Talk:Dahua Technology

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments Computer Security: Computing Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer Security, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computer security on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer SecurityWikipedia:WikiProject Computer SecurityTemplate:WikiProject Computer SecurityComputer Security articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Things you can help WikiProject Computer Security with: AAlertBot. Please allow some days for processing. More information... Answer question about Same-origin_policy Review importance and quality of existing articles Identify categories related to Computer Security Tag related articles Identify articles for creation (see also: Article requests) Identify articles for improvement Create the Project Navigation Box including lists of adopted articles, requested articles, reviewed articles, etc. Find editors who have shown interest in this subject and ask them to take a look here.

The WP:COIRESPONSE . Caitlyn23 (talk · contribs) has been paid by Dahua Technology on their behalf.

The content, as first added by

]

Edit request to cybersecurity vulnerabilities section

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I am Caitlyn23 and I would like to request, as a declared COI editor, an addition to the Cybersecurity vulnerabilities sub-section. Please update the section at the end of the last paragraph with the following addition: "In March 2021, the Federal Communications Commission designated a group of companies, including Dahua, as posing “an unacceptable risk to U.S. national security. Some news sources have called this risk into question arguing, as The Intercept explains, that “the U.S. government has not provided the public with any evidence that Dahua and Hikvision are spying on customers.”^[1]

Thank you kindly for your help. Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yitz (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I am working to expand the article with additional informative content. Because of my COI, I am not editing the page myself. I would appreciate review and implementation of the following suggested additions:

• Add a new section after "History" entitled "Market" including the following sentences: Dahua Technology has been listed on the Shenzhen Stock Exchange since its IPO in 2008.^[1] The company is a component of multiple indices, including SZSE Component Index, SZSE Composite Index, and SZSE 300 Index. In 2017, Dahua Technology was named in Forbes Asia's Fab 50.^[2][3] In May 2022, Singer Sri Lanka PLC opened the first Dahua Concept Store.^[4]
• Add a new section after "Market" entitled "Partnerships" with the following sentences: In 2016, Dahua partnered with Dell to build smart security systems.^[3] In 2017, Dahua partnered with Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications (BUPT) to build a joint intelligent video laboratory.^[5] Beginning in late 2019, Dahua began to partner with the Vatican Museum, providing security and full implementation over five years.^[6]

Of course, I'd be happy to hear any feedback or suggestions. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23 sounds good to me, added. Thank you for properly formatting it. Rlink2 (talk) 21:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rlink2, thank you very much for your help in implementing these additions. I am putting together some additional suggestions to continue improving the article, and hope we can continue to collaborate. Thanks again! Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In a continued effort to improve the article, I'd like to suggest the following additions and changes to the content:

• In History, add the following two sentences at the end of the section: In June 2020, Dahua was presented with the Commissioner's certification mark from the United Kingdom's Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner.
  perimeter intrusion detection in a survey conducted by Asmag.com.^[2][3]

I appreciate your assistance in completing these edits and enhancing the encyclopedic value of the article, as my COI prevents me from doing so myself. Rlink2, I am grateful for your help with my prior edit request. Would you have a look and implement if all looks good? Happy to hear any feedback you may have. Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23: They all look good to me (made some minor adjustments to account for flow and Wikipedia standards). Thank you for your assistance and proper formatting. Rlink2 (talk) 23:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for you quick and positive response. It is a pleasure working with you. Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Rlink2. I just noticed that although you said you implemented the entire edit request, you must have inadvertently left out the last bullet point above. I am reposting it below for your convenience:

• Remove the subsection entitled "Security Industry Association expulsion" and move its contents into History, above the last sentence which begins "In November 2021...," ensuring the article remains in line with
  WP:STRUCTURE
  .

Thanks again. Caitlyn23 (talk) 01:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.

