Jump to content

Talk:Meng Wanzhou

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 September 2019 and 10 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sean0524.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge, given that a merge would unbalance the target and the event is independently notable. Klbrain (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge Arrest of Meng Wanzhou into Meng Wanzhou. I think that the content in the former article can easily be explained in the context of the latter, and the latter article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the former will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Also my reasons in Talk:Meng Wanzhou#Almost all of Meng Wanzhou is duplicate of Arrest of Meng Wanzhou ~~~~ Phillip Samuel (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose if the arrest article should merge anywhere, it should merge into Detention of Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig, as it is an all combined international diplomatic incident. And I think the arrest and detention of Meng is a highly visible international incident of independent notability. If you want to merge the Meng biography article into the Meng arrest article, that might be possible, but not the other way around, since the arrest of Meng is the more important and notable subject, not the biography of the woman. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support because many descriptions of people's legal troubles exist under their biographical articles. --Dan Carkner (talk) 23:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I originally separated the articles because of a request/suggestion above that the article was getting too long and that it was mainly focused on one topic: her extradition/trial. However in view of recent events, her release, the Michaels' release, it no longer makes sense to have separate articles since the case has already been resolved and is unlikely to expand. The vast majority of the articles' contents are the same anyways, with the biography offering little that the other doesn't. Qiushufang (talk) 01:55, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You shouldn't have separated the articles in the first place, since it was active request, and a rename request. This article should have been moved to the arrest article name, and thus why this should not have the arrest article merge into the biography article. It should be an arrest article and not a biography. It doesn't make sense for this to be a biography article at all. Instead it should merge with the Two Michaels article, to create an international incident article, and not some biography on some woman, who is not all that important outside of the international incident. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 03:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arrest article contains lots of useful legal commentary that should be preserved - in particular the commentary from experts about the political nature of the arrest, as it provides important context into why the PRC's reaction was so incredibly negative. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}}) 05:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The arrest is just as strongly linked to China–United States trade war, Criticism of Huawei and others, as it is to the biography of Meng Wanzhou. There is also the issue of weight, if 90% of the biographical article is about one life event, then perhaps it should rather be 'merge Meng Wanzhou into Arrest of Meng Wanzhou'. See for example in Schellenberg smuggling incident (This does not imply that the events are similar, but that the subject does not have enough notability to warrant a separate bio article) Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support merging either this article or the other into one another. It doesn't really matter which. This is obviously not a biography as the vast majority of its content is related to the extradition incident anyways, and the article's existence would not be warranted without its inclusion. Qiushufang (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Being deputy chair of the board and chief financial officer of China's largest privately held company is definitely enough to warrant this article alright. Sure, this article is not a good Wikipedia:Biography of a living person right now, but that's mostly because of the unfortunate single event focus. CapnZapp (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article was created *for* the extradition incident. She was practically unknown prior to it. If you look at this article's history, it did not exist before her arrest and was only created several days afterwards. It is for all practical purposes an article about her extradition. Qiushufang (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the article now. It is clearly about a living person now. This person is clearly notable now, and not just for a single event. That might not have been the case before 2018, but article history doesn't matter. CapnZapp (talk) 07:26, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are being facetious. The article's history is reflective of the intent of the article as it records the editing involved, which is focused only one subject, the extradition. Even the material which is not about the extradition uses sources which are about the extradition, including content about her personal life. In fact if you are so sure that this article is so important outside the extradition, I challenge you to find more than two or three sources cited in it that predates or does not concern the extradition at all. Qiushufang (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge declined. I note the last eight not-votes are "oppose", so hopefully it is no longer necessary to get you to come 'round on the issue. Either you see my point or you don't. CapnZapp (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The biographical article on Meng Wanzhou (this article) is currently extremely lopsided to focus on a single event. Our article would come across as much more balanced if all the details on her arrest and the surrounding case were shunted to its own article (i.e. Arrest of Meng Wanzhou) and only briefly summarized here, so the short passages on her career, education and personal life aren't completely dwarfed by this single event. I do agree the current duplication is unfortunate. Therefore, let me counterpropose we make the move in the other direction instead. CapnZapp (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "biographical article" is "extremely lopsided to focus on a single event" because it was created to cover a single event. There is no point in having a separate biographical article when 99% of the content has to deal with the extradition and there is little to no chance someone interested in her is searching for information about something unrelated. The biographical page should have never existed in the first place as the intended purpose was always to cover the extradition trial. Qiushufang (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The situation now is that we have an article on Meng Wanzhou (this article). This is a biographical article on a living person, no buts no ifs. The origins doesn't matter - it needs to reach our minimal standards for BLP and it needs to do it now. It should be edited to be a short stub-like article (since we don't have all that much on her) containing her details and so on with a note about the 2018-2021 incident short enough that it doesn't overshadow the remaining paragraphs. If Wikipedia decides to keep all the details of the incident, that needs to go in a separate article. CapnZapp (talk) 07:12, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Qiushufang and CapnZapp you both seem to be saying the same thing.VR talk 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You do not need to point out each user that appears to agree with me, and please do not ping me just to say so. Thank you CapnZapp (talk) 07:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No the subject of this article is definitely notable on her own. She's pegged to inherit China's largest company for chrissakes - of course she's notable independently of the incident! I oppose any merging - we need both articles; one BLP article on Meng Wanzhou and one event article about the incident CapnZapp (talk) 07:20, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge as they are two distinct and notable topics. Mottezen (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: On second thought, I read the other comments here and took a good look at the (Arrest of Meng) article and it is reaaaally long. There is a lot of information already in (Arrest of Meng) and it would indeed be very hard to read Meng Wanzhou's article if there is too much information overload if two articles get merged. Hence I change my vote to (oppose) Rather than having one extremely long article. Having two articles would likely make it easier to read. Just put a link to (Arrest of Meng) from the Meng Wanzhou's article which is already there right now.

