Talk:List of companies of China/Archive 1

Mainland China
This is listed in lists of companies by country. There is no country called mainland China. Secondly, the country they are headquarted in is called the People's Republic of China. Third, most of these companies have subsidiaries or side ventures in HK and Macau, which makes pigeonholing them into "mainland" a farce. They are also multinations, so pigeonholing them is just being provincial. - SchmuckyTheCat 16:19, April 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * Arranging TNCs by country is also pigeonholing, if your logic held. And please sign your comments. &mdash; Instantnood 16:34, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Edits by SchmuckyTheCat
SchmuckyTheCat modified the page with edit summary " fix redirect, fix cat, remove text, half of these companies exist in both HK and the mainland, it is disingenuous to claim they aren't.  ". Having operations in Hong Kong does not change the fact that a mainland company is a mainland company. Many US companies have operations in Canada and Mexico, but the list of US companies won't be changed into "list of companies in the NAFTA". &mdash; Instantnood 21:01, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I am concerned, these Lists of companies in XXX classifies companies according to which country they are incorporated, as per industry practise, and not their areas of operation. These companies are incorporated i the country called the PRC. There is no company incorporated in a country called "Mainland China", so the other category is erroneous. In fact, no one argues over the extend of a company's extend of operations until Instantnood tries to force this argument in his attempt to widen the line between HK and the rest of China.--Huaiwei 18:03, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many companies are incorporated in countries like Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and the Cayman Islands, but there isn't such category. And I was not the one to start arguing by the extend of a company's operations. &mdash; Instantnood 05:42, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tax havens are an obvious exception in this case, and come to think of it, isnt HK functioning almost the same role for PRC companies trying to expand abroad, and foreign companies trying to enter the Chinese market as well? :D There are plenty of academic studies forced to classify certain companies or funds going to tax havens, and this they are bound to qualify in their text. Its not like we cant do the same. Trying to classify companies according to area of operation is simply not industry practise, and are you sure you are "not the one arguing by the extend of a company's operations", considering you are so keen to insist that anything not related to HK is "mainland"?--Huaiwei 06:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please check somebody else's previous comments on some other pages and you will know it wasn't me who first tried to argue by a company's extend of operations. &mdash; Instantnood 17:32, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * So who was it who tried to insist a division between the SARS and the rest of China by means of all possible measures except in the "military and foreign affairs"? Which then begs the question of why Category:Military of Hong Kong and Category:Foreign relations of Hong Kong exists.--Huaiwei 03:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intro/dab/whatevuh
We have:
 * This is a list of prominent companies from the People's Republic of China. See lists of companies for lists of companies from other places.
 * This is a list of prominent companies from the mainland of the People's Republic of China. See lists of companies for lists of companies from other places.
 * This is a list of prominent companies from the People's Republic of China. Since the return of Hong Kong and Macau and the signing of the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement this list has vast overlap with a lists of companies of Hong Kong and Macau.
 * See lists of companies for lists of companies from other places.
 * This is a list of prominent companies from the People's Republic of China. Since the return of Hong Kong and Macau and the signing of the Closer Economic Partnership Agreement this list has vast overlap with a lists of companies of Hong Kong and Macau.
 * See lists of companies for lists of companies from other places.

I, as well as Huaiwei (judging by his edits), object to it saying this is only about the mainland. I attempted to lengthen the explanatory text, but neither Huaiwei or Instantnood liked it apparently. Nood, no matter how much you don't like the idea, the economic barriers between the PRC and HK are going away. As long as companies like Lenovo exist on this list (which might as well be an American company now, between HK, Beijing and New York, the majority interest is in New York), as long as half these companies are traded on HKSE as their primary trade, I will object vehemently to any characterization that these are "mainland" companies.