Hi, as I continue to work on expanding the article and improving its structure, I am suggesting the following additions and changes:
* At the end of the Partnerships section, add the following sentence: The Schwarze Berge Wildlife Park in Rosengarten, Germany, uses Dahua camera systems to provide security.[1]

•  Not done: As far as I can tell, this isn't a partnership, this is just someone buying things from them as a customer. ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 19:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

* An edit from my previous request which was inadvertently left out: Remove the subsection entitled "Security Industry Association expulsion" and move its contents into History, above the sentence which begins "In November 2021...," ensuring the article remains in line with 
WP:STRUCTURE
.

•  Already done ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 19:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your assistance. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

An edit was recently made to the infobox of the article, adding "state-owned enterprise" to the Type parameter. Similarly, the first line of the lead describes Dahua as "a partially state-owned publicly-traded company." Although some state-owned companies do hold shares in Dahua (a public company), that does not make Dahua a "state-owned enterprise" or a "partially state-owned" company by any definition (see this document from the IMF, specifically the first footnote, for how a SOE is defined). I am requesting assistance from the community to remove these terms in the infobox and the lead, as I am not editing myself due to my COI. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23 Ok, I removed it, especially since there seem to be no sources confirming it is a "state owned enterprise". Rlink2 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has however added it back in again.

Under the terms of listing on the Chinese stock exchange, EVERY single Chinese company must give a small percentage of their shares to the Chinese government. This does not make them state owned. If this is how we class this, then every company in China is state owned.

There needs to be some differentiation and understanding on the difference between a wholly state owned company and one which is privately owned but gives shares to the Chinese government in order to be allowed to list on the stock exchange.

Furthermore citing Reuters as the source of this dis-information without explaining is just continuing the poor journalism which is not telling the whole story of why there is mis-classification of "state owned" by Reuters.

These re-edits to blur the distinction are politically motivated.

If the US government owned 0.1% of the stock of Microsoft, does that make Microsoft a state owned company?

By the same application of the definition used for Dahua it means it would be. 78.32.143.39 (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: Please establish a consensus with editors engaged in the subject area before using the {{Request edit}} template for this proposed change. In this case, I strongly agree with you that the "state-owned enterprise" misrepresents the facts. However, to avoid edit warring and to remain compliant with the relevant guidelines, please involve the user who reverted the edit in the discussion and see if you can achieve consensus. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to reopen this discussion as it was never resolved. Pinging Amigao, 78.32.143.39, and Actualcpscm who were involved, as well as Rlink2, Amtoastintolerant, and Spencer who have done previous work on this article. Appreciate your assistance in removing the incorrect terminology. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 21:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

As I continue to work on adding content to the article, I have a few more suggestions:

In History:
* After the sentence which begins "In November 2021," add the following sentence:
:In late 2021, Dahua provided an electronic security system to processed food company Empresa Panamena de Alimentos (EPA) in Panama.[1]

* At the end of the section, after the sentence which begins with "In June 2022," add the following sentence:
:In October 2022, the company hosted Dahua Partner Day in Paris, France, where the company enabled conversation between partners, customers, and the manufacturer, and presented new products.[2]

In Corporate affairs:
*In the subsection Partnerships, add the following sentence at the end of the paragraph:
:In August 2022, Dahua partnered with ABCOM Distribution LLC for a distribution partnership in MENA.[3]

I am happy to hear any feedback, and would appreciate assistance in implementing these edits. Rlink2 Thank you very much for your help with my previous requests. If these suggestions look good to you, would you please add them? Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23

For the most part they look good to me. Added to the article with some minor changes. Rlink2 (talk) 19:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rlink2 for working on this. As you can see, many of your recent edits were reverted in addition to some earlier ones which you had implemented.

The sentence regarding the Vatican Museums (now in the beginning of History) should be moved back to Partnerships and changed back to its original language: "Beginning in late 2019, Dahua began to partner with the Vatican Museums, providing security and full implementation over five years." This more accurately reflects the source which repeatedly refers to Dahua as a "technological partner" of the Vatican Museums, and relates to their relationship as a "partnership".

