry steered from the internet of things. If that is the case, then 5G is not just civilian infrastructure for movies download or monitoring your fridge content then it is a military structure which allows some civilian use. We might want to know that. I am writing this for people to keep an eye on the topic and ascertain whether it is a myth or not. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:2182:1BD5:B469:F0B7 (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)


 * "Unjustified"? Examples, please. ViperSnake151   Talk  17:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I mean the entire layout from the way the leading paragraph is written to how subsequent paragraph are articulated. I don't have the time to rewrite the entire article myself now so I am leaving the ambox here for others to help. C933103 (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We need more examples of the presumed POV to fix it, C933103. Please supply these e.g. using quotes.

Zezen (talk) 07:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)


 * It is the entire layout. If it were just individual sentences I would have fixed it myself already. C933103 (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * So dividing it into U.S. reaction/Chinese reaction/International reaction is inherently POV? ViperSnake151   Talk  16:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Maybe you can compare with the last significant version that I edited. C933103 (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Your early revision gave no actual context about why this is a controversy. I am trying to provide a more balanced perspective from all sides, but unfortunately it may seem at first glance that this article is being apologetic towards China. Did you not notice the paragraph with an entire laundry list of controversies Huawei had been involved in? ViperSnake151   Talk  00:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Foreign adversaries and telecom
The assertion that the foreign adversaries is purely about Iran sanctions is WP:OR and contradicts publications that implicate that this is tied to Huawei in general. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:09, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Wait what are you talking about. This is related to Huawei because Huawei was accused violating American sanction against Iran. C933103 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

The sanction part of the article.
Continue from discussion on my user talk page,

There are several problems in the sentence.
 * 1) The executive order never specify anything called "national economic emergency".
 * 2) As you can see in the text, and also from the White House's message to the congress, the national emergency was not for the any security problem in Huawei equipment. Instead it is about securing technology of American ICT industry, preventing those technology from being used or acquired for "foreign adversaries".


 * The Federal document that added Huawei to the entity list clearly said that
 * "Huawei has been indicted [...] of violating U.S. law [...] by knowingly and willfully causing the export, reexport, sale and supply [...] of goods, technology and services (banking and other financial services) from the United States to Iran and the government of Iran without obtaining a license from the Department of Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) [...] and conspiracy to violate IEEPA by knowingly and willfully conspiring to cause the export, reexport, sale and supply [...] of goods, technology and services (banking and other financial services) from the United States to Iran and the government of Iran without obtaining a license from OFAC as required by OFAC's Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations (31 CFR part 560)."
 * And it also alleged that
 * "Huawei's affiliates present a significant risk of acting on Huawei's behalf to engage in such activities. Because the ERC has determined that there is reasonable cause to believe that the affiliates pose a significant risk of becoming involved in activities contrary to the national security or foreign policy interests of the United States due to their relationship with Huawei, this final rule also adds to the Entity List sixty-eight non-U.S. affiliates of Huawei located in twenty-six destinations"
 * And it never mention anything that would be related to security of their network.

C933103 (talk) 07:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I actually tweaked the wording after seeing this (though I kept the reference to the entity list addition with an aside noting that it was media outlets who did connect the two events. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:32, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

This is so laughable.
"Kuo, Lily; Siddiqui, Sabrina (2019-05-16)."

From the first reference I immediately see this familiar name "Kuo Lily". This woman is professionally anti-China "journalist". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.90.251.108 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of article
Not sure what the name of the article should be, but the current title should be changed to make it obvious that these are concerns over Chinese state involvement in 5G networks *outside of China*. --Bangalamania (talk) 10:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Ren Zhengfei
Anyway I don't see why Ren Zhengfei's statement is considered undue. This article is extensive in its coverage of one-sided claims. A statement from the CEO of the company that is the target of these concerns is certainly no less important for this context.