If there is some POV issue here, then the way to NPOV it is to add explanatory text, not to revert war. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Companies are free to choose where to list themselves. A German company listing on the NYSE would not become an American company. This is, and has been, a list of mainland Chinese companies. The CEPA is a trade agreement between two entities. The economic barriers between the mainland and Hong Kong are going away in a similar manner like between Canada and the United States within the NAFTA, or Luxembourg and Belgium within the EU. &mdash; Instantnood 19:48, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * CEPA NAFTA and the EU are not similar at all except all three are trade agreements. NAFTA is an agreement between soveriegns.  The EU is trans-sovereign. CEPA is between a soveriegn and it's subdivision that are treated as seperate customs territories.  "mainland" in this case (as defined by CEPA) is the customs territory of the PRC.  The companies on both sides are merging and creating shell companies at such a rate the distinction is nearing meaninglessness. Lenovo, which has always been a dual Beijing/HK company, cannot be said to be a "mainland" company simply because it was founded by the central government - it is certainly a company of the PRC. SchmuckyTheCat 21:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They are all trade agreements, although CEPA is not an agreement between two sovereign States. Nevertheless whether the participants are sovereign States or not is irrelevant. They are all agreements between/among trade and customs entities. In terms of economic integration I would say the degree among members of NAFTA, or among members of the EU, is much higher than that between Hong Kong and the mainland. For instance, goods among EU members do not go through customs checks at borders. The labour markets of EU members and some other European countries are also open to each other. &mdash; Instantnood 16:14, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

So, what exactly is the difference between this list and list of Hong Kong companies, for example? Usually, companies are classified by the location where they are incorporated, or perhaps where their parent/holding/etc. company is incorporated. I don't think there is any dispute about the fact that companies incorporated in Hong Kong are operating under Hong Kong laws, and companies incorporated in the mainland are operating under standard PRC laws and regulations. How do we bring out this difference in the scope of and intro to this article? --MarkSweep 18:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Have a go Mark. My attempt at trying to clarify that got tumbled in the edit war. I'm not opposed to it saying something about it mostly being companies of mainland origination, but calling them strictly companies of the mainland is just wrong.  I think we need more text here, not a simple attempt at a dab. SchmuckyTheCat 18:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

One of two things should happen: Simply removing the "mainland" line is insufficient, because it then provides false information. Dbinder 21:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) The intro to the list should say "mainland", since the companies on this list are mainland companies (simply saying they aren't doesn't change anything). -or-
 * 2) The Hong Kong and Macau lists should be integrated into this one.
 * I have just turned #2 of the above into reality. I hope this shall cease the trivial revert wars?--Huaiwei 14:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have to revert your attempt. What you have tried had made the picture much more confusing. A company which says it's "Incorporated in the People's Republic of China" means that it's incorporated in the mainland, i.e. "Incorporated in the People's Republic of China" is used only for companies incorporated in the mainland. Companies incorporated in Hong Kong are never said to be, although they technically are, companies from the People's Republic of China. Only companies from the mainland would be described as companies from the People's Republic of China. &mdash; Instantnood 17:15, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Could have kept the categories though :-) Dbinder 00:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree. Category:companies of the People's Republic of China can serve as the parent category for the company categories of the three economies. List of companies in the People's Republic of China can also serve as a disambiguation in the same manner. :-) &mdash; Instantnood 10:27, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * And that is a line of tought I fail to understand. This is a list of companies by country, and not neccesarily by economy, nor neccesarily by place of incorporation. For example, why, then, should HSBC be in the list for HK when its incorporated in London? And the Bank of China (Hong Kong) is a subsiediary of the Bank of China incorporated in Beijing. Are you going to deny this parenthood just be insisting a company incorporated in HK is "theoratically" not a PRC company? Sure, we do recognise that the PRC has three economies, and that is more then well represented by the fact that we have three pages to reflect it. I suppose this is still inadequate? Well, maybe a forced removal of both lists for HK and Macau and incorporating them into the PRC will make things happier here then? :D--Huaiwei 14:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HSBC plc, is incorporated in Hong Kong. The Bank of China (Hong Kong), a subsidiary incorporated in Hong Kong and listed on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, is not wholly-owned by the Bank of China. By making the picture messy and confusing you have avoided addressing whether or not Hong Kong and Macao are countries, which you used to equate with sovereign States, while at the same time forcing the inclusion of Hong Kong and Macao companies into this list to justify the renaming. &mdash; Instantnood 14:37, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * So why are you not listing the subsidiary Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, but a link which goes to HSBC Holdings? And how about Swire Group, incorporated in London too? Or Jardine Matheson Holdings Limited, incorporated in Singapore and London? Is Jardine a Singaporean company now? Heck...Jardine's subsidiary, Hongkong Land, is incorporated only in Singapore, so what is it doing in Category:Companies of Hong Kong and not in Category:Companies of Singapore? I am surprised by this lack of understanding in the corporate world. May I remind, that if you want to "follow things by the book", then please follow it throughout. it is obvious some form of felxibility has been incorporated into these lists, so wont you think you are being hypocritical if you dont apply your demands fairly across these three pages?