Please let me know if you agree, and if you can reinstate those edits. Thanks again. Caitlyn23 (talk) 00:31, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23

Yes, I saw the revert. Wikipedia is a collabroative encylopedia, and so others might edit the article to fit the standards better. For the most part, I think that is what that editor has been doing. However, he did take out some information that I thought should be in there, and I put it back in today. He hasn't reverted that one yet, so I guess that's fine....

Based on the source provided, I performed your newest requested change (the Vatican one). Did change the sentence though to make it fit better.

For all the other edits, please post them again because I lost track of what was removed. Then we can try to give them a closer look and see what Amigao thinks before it is put in again. Rlink2 (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for putting back that sentence, Rlink2. I will review the other edits and be back in touch here so we can continue the conversation, along with the rest of the community. Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After further reviewing the changes to the article, I believe that the following sentence should be put back, after its removal from the end of History:

"In June 2020, Dahua was presented with the Commissioner's certification mark from the United Kingdom's Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner."^[1]

The stated reason for its removal was failed verification and that the source refers to a product. However, even if the certification was given based on a specific product, it was given to Dahua as a company. The title of the source itself is "Organisations that have been issued with the Commissioner's certification mark". Therefore, the source does indeed back the sentence. While it is a primary source, the UK government is a trusted place and it should be acceptable here as per

WP:PRIMARY

.

I welcome the thoughts of other editors, and would appreciate assistance in returning this sentence to the article. Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure that this certificate amounts to any sort of endorsement by the UK Govt. The key phrase is "self certification". What the reference therefore says is essentially that Dahua have told the UK Information Commissioner their products are secure by design and it would be wholly misleading for the article to draw anything more from the source. The Information Commissioner, for instance has categorically not said said in any form that Dahua equipment is secure. Really this source amounts to no more than "Dahua say their equipment is secure" and everything else suggested is plain misleading. Best not to incorporate the material.Ed1964 (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The certificate is literally an endorsement by the UK Govt that the devices on the list from a variety of manufacturers have been self certified to the standards issued by the Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, a branch of the UK government.

To your point: the Information Commissioner has for instance not given any evidence that Dahua equipment is unsecure either. He has yet to publicly acknowledge and explain the disparity between his comments on Dahua and Chinese manufacturers in general to be at odd with his allowing them to feature on the list of Secure by Default issued by his office and other western brands which OEM and outsource from Chinese manufacturers and re-brand.

All of the companies featured on the list who are manufacturers have had cyber security issues. Including Axis which have far more entries on the CVE database than many others. Does that make Axis less secure ?

What about Apple, Microsoft, Google? All have CVE's that dwarf the numbers of all the CCTV manufactures put together.

How are we measuring what is "not secure"? It appears many commentators are basing it on political rhetoric that products rom China are unsecure, yet most fortune 500 companies including those supply products to the US DoD have operations and subsidiaries in China. 78.32.143.39 (talk) 11:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I have a few suggestions to further improve the encyclopedic value and accuracy of the article:

• In the second sentence in the lead, add the year the company was founded using current reference 19, so that it reads:

"It was founded in 2001 and controlled by Fu Liquan."

• In History, between the second and third sentences (which begin "In November 2020,..." and "In April 2021,..."), add the following sentence using current reference 46:

"As of February 2021, Dahua was one of the largest video surveillance manufacturers in the world."

• In the subsection "Sanctions and bans" under History, the last sentence (which begins "In November 2022,...") uses the word "banned" which does not reflect what actually occurred. Given that this FCC order calls for an "interim freeze" and current reference 18 says "effectively bar", which itself is vague, please reword the sentence to read:

"In November 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) placed an interim freeze on sales or import of equipment made by Dahua for national security reasons."

