Talk:Huagong Tech

A new editor with an actual or apparent conflict of interest has requested assistance with making an addition to this article.
The requested edits backlog is very high. Please be extremely patient.
There are currently 421 requests waiting for review.

Please read 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.

Dear follow editors, I recently made some edits to this article, but they were reverted. I would like to open a discussion about these changes because I believe they address some inaccuracies in the current version of the article. My goal is to ensure the information presented is accurate and properly sourced. Below are my proposed edits with references. I look forward your feedback regarding the best way to improve the article.

Remove “a partially state-owned”

Cite: the company is not listed in the List of Central State-Owned Enterprises.

Remove “The sanctions severed HGTECH access to advanced US-origin technology as HUST was its ultimate owner.”

Proposed addition: HUST was not sanctioned or otherwise restricted by the U.S. Government.

Cite: the company is not listed in the Federal Register :: Addition of Entities to the Entity List, Revision of Entry on the Entity List, and Removal of Entities From the Entity List.

Remove: “In March 2021, HGTECH went through a restructuring which changed its owner] to the SASAC.[1][2]

Proposed addition: As of July 29, 2025, the SASAC’s officially published list of state-owned assets does not include HGTECH.

Cite: SASAC is not the owner of the company, because the company is not listed in the List of Central State-Owned Enterprises.

Proposed addition: In December 2020, Donghu Venture Capital became the largest shareholder of Huagong Tech, through acquiring approximately 191 million shares of Huagong Tech, representing 19.00% of the company's total share capital.

Cite: “Donghu Venture Capital invests 4.29 billion yuan to acquire a 19% stake in this company”, Science and Technology Innovation Wuhan, December, 28, 2020.

Proposed addition: Currently, HGTECH is ranked among the global Top 10 in the optical module business.

Cite: Top 10 Global Optical Modules in 2023, HTFUTURE, June 1, 2024.

Change “Company type” from State-owned enterprise to Public

Cite: the company is not listed in the List of Central State-Owned Enterprises.

Change “Owner” from SASAC to mixed ownership

Cites: List of Central State-Owned Enterprises and “Donghu Venture Capital invests 4.29 billion yuan to acquire a 19% stake in this company”, Science and Technology Innovation Wuhan, December 28, 2020.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Paperweight8395 (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Make sure all steps of WP:COIREQ are followed. Imcdc Contact 04:59, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I disclosed the potential COI in my talk page. Paperweight8395 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

It's good that you have that on your user page, but please make sure it literally says "I have been paid by Huagong Tech", and please also change it to say the words "I have a conflict of interest" instead of vaguely discussing potential conflict.

Anyone who is associated with a business - even if they are not paid - has a real conflict of interest, not a potential one. (Conflict of interest is not a bad action or an offence, it means you cannot promise your complete loyalty to Wikipedia because you must also be loyal to your employer.) TooManyFingers (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

The following is my quick analysis:

Remove “a partially state-owned”

Readers cannot be expected to know everything about the business laws of China. Showing that one company name is "not listed" doesn't help, because another different kind of list might exist, or the company could still be listed but under a different name, or some types of unlisted state ownership might be allowed, or anything else.

___

Proposed addition: HUST was not sanctioned or otherwise restricted by the U.S. Government.

Readers cannot be expected to know all of the U.S. laws either, and again, one name being missing from one list doesn't prove anything, because there can be different names and different lists.

___

Remove: “In March 2021, HGTECH went through a restructuring which changed its owner] to the SASAC.[1][2]

The "remove" request is certainly wrong, because later events do not change earlier events. The statement about March 2021 must be kept in the article.

___

Proposed addition: As of July 29, 2025, the SASAC’s officially published list of state-owned assets does not include HGTECH.

The proposed addition has the same problem as the previous ones: proving "one piece of evidence may be missing" is not real proof.

___

This one looks good to me.

___

Proposed addition: Currently, HGTECH is ranked among the global Top 10 in the optical module business.

If htfuture is reliable, then this looks good. I haven't tried to check its reliability yet.