 * The page is not messy. You think its messy because you cannot bear seeing those entries incorporated into one. And no, since when am I "renaming" anything" I made changes to reflect exactly as what the page title says, so I dont think I am that particular about this?--Huaiwei 14:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * You're using strawman arguments. I do recognise such "flexibility". I've never said lists of companies have to be compiled only according to the place of incorporation, have I? I was just presenting factual information that the arms of HSBC and BOC that operate in Hong Kong are incorporated in Hong Kong. The page is not messy, but as I said above, the picture is getting messy and confusing, especially to readers who are not very familiar with the situation. You opposed having the title of this list as list of companies in mainland China, regardless of its content at that time. You supported moving it. And after it was moved, you changed its content to justify the move, at the same time oppose moving it back. &mdash; Instantnood 15:05, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * What is a "strawman"? :D Yes, you do have "flexibility", because while you dont mind listing any company which have contributed significantly to HK in HK's list, you suddenly insist on using the place of a company's incorporation as a criteria in the listing of this page....and this company must be incorporated in Mainland China? Your "inflexibility" stems from that first response dated 17:15, July 22, 2005, and not to the fact that subsidiaries of the HSBS and BOC are incorporated in HK (btw, I believe I have enough financial knowledge to be more then aware of this). As for the renaming thing, actually I genuinely completely forgot that this page was once called "list of companies in mainland China". There has been too many page renames for me to bother tracking....quite unlike you, who seems to tracks them like a personal hobby. My attention was brought to this page when I suddenly notice an attempt to add "Mainland China" to the page. I suppose you have decided to now add that term to every page with the words "PRC" in the page title, or as far as you can manipulate it? If that is so, then perhaps I should start putting a stop to it now?--Huaiwei 15:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Have I ever said place of incorporation is the single criterion? If not, is it a problem that it is one of the criteria? This is not a private conversation between you and I. There are other readers. I have to present the fact whenever appropriate, regardless you posess the knowledge or not. It was not a sudden attempt to add the word "mainland" to this list, rather, it was a reversion to the sudden attempt to rename this list, and to take the word "mainland" out. I did mention there are exceptions during the long discussion at the talk page of the naming conventions on Chinese-related topics. If I were to add the word "mainland" to every single page, then I'd say what you're doing is to use all your efforts to take the word away, and to change the limit of the content of these pages. &mdash; Instantnood 16:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Place of incorporation was the only criterion you mentioned in that post, so if you had any other thing in your mind, I wouldnt know since I cant read it. :D And goodness, now you are suggesting it IS ok for that to be THE criterion? My entire reply above questions the sanity of using that one criterion, so if you think your suggestion is still valid, then yes, I would love to see you implimenting it throughout wikipedia and watching the fireworks which probably will ensue. --Huaiwei 17:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * To repeat, have I ever said it is the single criteri on ? If not, is it a problem that it's one of the criteri a ? &mdash; Instantnood 17:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * If there are any other visible criterion in that post, mind telling it to us, since its all missing in there? As for the second question (I presuem it is a question), isnt it already answered above?--Huaiwei 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I did mention in previous discussions didn't I? &mdash; Instantnood 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well if you arent going to say it, then I take it there was none. Simple.--Huaiwei 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Please kindly scroll up and have a look. It's interesting too to see what you have said. &mdash; Instantnood 16:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Next, nono...you dont have to now justify your desire to "explain" any issue. I bothered to point that out because when I mentioned HSBC, I was indeed demanding to know why it is linked to the wrong page. And I mention the BOC, because it is a wonderful example of a company which isnt exactly merely a "HK company". Instead of addressing these issues, you would prefer to avoid them and tell "us" elementary information. Save it for a more useful situation, I would say. I am stil wondering how you would handle Swire Group, Hong Kong Land, etc.--Huaiwei 17:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation is currently a redirect to HSBC. The Bank of China is a bank of mainland China, while its subsidiary Bank of China (Hong Kong) is a licensed bank incorporated in Hong Kong. How would you handle Swire Group and Hongkong Land, according to the "flexibility" you recognise in compiling these lists? &mdash; Instantnood 17:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * So why is Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation a redirect when it is a seperate subsidiary of HSBC Holdings? How about making Citibank (Hong Kong) Limited a redirect to Citibank, and then listing Citibank as a HK company? This is an absurd presentation of facts which is obviously calling for a change. You dont have to tell us it is a redirect. I already pointed that out as an issue! As for that line on the BOC, erm. So? If the parent company is incorporated in Beijing, and they have a subsidiary in HK, dosent that effectively make them a Mainland China-HK company? :D As for Swire etc, by the "flexibility I recognise", they shall stay in the list. But by YOUR inflexibility, they shall be deleted, since both arent incorporated in HK. How's that?--Huaiwei 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Would the Citibank become a US-Canada bank because of Citibank Canada? &mdash; Instantnood 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a question I should be asking you. Under my definition, no. Under yours, yes!--Huaiwei 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the answer you would expect from me, but that's absolutely not my answer. &mdash; Instantnood 16:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)