I appreciate the community's review and implementation of these suggested edits. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao, thanks for reviewing my suggestions above. Regarding the last point, would you consider rephrasing the sentence according to the language used in the FCC order ("interim freeze")? Thanks, appreciate it. Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amigao has implemented the first suggestion in this request and there are still two which have not been addressed. Rlink2, would you mind taking a look at these two points? Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Caitlyn23, I have decided to implement your remaining suggestions, with some alterations. I added a sentence to the article's lede describing the company as "one of the largest video surveillance companies in the world", and stated its apparent #2 position in the market. I also decided to expand the paragraph about the November 2022 FCC Interim Freeze Order, to better describe that the order entails, Dahua Technology's response, as well as a response by a leading industry group. Thank you for requesting ways in which us editors can improve the article, and thank you for your COI disclosure. Amtoastintolerant (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amtoastintolerant Thanks very much for your work on this. I hope to be back in touch as I continue working to improve the article. Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

In light of Dahua's recent sale of its subsidiary Lorex, I'd like to suggest a couple of edits:

• Add the following sentences to the beginning of the History section, after the sentence about the acquisition in 2018:

At the end of 2022, Dahua Technology entered into an agreement to sell Lorex to Skywatch for $72 million. In February 2023, the company announced that the sale had been completed.^[1][2]

• Remove Lorex from Subsidiaries in the infobox.

I'd appreciate the community's assistance in performing these edits. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC) Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Some of this was already in the article but I added the additional detail. Spencer^T•C 03:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I'd like to suggest adding the following new content to the article:

At the end of History, add:

• In 2022, Dahua provided video technology for the Beijing Winter Olympics.^[1]

Under Partnerships, add:

• In 2019, Dahua Technology and Allianz Parque partnered to work on the arena's technological innovation project.^[2]

• In February 2023, Dahua Technology and Al-Futtaim Engineering and Technologies, part of Al-Futtaim Group, partnered to bring smart security technology to Saudi Arabia.^[3]

I'd be happy to hear feedback on these suggestions, and would appreciate your assistance in adding the content. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I reworded the Allianz Parque sentence for clarity, because "partnered to work on the arena's technological innovation project" provides essential no information on what was actually provided related to security and surveillance. Best, Spencer^T•C 04:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Spencer, for your time and assistance with these edits. Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd like to reopen this discussion as it was never resolved. Pinging Amigao, 78.32.143.39, and Actualcpscm who were involved, as well as Rlink2, Amtoastintolerant, and Spencer who have done previous work on this article. Appreciate your assistance in removing the incorrect terminology. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:53, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not understanding; the above changes were implemented in the article already? Spencer^T•C 04:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, my apologies, I posted this reply in the wrong place. I have now replied in the correct edit request above. Caitlyn23 (talk) 21:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, I'd like to suggest adding the following to the end of the History section:

In March 2023, Dahua sold $740 million in new stock to China Mobile, closing a deal which had been announced two years earlier.^[1] As a result, China Mobile holds a minority stake of 8.8% in Dahua.^[2]

I would appreciate assistance in implementing this edit. Thanks! Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 31-OCT-2023

  Edit request implemented    Spintendo  01:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Part of an edit requested by an editor with a conflict of interest has been implemented. "A small minority of state ownership" is justified, but there is neither a justification for suppressing information about state ownershiop entirely, as requested, nor the opposite extreme of implying that it is more than it is (with vague wording like "partially state-owned").  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Type parameter in the infobox currently includes the term "state-owned enterprise" and the first line of the lead describes Dahua as "a partly state-owned publicly traded company". Although some state-owned companies do hold shares in Dahua (a public company), that does not make Dahua a "state-owned enterprise" or a "partly state-owned" company by any definition (see this document from the IMF, specifically the first footnote, for how a SOE is defined).

This was addressed in an old discussion at the time the edits were made. The language was removed and then reinstated by the editor who had first added it. There was support that the terminology was not fitting but no further action had been taken. As per the advice given, I tried engaging other editors who had previously been involved in the discussion and/or article, but did not receive any responses. Therefore, as requested, I have opened a new edit request to address the issue of the incorrect terminology. I would appreciate your assistance in removing the terms from the infobox and the lead. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply 9-NOV-2023

  Discussion required  

1. As per the advice given, I tried engaging other editors who had previously been involved in the discussion and/or article, but did not receive any responses. Unfortunately, because the issue has shown to be controversial in the past, a consensus must be achieved before any changes can be carried out.^[1] That requires the COI editor to continue reaching out to local editors in order to find those who may be willing to assist in this endeavor. Once that discussion is completed, only then should the COI editor invoke the {{Edit COI}} template to have a neutral editor make any agreed-upon changes.
2. If no editors or consensus can be found, the COI editor may try posting their concerns at the
   conflict of interest noticeboard
   .

