Talk:Ren Zhengfei

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 October 2021 and 9 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jjjjdddd199704.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Huawei owned by it's employees?
Is it fair to say its "owned" by it's employees, when they are given a "virtual" share which they don't own, and it does not give them any voting rights within the company nor do they own any part of the company. And when they leave, those shares are returned to the company. This is all from wikipedia's own page on Huawei. So why is it different on this page? Or at least, you could say "although this is disputed" after saying that Huawei employees "own" the company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.80.121 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Request to remove unverified claims
I work with Huawei and would like help in removing unsourced information from this article. In both the introduction and the Biography section statements are made regarding Ren Zhengfei's affiliation with the Chinese Communist Party, though no sources are provided. I am certain no reliable sources can be found. For a source that would have said so if true, here is a story about Huawei and Ren Zhengfei from The Economist which makes no such statements. This should simply be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions, I'll be watching this talk page. Thank you, --Bouteloua (talk) 01:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the CCP additions by the IP address, but kept the ex-PLA officer statement. Silver  seren C 01:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request to add additional information and also to totally refute the statements above, keep watching sir, we would expect nothing less from dictators.! However, even the Chinese Government has acknowledged past affiliations. FACT! NO ONE OWNS "SHARES" IN HUAWEI! Here is how it works; You work for Huawei, so first to own "shares" you must be Chinese (no insults intended). You can not trade, sell, or otherwise profit in any way from these "shares"! You leave, you lose your shares, if you ever even find out what they are, no payout, no say, no benefit, nothing ! You stay, You can not trade, sell, or otherwise profit in any way from these "shares"! So please define the concept of "owning shares in Huawei as an emplyee." How are the shares and their value conveyed to the empoyee? this is an unlisted, unaudited company whose worth can not be independantly proven or verified. Not an issue in itself, great way to make staff feel part of the organisation, BUT, this is about facts, so report facts, not fantasy. 203.82.81.23 (talk) 14:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

New Section
IT HAS BEEN SIX MONTHS SINCE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR ACCURACY WERE PRESENTED BUT TO DATE THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE. PLEASE REPLY. Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.130.146.229 (talk) 09:42, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

My name is Anisha, I am a Digital Strategist at Social@Ogilvy Hong Kong, and I am writing on behalf of my client Huawei Technologies. We would like to request an update to Sun Yafang's article. We would like to update the article with the latest and more comprehensive information about Ren Zhengfei.

Please find the changes that we would like to request:

First of all, please update his current photo to: http://pr.huawei.com/en/static/HW-U-202672.jpg This photo is appropriate for a free-content encyclopedia, please see liscence below. Creative commons license:  Ren Zhengfei by Huawei  is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://pr.huawei.com/en/static/HW-U-202672.jpg. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://pr.huawei.com/en/.

And here are the text revisions we would like to kindly request:

1. In the current sentence “After completing secondary school, he attended the Chongqing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture in the 1960s, and then joined the People's Liberation Army (PLA) research institute to work as a military technologist in the PLA's Information Technology research unit.” We cannot find, and Wikipedia does not provide references for, any news reports that describe Ren as a “military technologist” or any reports that mention the existence of an Information Technology Research Unit in the PLA in 1974 when Ren joined the PLA Also, By Ren Zhenfei’s own account, he joined the army in a civil engineering capacity to build a factory that made fabrics.

Please revise to the following: “After completing secondary school, he attended the Chongqing University of Civil Engineering and Architecture in the 1960s. In the 1970s he joined the People's Liberation Army to build a factory that made synthetic fabric in the northeastern Chinese city of Liaoyang, according to an interview he gave at the World Economic Forum in 2015. He left the army in 1982.” Source for suggested revision: http://fortune.com/2015/01/22/huawei-ren-zhengfei-davos/

2. The paragraph on Wikipedia currently states “He now serves as its CEO. The company had an annual revenue of $34 billion USD with 10% going into research & development, and over 144,000 employees as of January 2013.” Please not that The current entry does not mention Huawei’s rotating CEO system, a system that puts Ren’s CEO title into a clearer context and it also uses outdated financial numbers.

