Talk:ZTE
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Wording
[edit]" ZTE was fined a total of US$1.19 billion by the U.S. Department of Commerce of President Donald J. Trump " -- The last part of this sentence seems strange. Is there some special reason it is included?Kdammers (talk) 10:13, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
The founding of ZTE part
[edit]How did it come that the Ministry of Aerospace (missing Industry?) did business with telecommunication industry? And the reference [8] reveals nothing relevant with the MoA(E). --Flycici (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Flycici: Did you know China Aerospace International Holdings was in fact a plastic factory? It is weird in China that in the 1980s, every ministry start their own for-profit business on top of strategic industry, so it is not so weird for ZTE owner. Lenovo was owned by Legend Holdings, which in turn significantly owned by Chinese Academy of Sciences. Also, Peking University was the owner of Founder Group and real estate developer Peking University Resources (Holdings). Despite it is clear that Ministry of Aerospace is part owner of ZTE, the elaboration of the relations should be supported by WP:RS. Matthew hk (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Information on US bans- move to controversies section
[edit]Right now the information on US sanctions and import ban on ZTE is in the history section but there is also a controversies section at the end that includes information on the US, Philippines and Norway. This gives the U.S. actions more weight- should the information to the controversies section or its own section? Srbsf7 (talk) 02:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
- The controversies section should probably be integrated into the company's history and not be a stand-alone 'Controversy' section per WP:CSECTION. - Amigao (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Chairman outdated
[edit]Chairman info is date from 2017, a update press release from zte web site have a new chairman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:10BC:432:8500:A522:180:4299:2F66 (talk) 22:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
Context is necessary
[edit]@Amigao: What is your reasoning to remove sourced information that shows The context that even most western firms headquartered in EU, are not divesting from Russia? It is very misleading and frankly an unfair criticism to single out ZTE and make it seem like they are the very few companies refusing to divest. Because that's giving a false impression. If you disagree I suggest we take it to neutral pov noticeboard as I believe such context is not only necessary. It is absolutely critical to not mislead others in thinking that ZTE is doing something that most companies in the world isn't doing. Context is very necessary here to not mislead. Truth721 (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- You need a WP:RS that actually mentions ZTE for such context. - Amigao (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- Checkuser note: {[noping|Truth721}} has been blocked as a sock.-- Ponyobons mots 21:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
- B-Class China-related articles
- Mid-importance China-related articles
- B-Class China-related articles of Mid-importance
- WikiProject China articles
- B-Class Telecommunications articles
- High-importance Telecommunications articles
- B-Class company articles
- High-importance company articles
- WikiProject Companies articles