Regards,  Spintendo  03:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo, thank you. I should clarify my previous request. There was already a discussion and widespread agreement earlier this year. The only hold out was Amigao, who I have tried to engage but has not weighed in. My opening the COI request was precisely what you wrote above in point 1 - me asking a neutral editor to please implement the agreed-upon changes. Thanks again for your time. Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caitlyn23 Thank you for your reply. If you would be so kind as to supply the {{diff}} of editors stating that they are in agreement with this, then we can proceed, something along the line like this:

• Editor 1 and {{diff}}
• Editor 2 and {{diff}}

etc.

Regards,  Spintendo  23:06, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo, as per your request, I have linked to the relevant edits in the list below:

• Rlink2 - Special:Diff/1124874777
• 78.32.143.39 - Special:Diff/1141888126
• Actualcpscm - Special:Diff/1145530958

Would you be able to remove the incorrect terminology? Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No one is saying that Dahua is a wholly state-owned enterprise, only that it is partly state-owned (which it is as backed up by multiple

WP:WHITEWASH here. Amigao (talk) 18:44, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:CITOGENESIS

.

Spintendo, given these points and the favorable consensus, will you please remove the incorrect terminology from the infobox and lead? Thanks, Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So there is clearly partial state ownership of Dahua but you do not wish it to be stated because there should be "significantly more ownership at stake." What exactly do you mean by "significantly more"? Amigao (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS. There has also been a 4:1 consensus established already. I am therefore reiterating my request to remove the incorrect terminology from the article. Thank you, 136.52.95.4 (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

We follow what the

WP:MEAT situation. - Amigao (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Amigao, I simply forgot to log in and I apologize if that caused any confusion. I am leaving this matter up to the discretion of the larger Wikipedia community, given the points above and the established consensus. Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're wondering,

WP:RS. - Amigao (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no RS policy matter at issue here, especially because of

WP:DUE; the fact that some source somewhere uses a particular phrase does not require WP to use it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I tend to agree with the idea that using "partly state-owned" (at least without numeric clarification) is a misleading

circularity of reporting

could be demonstrated to not be a factor). On the other hand, it would also be misleading ("whitewashing") for WP to imply there is zero state involvement in this company.

Thus, I would favor removing "partially state-owned" from the infobox, where it is without context or detail and is misleading, but clarifying the lead paragraph, to change from:

• Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. (commonly known as Dahua Technology) is a partly
  video surveillance
  equipment.

(which is also misleading in the same way, though there's a valid point behind mentioning this at all), to:

• Zhejiang Dahua Technology Co., Ltd. (commonly known as Dahua Technology) is a publicly traded company based in Binjiang District, Hangzhou, which manufactures video surveillance equipment. A small minority of Dahua is state-owned (11.67% as of 2023).

and insert whatever citations are needed.

PS: I was asked to provide a WP:Third opinion, but this is not a suitable case for that because it is not a dispute solely between two editors (given all the previous related discussion), even if two are presently the ones doing the most talking. I thought it more appropriate to suggest a compromise of this sort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The 8.8% refers only the China Mobile stake. There are other state entities in the Shareholders section. Amigao (talk) 03:51, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we'll figure it out, and summarize properly. That's what leads are for: to summarize the entire article. It's not what infoboxes are for, which is to provide key-point highlights of the most commonly sought details (and whether a company has smidgin of state ownership isn't in that category).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Combined, the three state interests amount to 11.67% state ownership of Dahua, so I've adjusted the number above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the above meet-half-way approach doesn't have objections, I'll be happy to make the edit. But I don't want to jump the gun; my intent is to broker a compromise, not force my will (this isn't a topic I have a vested interest in).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish Works for me. Appreciate your help with the editing as well. Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. @