 * Your theories of "sudden renaming attempts" sounds laughable at best. Please look at the history page. So was it "sudden" when you decided to add that notice in this edit, the single unannouced edit which sparked this whole exchange with me removing it 20 minutes later and calling it unnecesary considering that it was also you yourself who added the the HK, Macau and Taiwanese (?!?!) entries to this page  quite some time earlier? So tell me. Just who is "suddenly" attempting to rename the page?--Huaiwei 17:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I won't consider adding the notice anything surprising. Similar notices are already existed in many articles and lists on mainland China-related topics. The links that I added in this edit were added to the see also section. If you do a little bit of homework, you'll know how the leading paragraph was link when the list was created. You'll also be able to tell who was the person to take out the word "mainland" from the leading paragraph, and when the page was moved . &mdash; Instantnood 17:59, July 23, 2005 (UTC)


 * No, I dont consider it surprising either. I am hardly surprised that someone like you would do that, and you arent exactly someone who is responsible or accountable enough to discuss it first before adding anyway. The funny thing here is...its you who says the edits were "sudden", as thou it surprises you. So do you still consider it "sudden" now? :D As for "whoever" removed the word mainland, what does that gotta do with me? Are you now addressing him or me? Or are you now blaming me for his actions? While we are at it, who is the one who added "Mainland" to the article in ? And btw, you hadent told me what "Strawman tactics" is, you know? :D --Huaiwei 18:52, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
 * It's so interesting to see your comment in this edit. And be reminded it was you who says you suddenly noticed the attempt: " My attention was brought to this page when I suddenly notice an attempt to add "Mainland China" to the page " . &mdash; Instantnood 11:35, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, but I cant see the corelation between those two comments?--Huaiwei 15:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * They are two sentences, are the two sentences are not correlated. &mdash; Instantnood 16:21, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