___

Change “Company type” from State-owned enterprise to Public

Another case of "missing evidence does not equal evidence".

___

Change “Owner” from SASAC to mixed ownership

Same problem here.

___

I hope this helps. TooManyFingers (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

@ TooManyFingers

Thanks again for your thoughtful guidance. Given your comments, I’ve prepared the following proposed revisions. For each point, I’ve provided suggested wording, a brief rationale, and sources.

---

Remove “a partially state-owned”

Your comment: Readers cannot be expected to know everything about the business laws of China. Showing that one company name is "not listed" doesn't help, because another different kind of list might exist, or the company could still be listed but under a different name, or some types of unlisted state ownership might be allowed, or anything else.

Proposed revision: Change from “Partially state-owned” to “Mixed ownership.”

Rationale: Understood. Accepting that the company involves a combination of public and state ownership, the term “mixed ownership” is the standard descriptive label for entities jointly owned by private investors and the state. This phrasing avoids implying knowledge of specific registries while remaining accurate and neutral.

Sources: https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/will-chinas-mixed-ownership-enterprise-model-work/; https://legal-resources.uslegalforms.com/m/mixed-ownership-government-corporation#:~:text=A%20mixed%2Downership%20government%20corporation,such%20as%20agriculture%20and%20housing (“A mixed-ownership government corporation is a type of government entity that operates with both public and private ownership.” ).

___

Proposed addition: HUST was not sanctioned or otherwise restricted by the U.S. Government.

Your comment: Readers cannot be expected to know all of the U.S. laws either, and again, one name being missing from one list doesn't prove anything, because there can be different names and different lists.

Proposed revision: Add “A U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Register notice dated December 22, 2020 added multiple entities to the Entity List; HUST was not among the entities named in that notice.”

Rationale: The prior sentence says “In December 2020, the United States Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security added two labs at HUST to the Entity List for alleged involvement in activities seen as a threat to US national security.” The cite I am providing is the “Entity List” that is being referenced in this sentence and is an official list from the Federal government. The revised statement simply conveys correctly that HUST is not on that list. I believe this addresses the concern that the original statement implied knowledge of all laws or lists, which I did not intend, and cites to the same document that is already mentioned in the prior sentence, but from the official source.

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/22/2020-28031/addition-of-entities-to-the-entity-list-revision-of-entry-on-the-entity-list-and-removal-of-entities

___

Remove: “The sanctions severed HGTECH access to advanced US-origin technology as HUST was its ultimate owner.”

Rationale: I know this wasn’t addressed in your original comment, but I would like us to critically consider this statement. My concern is that it’s subjective and potentially misleading, and does not meet Wikipedia’s verifiability standard. At a minimum, I feel this is not being presented in a neutral point of view given it is stating an opinion as a fact.

Right now, it states “sanctions severed HGTECH access” is presented as fact without a source directly linking any U.S. designation to HGTECH’s access to U.S.-origin technology. This is especially true as noted above, the official Entity List designated two HUST‑affiliated labs, not HUST itself, which undercuts the sentence’s premise tying HGTECH’s purported loss of access to HUST being the “ultimate owner.”

Policies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

___

Remove: “In March 2021, HGTECH went through a restructuring which changed its owner] to the SASAC.[1][2]

Your comment: The "remove" request is certainly wrong, because later events do not change earlier events. The statement about March 2021 must be kept in the article.

Proposed revision: “In March 2021, HGTECH completed its restructuring, with its owner changed to Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership).”

Rationale: This proposal first corrects a mis-citation in the current Wikipedia article that says “SASAC” is the owner. The source article that Wikipedia currently cites to states that the restructure changed the owner to “Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.” The Wikipedia, however, omits the “Wuhan” portion and then links to a Wikipedia article on “SASAC.” However, these two entities are not the same. The “SASAC” (and the link) is a different entity that operates at the national level – it is not “Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.” This is why when I provided the official SASAC (national) list in my original edit request (http://www.sasac.gov.cn/n2588045/n27271785/n27271792/c14159097/content.html), HGTECH is not actually listed. I hope my explanation makes sense.