Please revise to: “Ren’s title is Founder and CEO. Day-to-day operations are managed by three Rotating CEOs, each of whom serves for a term of six months before the next CEO takes over. In 2014, Huawei posted annual revenue of $46.5 billion USD, 14% of which was invested into research and development. As of September 2015, Huawei had 170,000 employees worldwide.”

Source for the statement about Huawei’s Rotating CEO system: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2013/10/14/huawei-innovates-with-rotating-ceo-system/ Source for the statement about Huawei’s 2014 revenue and number of employees worldwide: http://www.samenacouncil.org/samena_daily_news.php?news=52979 Source for the statement that Huawei re-invested 14% of its 2014 sales revenue into R&D: http://www.virtual-strategy.com/2015/08/31/correction-huawei-huawei-inaugurates-regions-first-flagship-customer-service-center#axzz3liSmuRVt

3. In the phrase “Huawei is essentially independent of Ren because it is held by most of its employees, but the ownership structure remains opaque.” We would like to question the characterization of Huawei’s ownership structure as “opaque.” This is the opinion of one person, quoted in a single article, yet Wikipedia states it as fact.

Please revise the sentence to the following: “Huawei is essentially independent of Ren because it is held by most of its employees, but some observers have characterized Huawei’s ownership structure as opaque. In response, in 2014 Huawei allowed a reporter from the Financial Times newspaper to examine its books and review the ownership holdings of various executives.”

Source for the characterization of Huawe as “opaque” is the same as the current source: http://www.itnews.com.au/news/analysis-who-really-owns-huawei-175946

Source for the statement about the Financial Times being allowed to see Huawei’s books: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/469bde20-9eaf-11e3-8663-00144feab7de.html

4. In the phrase “His ties with the Chinese military and Communist Party are being cited as a security concern in not allowing Huawei to expand in India. These fears are shared by other countries around the world.”

Please note, India is one of Huawei’s largest markets in Asia. The statement that “Huawei is not being allowed to expand its presence in India” is incorrect. Huawei has expanded its presence in India since 2009, when the relevant portion of this entry appears to have been written. The company now does $1b dollars in revenue there each year, and has 6,000 full-time employees in India.

The current Wikipedia entry says that “countries around the world” are afraid of Huawei. While it is true some countries have concerns, Huawei is being recognized for transparency by “countries around the world.” In other words, it is just as true to say that Huawei is earning recognition from countries around the world as it is to say that Huawei is provoking fear in countries around the world.

Please revise to the following: “His military background is sometimes cited as a security concern in India, although the country is one of Huawei’s largest markets in Asia Pacific. Other countries have expressed similar concerns, but these have not prevented Huawei from operating in 170 countries and receiving recognition from governments such as New Zealand, Malaysia, Germany, and the UK.

Source showing that Huawei has, in fact, expanded in India: http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2014/02/07/why-huawei-will-stay-in-india/

Source showing that Huawei has earned recognition from New Zealand: http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/33984158-b401-11e3-a09a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3l6uP9O00

Source showing that Huawei has earned recognition from Malaysia: http://www.computerworld.com.my/resource/security/huawei-honoured-as-cyber-security-organisation-of-the-year-by-cybersecurity-malaysia/

Source showing that Huawei has earned recognition from the UK: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-03/27/huawei-not-a-threat-to-national-security

5. In the phrase “…while in the United Kingdom the Intelligence and Security Committee has recommended the removal of Huawei's equipment due to spying fears.”

Dear editors, please note that the sentence above is inaccurate. The Conclusions and Key Recommendations on page 20 of report by the UK Intelligence and Security Committee do not advocate “the removal of Huawei’s equipment.” Instead, the recommendations center on strengthening oversight of the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre.

The current entry does not mention Cyber Security Evaluation Centre: neither its very existence, nor the statement released by its oversight board in March 2015 saying that Huawei is not a threat to the UK. Including a description of the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre is a mandatory revision if the editors are going to cite the UK Intelligence and Security Committee report, because the report is about the Evaluation Centre.