MangoTareeface9 (talk) 11:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You should feel free to bring that up on those three pages, User:boldblazer. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

@Estnot

I wasn't the one reverting. So far, you reverted two of my edits whereas I have only clarified (not reverted) what the deal was. Meng wouldn't confess unless she gets something in return. That is how deals work. She gives something and gets her freedom in return. I propose the changes as below. It shows what she was legally obligated to do and what she got directly in return. 

On 24 September 2021, the Department of Justice announced it had reached a deal with Meng to resolve the criminal charges against her and withdrew their extradition request against Meng Wanzhou after she entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with them. As part of the deal, Meng needed to concede that she helped misrepresent the relationship between Huawei and its subsidiary Skycom to HSBC in order to transact business with Iran but wasn't obligated to plead "guilty" to the fraud charges. In exchange, Meng would be released from house arrest in Vancouver and the Department of Justice will move to dismiss all the charges against Meng when the deferral period ends on 21 December 2022, on the condition that Meng is not charged with a crime before then. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a source to back that the confession is required as part of the deal for dropping criminal proceeding and extradition request. It's obvious hence my edit should go back. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58682998 MangoTareeface9 (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


In obsessing over what she was obligated or needed to do you are trying to give the reader the impression that she was forced to give her consent. Incidentally neither the Washington Post or BBC sources use the words you’re using. Much, much better to simply drop the personal opinions aside and stick to what the sources say which is that she conceded to some of the accusations while pleading not guilty to others. Estnot (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Again you are wrong. Nobody is forcing her. They are dangling a carrot or incentive for her confession. She gets freedom in return as agreed upon in the deal. The BBC specifically says those exact words. 

The judge subsequently ordered that she go free. (As part of the deal), Ms Meng agreed to a "statement of facts" admitting that she knowingly made false statements to HSBC.

It states her confession was a required part of a deal. The deal is that is she confesses, the US department of Justice agrees to drop extradition and Meng is free to return back to China. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 20:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- “ Nobody is forcing her.” well yes that’s but that’s not the issue which is the wording of your summary of the deal. You’re using phrases or words like needed to concede, had to concede, obliged to concede, obligation, etc because you are trying to give the reader the impression that she was forced to give her consent. This is not just not found in the sources but now apparently also not what you think actually happened either too Estnot (talk) 20:46, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well what about now? In the current edit, I added 5 minimal words and no more - (As part of the deal,) as worded in the exact same manner in the BBC article. I think nobody is going to read that now and confuse the confession as being forced but instead see it as clearly a required part of the deal. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 20:58, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I propose this improved edit below. The deal requires Meng to do certain things in exchange for being able to fly back to China. She wasn't required at all to formally plead guilty in court under oath. Just a superficial confession for the public to hear. 

As part of the deal, Meng agreed to concede that she helped misrepresent the relationship between Huawei and its subsidiary Skycom to HSBC in order to transact business with Iran but wasn't obligated to formally plead "guilty" to the fraud charges.

