Talk:The Clean Network

Neutrality
I dispute the articles neutrality for the following reasons:
 * The initial description (which reoccurs later as well), 'long-term threat to data privacy, security, human rights and principled collaboration posed to the free world from authoritarian malign actors', is taken almost word for word form the US government . Furthermore, the entire structure of the article matches that of the referenced website. However, the website is only referenced with regards to a small subset of claims. Since the US government does not have a neutral point of view on the efforts it leads, this is not only an issue of lacking citation, but one of neutrality.
 * The only thing swept under the rug for major parts of the article that is mentioned even by US government website, is that this effort is mainly directed against China, which further clouds the purpose of the effort.
 * The majority of citations of the article are from US government an EU commission websites.
 * On a side note, the content of the article was created by a single user (edits by others are never more than a few lines).

Since I have neither the will, nor the knowledge of the topic to correct to article to have a NPOV, I am imploring anyone arriving here to do so. Rcc1833 14:51, 11 November 2020 (CET)

I agree that when citing the US state department, the text should be placed within quotation marks. For example, the text aggressive intrusions by malign actors, such as the Chinese Communist Party. is an exact quote and therefore should include "" to denote such fact. It is not a description of program, it is an actual citation of text. 198.48.246.37 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

There are loads of factual problems in this article
1) Japan listed as being in the "clean network"- despite reports that it refused to do so

2) Spain is listed as being in the "clean network"- but reports show Vodafone in Spain uses Huawei for 5G

3) Brazil is listed as being in the "clean network"- but it is allowing Huawei to participate in 5G (post Trump decision)

4) Portugal is listed as being in the "clean network"- but it is not formally banned

5) The figure presented by the US state department as "two thirds of global output" is subsequently misleading- --116.255.82.168 (talk) 08:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Pro-china bias and missing content
As currently written this takes simple facts (like the Chinese oppression of Uyghurs) and puts them in quotes that are merely attributed to the State Department or other USA government officials. These facts are well established and don't need to be attributed to people as mere claims or allegings. A suggestion to the next editor is that it also doesn't go enough to describe the bad acts by the CCP that triggered world criticisms.KingOfTheBills82 (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

List of members
Currently the article has a list of the organizations that some of the members belonged to and how many of the countries in each of them joined this network, and the timeline contains information about when some countries joined, but no actual list of members. Can somebody who knows which of these countries are in it please add an actual list somewhere? Thanks! 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:C0F6:8A47:929E:194C (talk) 21:46, 24 April 2023 (UTC)