The proposed wording reflects the transaction outcome as reported and identifies the correct controlling shareholder. Specifically, in 2021, the ownership changed to an investment fund called Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership), which can be shortened to “Gouheng Fund.” This change is explained in this article that reported on the ownership changed to Gouhend Fund, a sub-fund of Donghu Venture Capital. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yb5sPm6jFPLS3YPmdCYVcw.

As of October 2025, the largest shareholder remains Gouheng Fund, as discussed here in connection with the company’s latest (Q3 2025) financial report: https://data.eastmoney.com/notices/detail/000988/AN202510231767622912.html. The PDF report identifies the major shareholders (on page 6). If you use Google translate, you can see that the top entity listed (at 19%) remains Gouheng Fund.

Sources: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yb5sPm6jFPLS3YPmdCYVcw; and https://data.eastmoney.com/notices/detail/000988/AN202510231767622912.html

___

Your comment: This one looks good to me.

Proposed revision: In December 2020, Donghu Venture Capital, through its subfund Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership), became the largest shareholder of Huagong Tech, through acquiring approximately 191 million shares of Huagong Tech, representing 19.00% of the company's total share capital.

Rationale: as explained above, Gouheng Fund became the owner. I just add that it is a sub-fund of Donghu Venture Capital, consistent with the source.

Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yb5sPm6jFPLS3YPmdCYVcw

___

Proposed addition: Currently, HGTECH is ranked among the global Top 10 in the optical module business. Cite https://htfuture.com/top-10-global-optical-modules-in-2023-chinese-manufacturers-ranked-first-for-the-first-time-with-a-total-of-7-on-the-list/#:~:text=LightCounting%20stated%20that%20the%20above,Source%20Photonics%20(ranked%209th).

Your comment: If htfuture is reliable, then this looks good. I haven't tried to check its reliability yet.

___

Change “Owner” from SASAC to Public

Same problem here.

Proposed revision: Change “Owner” from SASAC to “Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)”

Rationale: As mentioned above, “SASAC” appears to be a mis-citation. The controlling shareholder is Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership). As of October 2025, it remains the largest shareholder at approximately 19%, per the most recent company reporting cited below.

Sources: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yb5sPm6jFPLS3YPmdCYVcw and https://data.eastmoney.com/notices/detail/000988/AN202510231767622912.html.

If any of the above would benefit from different wording to better align with policy, please let me know. And again, thank you again for the careful review. Paperweight8395 (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I dont think partially state owned should be chaged. Mixed ownership isn't a widely known term and partially state owned leaves no abiguity. Also I found a source for partially state owned.
You say "A U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Register notice dated December 22, 2020 added multiple entities to the Entity List; HUST was not among the entities named in that notice". While this is true, a later November 26, 2021 notice does explicitly name HUST as on the entity list.
A source already present in the article states that this is true. Unless you have a source that says otherwise it's staying in.
Why not clarify that the company is utlimately owned by the Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission. The Gouhend Fund was explicitly established as a way for the Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission to obtain Huagong Tech. Not explaining the state involvement feels misleading.
Just say that the 19% stake is ultimately owned by the Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission.
HTFuture isn't reliable. It's a company first and a news source second. No claims to editorial oversight.
As per my other recommendations, I think it should be changed to Wuhan State Assets Supervision and Administration Commission

- Otherwise (Talk?) 20:32, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

@Otherwise Thank you for your engagement and the additional sources. I have reviewed them carefully and would like to discuss two points.

1. Proposed Addition Regarding the Entity List

My proposed language: "A U.S. Department of Commerce Federal Register notice dated December 22, 2020 added multiple entities to the Entity List; HUST was not among the entities named in that notice."

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/12/22/2020-28031/addition-of-entities-to-the-entity-list-revision-of-entry-on-the-entity-list-and-removal-of-entities

You noted that "a later November 26, 2021 notice does explicitly name HUST as on the entity list." I reviewed the November 26, 2021 Federal Register notice you cited (86 FR 67317) and respectfully believe this may be a misreading.