We request that you make the following revision: “To address cyber security concerns in the United Kingdom, Huawei in November 2010 opened the Cyber Security Evaluation Centre in Banbury, England, to certify Huawei products for use in Britain’s telecommunications networks. Testing of Huawei equipment at the Centre is overseen by the CESG, the information security arm of the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ), the British signals intelligence agency. SOURCE: www.zdnet.com/article/huawei-opens-cybersecurity-testing-centre-in-uk/

and

“In June 2013, the Intelligence Committee of the UK Parliament issued a report expressing concern about oversight of the Centre by British intelligence agencies. In response, the UK government formed an Oversight Board, composed of GCHQ staff and other government employees, to investigate the Centre and its operations. SOURCES: http://www.cnet.com/news/like-u-s-lawmakers-brits-raise-spying-fears-over-huawei-gear/

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-03/27/huawei-not-a-threat-to-national-security (references the composition of the Oversight Board)

and

“In March 2015, the Oversight Board concluded its investigation, expressing confidence that the Centre’s technical evaluations were accurate and that the use of Huawei’s equipment did not pose a threat to British national security.” SOURCE: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2015-03/27/huawei-not-a-threat-to-national-security

Thank you. AnishaSindher (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Anisha, and sorry for the delay. We are currently trying to process a backlog of 180+ edit requests dating back to March of last year. Since this is a very long edit request, I shall review it piece-by-piece as time allows. Altamel (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 0. The photograph: Thank you for offering to donate media to Wikipedia. As an added precaution, please follow the instructions at commons:OTRS for sending an e-mail releasing the photographs under the CC-BY 4.0 license. A team of volunteers will review the license terms to make sure it is compatible with Wikipedia. Altamel (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 5. The Oversight Board. Your proposed text fails to tell both sides of the story. The very post from Wired that you linked to explains the controversy behind the Oversight Board, as apparently several members had connections to Huawei. To cite such a source without mentioning the controversy amounts to misrepresenting the reference, and could easily mislead the reader into believing that all concerns over Huawei and national security have been settled when they have not. Altamel (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 3. Opaqueness. Same issue as above: the Financial Times article says that some critics are still not satisfied with the company's transparency despite the reporter's examination of the ownership records. Both of the articles you cited report that Huawei claims it is independent of Ren, but you would like the article to state that "Huawei is essentially independent of Ren". These two statements are not equivalent, and the latter is not supported by the articles you cited. Altamel (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1, 2, 4. Attempting to verify... Altamel (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 0 Image is on the Huwei website at, for example, http://www.huawei.com/en/executives/board-of-directors/ren-zhengfei and http://www.huawei.com/en/executives/board-of-directors.  There is no release of license here.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC).


 * 2 " He became the CEO of Huawei in 1988 and has held the title ever since. " http://www.huawei.com/en/executives/board-of-directors/ren-zhengfei.
 * 1 The Economist served in the PLA’s engineering corps, reportedly in its information-technology research unit. http://www.economist.com/node/21559929
 * It also says Belatedly, and under pressure from outsiders, the firm is trying to modernise and open up, embarking on what it thinks is a charm offensive. It has hired lobbyists and public-relations consultants, and assembled well-paid advisory bodies of the great and the good in important countries. It is even publishing something resembling an annual report.
 * 4' I have made some changes here.
 * All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC).

Mother & Father relationship clarification
Contradictory information is contained in the second para. of "Early Life". It claims that his father met his mother 'after 1949', yet the subject was born in 1944. Further clarification is needed on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.21.79.4 (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Unclear timing
How can that be: Ren's father got to know the mother of their son after 1949, who had already been born in 1944? Or have I misunderstood that? Greetings from Fritzober (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Template:Illuminati Member ?!?!
Why does the infobox in red says Template:Illuminati Member? Kinamand (talk) 07:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It was IP vandalism, now reverted. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Net worth in infobox
I removed the net worth parameter from the infobox, as the parameter has now been deprecated. If anyone wants to add that content elsewhere in the article, you can find what I removed in this edit. Firefangledfeathers 04:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Request to add internal link, fix information box
about the information box:chairman3.Besides，logo of CPC can't display Hzt0208042508415531 tw (talk) 03:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)