MOS:LISTGAPS).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

It would still make sense to have additional voices in the conversation given that this entire issue was initiated and pushed by a Dahua company representative. Also, a

WP:CALC of state ownership seems okay as a supplemental fact in the lede, but [state] ownership percentages have changed over time (and may very well change again), which is why "partly" or "partially" remain useful adjectives to summarize the essential point of Dahua's partial state ownership. Amigao (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy to include other editors to the conversation, and have tried pinging those who expressed opinions or have done work on the article in the past. There was also a previous majority met in support of removal of the incorrect terminology in that same discussion. Regardless, referring to the company as a "partly state-owned enterprise" as a label is wrong since the government must meet a minimum threshold of ownership and/or control to apply that terminology. Generally, a minimum of 20% is required as seen in these sources: IMF document, Asia Society's Winter 2021 "China Dashboard" report, and the China Statistical Yearbook. Therefore, the compromise offered by SMcCandlish seems like a reasonable one. Caitlyn23 (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These sources define what is termed a "state-owned enterprise" which is quite different from saying that a company is "partly state-owned." Let's not conflate the two. Amigao (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "a small minority of Dahua is state-owned", "a minority of Dahua is state-owned", "Dahua is partially state-owned", and "Dahua is part state-owned", and "Dahua is partly state-owned", and "Dahua has partial state ownership", and so on are all factually defensible, but the first is more precise than all other options, which is why I recommended it. Even changing "small minority" to "minority" looses clarity and increases incorrect-assumption potential, since in corporate matters a "minority stake" often enough is 49%, and that's not what we're trying to conveny. It's clearly correct that a couple of sources that defined "state-owned enterprise" as a stand-alone label don't rule out us using any of the minority/part[ial|ly] wording. That the exact percentage may change over time isn't a big deal; we regularly have to update our articles on corporations and their products. I'll see about inviting some relevant wikiprojects to comment on this, so we can have the requested broader input.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term "state-owned" in the infobox and lead is wikilinked to the article entitled State-owned enterprise thereby implying a specific label which doesn't apply to Dahua. Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish, just checking in to see whether you've found others to weigh in here. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left notices at appropriate wikiprojects, but no one seems to have been interested. Given lack of objection, I've instituted my wording suggested above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SMcCandlish, for your assistance with the edit in the lead. Would you be able to remove the term "partially state-owned" from the infobox, as per your conclusion in the discussion above? Thanks again, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. It's a correct statement, and my concern with it that it could be misleading if not quantified, but it is now clearly quantified prominently in the lead. Might be reasonable to also quantify it in the infobox, though.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, please update the last sentence under the subsection Shareholders (in the Corporate affairs section) with the current information and source, as follows:

State-owned telecommunications company China Mobile acquired an 8.8% stake in Dahua in March 2023.^[1]

Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Because information regarding China Mobile's acquisition of a 10.42% stake in March 2021 was already mentioned, this information regarding the additional 8.8% stake was appended therein. Regards,  Spintendo  19:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spintendo, thanks for working on this. There seems to have been a misunderstanding. The deal was first announced in 2021 and only actually occurred in 2023, as seen in the History section ("In March 2023, Dahua sold $740 million in new stock to China Mobile, closing a deal which had been announced two years earlier. As a result, China Mobile holds a minority stake of 8.8% in Dahua.") Therefore, the sentence which was just added to Shareholders ("In March 2023, they acquired an additional 8.8% stake.") is inaccurate and should be deleted, and the previous sentence ("State-owned telecommunications company China Mobile acquired a 10.42% stake in Dahua in March 2021.") should be updated to read:

As of April 2023, China Mobile holds an 8.8% stake in the company.^[1]