It's obvious to everyone that the confession is part of the deal to simply save face politically for both sides. Hence there is nothing wrong to say that " As part of the deal, Meng agreed to concede". In fact that's exactly how BBC wrote it. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- you’re still using words like obligated. And now we have your unwanted commentary that her concessions was just a “superficial confession”. Obviously you’re not listening to a word that I’m saying Estnot (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. We take away "obligated". And say "did not have to" instead. 

As part of the deal, Meng agreed to concede that she helped misrepresent the relationship between Huawei and its subsidiary Skycom to HSBC in order to transact business with Iran but did not have to formally plead guilty to the fraud charges.

Do you have issues with this proposed edit? And if you think the confession wasn't superficial. And had zero incentives. You're obviously wrong. In a court of law, a confession that is heavily incentivised, won't be legit and formal. Regardless the prosecutors promised to drop the case against her in exchange for that confession and the confession was the condition. As part of the deal, she was not required to formally plead guilty but had to agree to a confession for her freedom to fly back to her home country. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 04:53, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even my 'commentary' now. I largely borrowed it from BBC's wording and there is no reason to have issues with the words - (under the deal, Meng agreed to concede) and she was (allowed to deny key charges) as that is extremely close to what BBC had wrote themselves. 

As part of the deal, Ms Meng agreed to a......  The deal, which recommended she be released, allowed her to formally deny guilt for key charges.[1] MangoTareeface9 (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- the phrase “agreed to concede” isn’t in the BBC (or Washington post) article and isn’t a grammatical construction. As it happens the bbc article actually uses a stronger term to describe her actions - it said she admitted to the accusation of misrepresentation by the DOJ. Whereas previously you used wording to try to give the reader the impression that she was forced to give her consent, this time you’re using wording to give the reader the impression that Meng had dictated the terms of the DPA. As the phrase isn’t found in the source I have removed it. Estnot (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58682998

Extradition case section needs to be improved

[edit]

The extradition section currently has little to no information on the extradition process itself. As it now, the section includes mostly information on her arrest, commencement of proceedings, and then a year and a half gap until her release. This is not even a summary but serves only as a lopsided description of the beginning and end of the incident. I have since added some information but it is probably not enough and apparently not neutral. Please add on to the content to make it more balanced. Qiushufang (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Estnot, an account created only in September and with a history of specifically editing articles related to China-US relations, has been removing content from this article and pushing WP:POV. Estnot constantly removes content, for example the last judicial statement prior to the end of the extradition, based on excuses such as "too detailed" or "biased" but refuses to back up or improve on the content. There is nothing biased when the quoted content is taking directly from the relevant subject's mouth and if there is anything to balance it out then I would be glad to add it as well, however I have failed to find anything equivalent as the subject is not unbiased. How can you find something which does not exist and prove a negative? When requested to contribute on both the article and the talk page Estnot has refused as well. Qiushufang (talk) 16:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- I’m not sure what your assertion that I have a history of “specifically editing articles” related to US-China relations has to do with this my edits, aside from trying to give others the impression that I am a hopelessly “biased” editor. If that is true then I would say that you are accusing me of being what you are even more of and draw their attention to the information you are trying to insert which proves that your bias is even stronger than mine. Not only is your assertion untrue, but nearly all of my past edits before were not reverted until I came across this article where they’ve been regularly reverted. I’d say I have been a productive contributor to Wikipedia so far.