The November 2021 notice does not add HUST to the Entity List. Rather, it contains a typographical correction to an existing entry for a different entity, Shenzhen Cobber Information Technology Co., Ltd. (see Section C of the notice). While Shenzhen Cobber's address happens to be at the "Shenzhen Production and Research Base, Huazhong University of Science and Technology," that is simply a physical location, not a listing of HUST itself.

For reference, the current BIS Entity List is available here: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-15/subtitle-B/chapter-VII/subchapter-C/part-744/appendix-Supplement No. 4 to Part 744. HUST does not appear on this list.

Accordingly, I believe my original proposed edit, which you acknowledged is "true," should be added. It cites directly to the government source referenced in the prior sentence.

2. Proposed Revision to "Owner" Field

Proposed language: "Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership), an investment fund backed by state asset regulator of Wuhan"

Source: https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/HGTECH-COMPANY-LIMITED-6497142/news/Wuhan-Guoheng-Technology-Investment-Fund-Partnership-Limited-Partnership-signed-an-agreement-to-ac-33573447/

Thank you for providing the additional ownership sources. Based on your first citation, I propose the above language, which is drawn directly from the MarketScreener.com article you cited. That article states:

"Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership) will acquire 191.05 million shares at CNY 22.46 per share. Post completion, investment fund backed by state asset regulator of Wuhan will become the controlling shareholder of Huagong Tech Company Limited." https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/HGTECH-COMPANY-LIMITED-6497142/news/Wuhan-Guoheng-Technology-Investment-Fund-Partnership-Limited-Partnership-signed-an-agreement-to-ac-33573447/

This language accurately reflects the state involvement you highlighted, identifies the controlling shareholder by name, and offers a neutral summary that tracks the cited source.

Would this be acceptable?

Thank you again for your time and consideration.

Paperweight8395 (talk) 17:04, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@Otherwise I was just checking in to see if you saw my comments and whether you think they are acceptable to proceed to edits. Thank you. Paperweight8395 (talk) 22:37, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Paperweight8395 Hoping you've seen this. I made no changes yet, because I had to refuse most of them - I wanted to give you a chance to respond first, in case you have more information. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:16, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@ TooManyFingers

Thank you for taking the time to review and respond to my edit request. I appreciate the guidance. For transparency, I have added the additional conflict of interest statements on the user page. I will look into your other points and circle back. Sincerely, Paperweight8395 (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Checking in to make sure you saw my response. I’m looking forward to your reply. Thank you. Paperweight8395 (talk) 05:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I did see, but I'm not sure what kind of reply you're looking for. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I mainly thought this process was waiting for you, in case you had any reliable evidence to support your requests. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:34, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers Thank you for following up. To clarify, I posted revised proposed edits above on January 9, responding to each of your earlier comments. For several items, I've provided new or additional sources and refined the proposed wording based on your feedback.

If the format of my request and sources is too difficult to read or review, I can make changes. Otherwise, I'd welcome your thoughts on whether any of these edits might be ready to move forward.

In particular, I'd like to suggest starting with one item that seemed close to consensus. You mentioned in your December 5 post that my request to add a statement about the largest shareholder to change to “Donghu Venture Capital” “looks good.” (Source: https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Yb5sPm6jFPLS3YPmdCYVcw). Building on that, I believe the current "Owner" field listing "SASAC" may reflect a citation issue-the underlying source appears to reference a different entity. Would you be open to updating the owner to "Donghu Venture Capital, through its subfund Wuhan Guoheng Technology Investment Fund Partnership (Limited Partnership)" or similar wording?

Additional sources: Eastmoney.com, China’s largest financial news platform, report on the company’s latest financial report and listed the owners of the company as seen here: https://finance.eastmoney.com/a/202510243543335780.html. Using Google translate, you can see Gouheng Fund is listed as the top entity (at 19%). This matches the source above from Weixin.

Thanks again for your time-I know these requests take effort to review, and I appreciate it. Paperweight8395 (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Talk:Huagong Tech

Edit request

Follow-up

Related Articles