coments moved from WP:RFPP

 * I would like to point out that the version with the two versions template is the version instantnood prefers, ie, the version which existed before the two pages were moved to a new title. This has been corrected quite some time ago, until Instantnood suddenly comes in and starts to revert them unilaterally and without warning. This resulted in the latest revert war, and instantnood took the opportunity to revert them all the way back to the version he prefered based on the old titles, plus adding a two version tag, an action which obviously endorses a version he prefers. I would therefore question the rational of protecting the two pages at their current versions.--Huaiwei 12:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not choose a version arbitrarily or according to my preference, but rather, as explained in the edit summaries, I restored to the version before disputes take place, i.e. what was the article intended for when it was created, and what it was like immediately before the disputes. By saying "this has been corrected" User:Huaiwei is asserting her/his point of view, and attempting to implement her/his point of view while the discussions are in progress. As for the title I would suggest administrators to add a notice informing readers that there is a dispute over the title of the article, in the following suggested format, for instance: There is currently a dispute over the title of this article, between list of something of mainland China and list of something of the People's Republic of China  . The current title does not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two. &mdash; Instantnood 13:08, July 27, 2005 (UTC)
 * This conveniently ignores anyone else's changes to the articles besides one user, Instantnood. This is a request from a POV pusher to protect his version from the edits of at least three other people, and at least six have made smaller edits that are lost by this protection - because he makes no attempts to include subsequent change in his revert warring. Every other time Instantnood has come to this page the admins have seen through the fact that he is the one without consensus. This is a worthless protection and absolutely nothing will come from the discussion on the talk page because he - and only he - filibusters.  SchmuckyTheCat 13:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Indeed. when the dispute was sparked by Instantnood, several other editors have also contributed, and did come to a logical compromise in List of companies in the People's Republic of China. This is evident in the edit history and the talk page. Instantnood, however, decides to unilaterally revert all these edits back to an ancient version for no apparant reason other then to claim it was the point "before the dispute". Lets look at the history pages of each to prod this further:
 * List of companies in the People's Republic of China
 * A quick look at the edit history shows that the daily dispute was sparked when Instantnood made this edit . Prior to this, there was no obvious signs of any dispute by the said parties. SchmuckyTheCat first changed the reference of Mainland China to the PRC here, with no one else opposing it in terms of edits. Instantnood himself made just one edit which did not change the leading sentence, almost 2 months after SchmuckyTheCat's edit. I made my first edit in the page, a small edit , 14 days after instantnood. It was another 20 days later before Instantnood sparked the edit warring with the edit mentioned above. At no other time was there any evidence of edit warring at all.
 * List of airports in the People's Republic of China
 * The edit history shows that Instantnood sparked this latest dispute with this edit: . The page was first changed to a reference of the PRC with SchmuckyTheCat's edit, with no signs of edit warring at all after that. Instead, various editors, including instantnood himself, have added content to it. In light of the page's reference to the PRC, I changed the format of the page to show airports in all of the PRC, a process I started 2 days after SchmuckyTheCat's edit, and which I did not finish until a good 50 days later , with no signs of any edits opposing my move throughout the entire period. An entire 2 months passed before I made a small edit to a single entry , and 4 fateful days later, Instantnood decides he has nothing else in his hands to play with, and decided to spark a major edir war through the edit specified above.
 * As anyone can clearly see, the evidence is all in the edit histories. There has never been any "edit disputes" in both pages until the two controversial edits by Instantnood in each page, both of which sparked frenzied multiple edits by multiple users on a daily basis not seen in both pages before. If he sees a need to revert the page to "prior the dispute has taken place", then may I know why he did not revert it to the version just before his edit in both instances? I would think he has alot to answer for his actions above.--Huaiwei 15:13, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Here is not the right place to further the debate, but as User:Huaiwei has brought up some of his arguments which are not entirely true, I have to clarify. I do apologise for any inconvenience that this might have caused. Huaiwei sees the disputes over the two lists as something I brought up recently. This is quite the opposite. If one take a look at the edit history, she/he will be able to tell there were disputes months ago. In the past two months or so, I was advised by my advocates not to engage in editing relating to the naming conventions while the previous ArbCom case was in progress. Therefore I did not actively object renaming of titles by SchmuckyTheCat, and edits by Huaiwei. I added the notice to the list of companies because I did not consider it part of the disputed issue, as similar notices are already tagged at the top of many other mainland China-related articles. It was simply for clarification purposes. Nevertheless Huaiwei went further to change the coverage of the list, that touched the firepoint of the disputed issue. As the list of airports shares the similar conflicts, I supposed the two lists should be considered together, and therefore made similar changes to both lists, and later, tagged with the twoversions template. Back to the requests for protection, I'd like to request administrators to consider adding the notice I suggested, in order to better clarify to readers what is disputed. &mdash; Instantnood 15:46, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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

