Talk:Fortune Global 500

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2014 2019

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Untitled section

Hong Kong is incorporated into the People´s Republic of China, but not Taiwan, which flag is different and perhaps will never join the People´s Republic of China.--213.60.225.183 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Why I think that the 5 principles of Wikipedia are not respected here.

Hello to all editors and administrators. I would like clarity to be made about the lack of neutrality and, in my opinion, the emergence of a certain particular point of view, in some of the data present here.

In the "Breakdown by country/territory 2023" section it appears that the People's Republic of China is first with 142 companies. This does not correspond to what emerges from the cited source.

In fact, the source "Global 500". Fortune. Retrieved October 23, 2023" clearly shows that in October 2023, China is second in the global ranking with 135 companies. Previous editors simply added the 7 Taiwanese companies to the 135 companies from China.

However, in the source, it is clearly stated in the title that Taiwan, although not de jure a country, is a TERRITORY, and therefore must be considered separately. This is clear from the cited source "Global 500". Fortunes. Retrieved October 23, 2023"

So I ask you, editors and administrators, why the ranking shows, incorrectly compared to the cited source, that China has 142 companies instead of 135.

I ask you if it would not be more correct to indicate that China has 135 companies and Taiwan, as a TERRITORY, 7 companies.

The same ratio should be applied to the same section for the years 2022, 2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017.

Thanks in advance. Chrisques5 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Because various IP editors keep adding it back in, among some other inaccurate issues. If the source(s) clearly state the defining criteria of these two places and the article does not match, please adjust it to correctly reflect the sources. I've been more of a watchdog in the past week for another error the IPs have been insisting on that is not supported by the sources, and had not been as aware that was also an issue. I have no objection for this being corrected, and since it's reflected in the source, most respected editors would support a reliable source based correction (though I do understand your slight pause since the China/Taiwan relationship is politically a full mess). Do make brief mention of why you are changing this in your edit summary so that people understand that it's source based correction and not a political objection however. Zinnober9 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Zinnober9 for the reply.

I correctly modified the data and inserted a note in which I explain that my modification is a modification motivated SOLELY by the correctness of the cited source.

Not politics.

Taiwan is in fact NOT recognized as a DE JURE country.

But in the source it is considered territory and therefore it is WRONG to add Taiwanese companies to Chinese ones.

I ask, however, that if attempts continue (politically motivated and contrary to the principles of Wikipedia) to modify the data incorrectly, whether it is possible to block the editing of this specific element.

Since, as repeated, it does not correspond to the principles of Wikipedia.

I am sure that some editors, as happened this week, will change the data again making their point of view prevail.

Thanks in advance. Chrisques5 (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

May I ask if it is possible to block the editing of the breakdown data by country/territory with 136 companies for the United States and 135 for China?

There are continuous editing attempts that always change the data with 142 companies in favor of China when this does not comply with what is indicated in the source, and is motivated only from a subjective point of view and therefore violates the principles of Wikipedia.

Thank you. Chrisques5 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

There has been quite a bit of edit-warring here, I would ask that we stop making changes to the article until there is a consensus on this talk page. That includes the Moscow and Milan IPs.

That said, this article is about the list produced by Fortune, and nothing else. We're not here to pass judgment on their methodology or add our own original research. All of these artifacts should reflect only the material withing the list, and possibly any trivial calculations that may add value to the article. My opinion is that simply adding up the number of entries in each entity is a routine calculation. Trying to group them in a way that is not reflected in the data on that list is WP:OR, and leads to edit wars over meta-rules as evidenced over the last few days. I would support changing the column titles to "Country/Territory" (as in the source), and then adding up the totals strictly by the source for current and historical lists for consistency. As to the 10 or 15 entries, I'd prefer shorter lists, but really don't care either way.Sam Kuru (talk) 23:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Sam Kuru" thanks for the response.

I will refrain from further changes in compliance with what you indicated.

However, if the Moscow IPs editors or any other editors again change the ranking to indicate that China has 142 companies instead of 135, I will report it to you and other admin on this talk page.

As you indicated, it is necessary to follow the Fortune source: according to this source, China has 135 companies in October 2023 and not 142.

Taiwan is an independent territory and has 7 separate territories.

Thank you for your time. Chrisques5 (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

May I ask if it is possible to block the editing of the breakdown data by country/territory with 136 companies for the United States and 135 for China?

There are continuous editing attempts that always change the data with 142 companies in favor of China when this does not comply with what is indicated in the source, and is motivated only from a subjective point of view and therefore violates the principles of Wikipedia.

Thank you. Chrisques5 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly possible. I can't do it as I've expressed an opinion on the correct version. I'll put in a request at WP:RFPP if they do it again without discussion. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Chrisques5 (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)