You also removed a well cited lead section about Huawei arguing that this page isn't about 'just' about Huawei when 90% of this article is. If the perspective of the US Congress (bi-partisan) is relevant in this context than certainly is a FACT on Huawei. Porxchp772049 (talk) 2:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Usage of op-eds pass along as factual citations
It looks as though has used op-ed pieces as statements of fact in the lead, in violation of WP:RSEDITORIAL, which is hard policy. One of those is a generally unreliable source as WP:FORBESCON. Such statements of fact always require reliable sources. - Amigao (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * That depends on the information. It's a hard policy which doesn't even apply here because I didn't add in an opinion. I added in facts only. When the Hill and Forbes stated that over 90 countries have signed up to Huawei. Is that an opinion? No. It isn't. What's an opinion is how they explain why there's so many countries still choosing Huawei. I didn't add that part in. Only the facts that over 90 countries have signed up for Huawei. And note both papers are from world class publications that are unlikely to get such a simple hard fact wrong. Dragonkingluv (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , the second paragraph of WP:RSEDITORIAL is crystal clear about this. You clearly presented op-ed pieces as the basis of statements of fact, which is against policy here. The publications themselves may be WP:RSP, but op-ed pieces in them cannot be used for statements of fact. Please replace those citations with non op-ed pieces from reliable sources. - Amigao (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Don't think that is the point of the policy and you seem to be abusing it. Firstly it's not an absolute rule. ​Secondly, I didn't add in an opinion. I understand the policy purpose on why generally you shouldn't use op eds for factual statements as it's typically all opinions. Except I didn't use any of their opinion. Is it even their opinion to say that over 90 countries signed up for Huawei? No. It's not an opinion at all but them citing facts so the policy should not apply here. Dragonkingluv (talk) 04:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You probably should review WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CONLEVEL. -- Amigao (talk) 04:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that when information is obviously correct. And you use a technicality to prevent people to add that information in. I do see that as abusing policies. The Hill and Forbes were NOT making an opinion when they said (over 90 nations signed up to Huawei). Their opinion was on why so many countries signed up. Know the difference. Dragonkingluv (talk) 04:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , how would anyone know that information is "obviously correct" if there is no reliable source backing it up? -- Amigao (talk) 04:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think reputable papers like the Forbes and The Hill can make such an amateur mistake on the very basic facts. And that's a loaded question implying my sources are just incompetent nobodies. My sources are renown experts. A good question to ask is are they reliable enough to know such basic objective facts? The Forbes article was written by a Senior Fellow at the Hudson Institute and  Director of the Quantum Alliance Initiative.  THe Hill article was written by Ambassador (Ret.) Robert C. O’Brien, who is the co-founder and chairman of American Global Strategies, and the 28th U.S. national security adviser from 2019-2021. And cowritten by Arthur Herman, who is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, and co-chair of Hudson’s Alexander Hamilton Commission on Preserving Our Defense Innovation Base. He is the author of “Freedom’s Forge: How American Business Produced Victory in World War II. They are really big experts in this field so yes, I think they are reliable enough to at least know their "basic" facts.Dragonkingluv (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Op-ed pieces require WP:INTEXT attribution to that particular author per WP:SUBSTANTIATE. Your text, as written, does not do that. -- Amigao (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

huh, WP:SUBSTANTIATE? I doubt former recent security advisor to the US, is biased towards China. That's a false accusation and a red herring. This isn't some controversial statement like saying Huawei is never going to spy. They are simply stating how many countries signed up for Huawei and they have the expertise and resources to be able to know that info. You're talking about the former recent security advisor to the US. I don't think such a person would make up figures out of thin air. And the other two authors are big security experts who are part of a prestigious think group. Given their expertise, it should be fine to not need to doubt them. But for the sake of settling this, if I put in their names and attributed to them directly. Will that be acceptable to you? Dragonkingluv (talk) 05:31, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ideally, if you want to include a statement on the number of countries adopting Huawei or ZTE, there are likely WP:BESTSOURCES with that info and there would not be a need to cite an op-ed. That said, any op-ed needs in-text attribution naming the author. -- Amigao (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)