Unprotect the page
Viewing the differences between the two versions at issue shows the following issues to resolve:
 * 1) The current version makes the claim that these are mainland only Chinese companies.
 * 2) The current version is old and stale.  It is missing information added by other users.
 * A forced TOC;
 * The companies organized into sections about their basic purpose (insurance, shipping, etc);
 * The regional base of operations of the companies;

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

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

Let's unprotect the page and move forward in inclusiveness. SchmuckyTheCat 18:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The forced location of TOC is not necessary for the current version (mainland China-specific). In the other version (PRC version) only the regional bases of Hong Kong and Macao companies are specified. These companies are not included in the current version. Whether the list should be sorted by alphabetical order or by business nature is not part of this dispute. &mdash; Instantnood 19:55, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * No, the alphabetical or business nature sorting isn't part of the dispute. It's just been thrown away.  It's a useful edit that's just a discarded casualty of the revert war and page protection.
 * The extra companies as well, have just been thrown away. With what justification?  That they were the ones that had regional information - no, ADD MORE INFORMATION.  Research those other companies and place the province or city where they do business.
 * The TOC only has relevance as another example of something missing as a result of the revert war.
 * So, what is the dispute, then? What are your issues?  What is the purpose of keeping this page protected?  If you are the arbiter of who needs to be the happy person with the result, what is your preferred result? SchmuckyTheCat 21:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I am most happy to discuss on alphabetical or business nature sorting, but the situation did not allowed. If a consensus is reached to do the either way, I'll synchronise the two versions. &mdash; Instantnood 08:34, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * So, what is the dispute, then? What are your issues?  What is the purpose of keeping this page protected?  If you are the arbiter of who needs to be the happy person with the result, what is your preferred result? SchmuckyTheCat 14:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The dispute is over the title and the scope of the list. I requested to protect it because, as I have said, of the refusals to put on the twoversions tag, and the many trials to remove it. &mdash; Instantnood 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well? SchmuckyTheCat 21:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * " come back and talk, Instantnood. " - from SchmuckyTheCat's edit summary: You want me to come back and talk then you say around I'm filibustering? :-) &mdash; Instantnood 21:46, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I want to have the page unprotected. What is your proposal to move forward and do that? ~ SchmuckyTheCat 22:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC) ~
 * The title change itself is disputed, and was done at the time I voluntarily refrained from editing the disputed issues. My proposal, as presented at WP:RFPP, is to keep the twoversions template, together with the notice stating that the current title does not endorse the position of any party. In fact the article did not have to be protected if Huaiwei and you did not remove the tag for several times. (same proposed solution as suggested at ) &mdash; Instantnood 22:41, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion unhelpful to getting the page unprotected