I would be grateful if you would remove the incorrect sentence and update as written above. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. Thanks very much, Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry about this (and sorry for the delay in responding). When this edit was originally made, information that you had asked to be added to the article contradicted with previously-existing information in the article. I have removed both claims regarding ownership percentage until this can be clarified. Please feel free to make an edit request once the correct information has been gathered and can be presented here for review. Thank you! Regards,  Spintendo  03:56, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New content for Shareholders subsection

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, please add the following to the end of the Shareholders subsection in Corporate affairs:

In March 2023, Dahua sold $740 million in new stock to China Mobile, closing a deal which had been announced two years earlier.^[1] As a result, China Mobile holds a minority stake of 8.8% in Dahua.^[2]

I appreciate your assistance. Thank you! Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Approved  Spintendo  03:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, the US trade association IPVM has expelled the non-US company that is the subject of the article, but various negative statements about the subject still use IPVM as the source. The expulsion and that the organization now probably consists mostly of competitors to the subject seems to create a conflict of interest that I believe should make them a less reliable source on the subject. As a neutral reader, I believe that they should be replaced by independent sources . 2A01:4F0:4018:F0:1DC3:B330:52E0:BECE (talk) 09:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would probably depend on the explusion date. Using other sources post-expulsion would probably be necessary; for pre-expulsion, better but not required.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Dahua Technology. That user has an the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

In a continued effort to update the page, the following are suggestions to add to the end of the History section:

• Dahua Technology was a sponsor of the 2023 Tour de Langkawi.^[1]

• Dahua Technology was one of the providers of the main security systems for the 2023 Pan American Games.^[2]

• In April 2023, Dahua Technology designed a security project for Ibagué.^[3]

Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 17:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was fine. I've adapted this material into the article. Thank you for following the proper disclosures and procedures for conflicted editors. JArthur1984 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, JArthur1984. I hope to work on further updates for the article and will be back in touch then. Caitlyn23 (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Dahua Technology. That user has an the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, I have a few more suggested updates for History. Please add the following at the end of the section, after the paragraph which begins "In 2022,...":

*ISR International School on the Rhine has been using Dahua's DeepHub whiteboards since 2022.[1]

*Dahua Technology provided technical support and smart applications for Yellow Dragon Sports Center during the 2022 Asian Games.[2]  

*In July 2023, Dahua Technology signed an agreement with the Semper Altius School Network and the Anáhuac High School Network in Mexico, committing to supply about 2,500 video surveillance cameras in more than 60 educational institutions.[3]

Pinging JArthur1984 since you assisted with the previous edit request. Thank you, Caitlyn23 (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so convinced of the encyclopedic significance of the first point. This seems to be a small school despite its Wikipedia article and I'm skeptical of the significance of its whiteboard usage. Feel free to elaborate if you think I am wrong.

I'm willing to make the other two additions. JArthur1984 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, JArthur1984. Caitlyn23 (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The user below has a request that an edit be made to Dahua Technology. That user has an the instructions for the parameters used by this template for accepting and declining them, and review the request below and make the edit if it is well sourced, neutral, and follows other Wikipedia guidelines and policies.

Hi, an edit was made to the lead a few months back describing one of the roles of Fu Liquan as "Chinese Communist Party Committee Secretary". This is a position which exists in most China-based large or global companies, and is not unique to Fu or especially relevant to Dahua. Given this context, and the fact that sources overwhelmingly refer to him as chairman, president, or founder (in fact, I have found that only the current source calls him party secretary), the current inclusion in the lead offers a false balance between his role as chairman of the company and party secretary, and misrepresents how the sources characterize him. As such, please consider removing this title from the lead.

JArthur1984, perhaps you have thoughts on this matter? Thanks very much. Caitlyn23 (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a false balance or weight issue although I can see an argument that the phrasing made it seem more exotic than is necessary. As you point out, the fact that Party committees exist within large enterprises is quite ordinary. I have made a modest edit to the wording in an effort to avoid exoticizing the role. I don't see it as necessary to remove. JArthur1984 (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]