 * (response to Instantnood's comment at 08:34, August 3, 2005) I dont think the TOC is anything up for discussion. It was clearly not disputed until Instantnood decides unitarily that he is justified to revert every single edit back to an ancient version he prefers.--Huaiwei 08:46, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please stop the accusations. I'm pretty sure you know well why that version was chosen. &mdash; Instantnood 08:56, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Erm...what accusation? I am simply stating what happened. And yes we all know why you chose that version. It is simply the version which suits your "sinophobic agenda"? :D--Huaiwei 09:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at my edit summaries at and the first sentence of . And bear in mind most Hongkongers are Chinese and there's no such thing as Sinophobia out there. &mdash; Instantnood 09:39, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its not like we have not read that claim of innocence before. Well, the editing history shows otherwise, however, especially when there are also some interesting comments in the 3RR which appear related to this one. And btw, racism does exist within a single race. Sinophobia applies not only to non-Chinese, but also to Chinese who show contempt towards fellow Chinese, usually accompanied by a reluctance in being associated with them as being from the same race.--Huaiwei 09:50, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There are subgroups among Chinese people, and there are self-identities among these subgroups. But that's not Sinophobia or denial of the broader (broader with respect to that of the subgroups) Chinese identity. &mdash; Instantnood 10:04, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if you are exactly fit to say these things thou, especially when one is racist, but is trying very hard not to let the truth spill out into the open?--Huaiwei 12:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Is there any sysop watching? Or should I report these labellings and accusations to the ArbCom case which is in progress? &mdash; Instantnood 12:20, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Its your choice, really. Afterall, its only a matter of time before it gets brought up anyway. ;)--Huaiwei 14:48, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I would consider being called a racist a personal attack, and I would remove it if it were directed at me. I am not familiar with your RfAr case Instanthood, but if you feel it is relevant to it then you should present it as evidence. Thryduulf 16:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Title disputed
I would like to propose to add a notice, such as the following, to notify readers there is not only a content dispute, but also a dispute over the title. There is currently a dispute over the title of this article, between list of companies of mainland China and list of companies of the People's Republic of China. The current title does not endorse, and should not be seen as an endorsement of, any of the two. &mdash; Instantnood 09:06, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have added this notice to the article (above the twoversions notice). &mdash; Instantnood 10:21, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Which version to be displayed
I have explained why the current version was chosen in the edit summaries before, that is, according to what the list was like and was intended for at the time of creation, prior to the disputes and point of view-pushing edits and renaming. The twoversions tag states precisely the version displayed is not, and should not be seen as an endorsement of any of the two versions. Further, I've added a notice telling that the title is also disputed. Nevertheless, user:Huaiwei and user:SchmuckyTheCat has tried to swap to the other version. I would like to request for third party opinion to decide on which version should be displayed, with acknowledgement of the edit history of this article. Third party opinion will also be requested if there's a similar disagreement over other articles on which version should be displayed. (Please see also articles relevant to the political arrangements and situations, and Wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese).) &mdash; Instantnood 07:43, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
 * While this page was in cold storage for almost a month by the request of User:Instantnood, he took no effort in initiating dialogue or to encourage dispute resolution. Even after much proding by others, he continues to either play blind, or show an obvious reluctance in resolving anything by talking in unconditional terms and repeating past arguments with no signs of compromise. It was only after it was finally unprotected, did he quickly trip over himself in enthusiasm in some form of dispute resolution, with the latest exercise asking for "third party comments". Leaves me wondering why this was not done ages ago, be it when the disputes first arose, during the revert wars, or during the three weeks of cold storage. In the latest reverts, he again calls for "good reasons", as thou he has "good reasons" for keeping the current version. Like it or not, it is obvious that a slow-mo revert war is already occuring. Is he ready to admit this? I wonder...again.--Huaiwei 08:25, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Huaiwei does acknowledge that there is an ArbCom case in process (in fact there is a motion to have him joined in the case), and that my advocates, as well as some other users, have advised me to refrain from contentious edits. Nevertheless she/he and user:SchmuckyTheCat has taken the advantage of this opportunity to edit and rename the titles of many articles massively, including this article ( edit history ) (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood, et al., #Additional Requests for Movement/Injuntion and User:Instantnood/RFAr). Much efforts have been paid at the time this article was protected and after it was unprotected, but it was fruitless. And now she/he is shifting the responsibility of the "three weeks of cold storage" to me. All these asides,  third party comments should always be welcome on any talk page on Wikipedia, or else apparatus such as WP:RFC would not have established. But in the past third party opinion was far from adequate. By requesting for it explicitly I am actually beseeching for their participation, to help resolve all these troubles. Therefore I'd look to plead, again, for everybody's opinion. Thank you. &mdash; Instantnood 08:34, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * The above commentary directly confirms what I have been suspecting, which I mentioned over in Talk:List of airports in the People's Republic of China, in particular my commment from :


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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