As for the dispute itself, yes the quotes have to be removed because it is clear it isn’t appropriate for a summary section. The information contains far too much detail and does not describe a key development in the extradition case as it is merely one opinion of many which the judge gave. Your usual claim that the quotes are the judge’s last judicial statements is not correct (that probably would have been when she bid Meng farewell) and appears to be yoir personal opinion (proceedings were held behind closed doors). However, even if the quotes are the last judicial statements given it leaves out important considerations, chief among which is that that fact is a technicality (so the deferred prosecution agreement short circuited the entire cross examination process) and still does not change the nature of the material which is that it was an opinion/statement that had no actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments. The only reason why you would want to exaggerate the importance of this cherry picked quote is to give readers the misleading impression that the case was so clearly flawed from the beginning that even the judge could see through it. This is blind prejudice working in plain sight and is the sort of wool over the eyes that everyone should be trying to lift Estnot (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bidding Meng farewell is not a judicial statement unless you count niceties. Whether or not it is a technicality as it is still the last sentiment expressed on the case by the extradition judge prior to its end. That the summary does not include it thus does not fairly summarize the events which occurred. You claim that "The only reason why you would want to exaggerate the importance of this cherry picked quote" yet if you look at the edit history, I was NOT EVEN the one who included the quote in the first place [1], it was added after my addition. You have not answered "why" it should not be included except to accuse me of WP:POV yet you have not answered why the last major judicial comments are not worthy of inclusion other than that they are cherry picked. If they are indeed cherry picked, then please include material which would make it balanced as well, but I suspect you cannot because it is much harder and does not involve simply asking others to prove a negative. What statements have the extradition judge made that would make it not cherry picked? Qiushufang (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The line of reasoning that "still does not change the nature of the material which is that it was an opinion/statement that had no actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments" also does not make sense in the context of providing information in a summary. By that logic, NONE of the courtroom and legal arguments should be included as they did not change the ultimate conclusion of the case, which would be a farce for a section called "Extradition case". Qiushufang (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The judge bidding Meng farewell is a judicial statement (it came from a judge, it will be on record, it had an actionable effect) but even if it wasn’t your continuous assertion that the quotes you are trying to use are judge’s last judicial statements is wrong. The technicalities surrounding your cherry picked quotes are important because it directly undercuts your attempt to give readers the impression that the case was flawed from the beginning by portraying the judge’s “last major judicial comments” (says who?) as casting definitive judgment on the extradition case itself. And as was mentioned before it still does not change the nature of the material which is that it was an opinion/statement that had no actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments. These run of the mill opinions may have a place in the main article but they definitely do not belong to a summary section that is supposed to capture its most important points Estnot (talk) 00:54, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it had a relevant effect outside the courtroom is irrelevant, and logically inconsistent with the function of a summary as I have already mentioned above. It is a summary of the entire event, not a summary of the "Beginning and end of the Extradition Case" section. The majority of what occurred in the extradition proceedings involved legal arguments and sentiments that occurred. The beginning and end lasted mere days. In fact the entire section could probably do with more additions on the courtroom proceedings beyond what is already there. Your characterization of the quotes, which I did not add, as cherry picked has not been justified. I also did not portray the judge's statements as the last major judicial comments, which is why it is not in the summary, but it is a reason for why they should be included. You did not provide a counter example of what a non-cherry picked summary would look like either, so all we have to go on as to whether or not the "quote" which I did not add is cherry picked is your opinion. Qiushufang (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You have not established that the additions are "cherry picked" beyond your own opinion. For something to be cherry picked, it has to done through choosing and taking the most beneficial of what is available. Yet you have not provided either an alternative or counter statement. Where is it? If there are statements counter to what has been added, be it from the prosecution or judge, then those should be added as well. Qiushufang (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You’re either not reading what I am writing on purpose or by accident but either way you’re not reading what I am writing. We are not talking about the “function of a summary,” we are talking about the function of a summary section where the threshold of what gets included is higher. If you look at what’s currently in the “extradition case” summary section nearly all of the information there documents events that happened outside the courtroom - this is why i keep using the standard “actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments” as a criterion for inclusion and why it’s not irrelevant or logically inconsistent as you claim it is. It never documented a specific opinion or statement that anybody involved in the extradition case made until your (disruptive) edits came along. Estnot (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only "disruptive edits" I made as you describe them, are the ones you reverted. And the criterion here is not up to you alone to decide. You yourself are biased in using “actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments” as a criterion for inclusion. Why should the extradition case not include the majority of material from the extradition proceedings itself, which so vastly dwarf the beginning and end of the case. You accuse me of not writing what I wrote, but you seem do be doing that as you have NEVER provided any evidence that my additions are cherry picked beyond your own opinion. You have provided zero counter evidence, zero statements from either the judge or prosecution which either balance or counter the additions. Therefore it cannot be said that it is cherry picked if the body of material supports it or does not contradict it. If such material exists, it should be INCLUDED as well. Qiushufang (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not my personal criterion. It’s what objectively exists. If you look at what’s currently in the “extradition case” summary section nearly all of the information there documents events that happened outside the courtroom. It never documented a specific opinion or statement that anybody involved in the extradition case made until your (disruptive) edits came along. Estnot (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You still haven't provided any evidence of cherry picking. Qiushufang (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I already have the problem is you just have not read itEstnot (talk) 02:06, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Recently there was an editor who restored some disputed content that was previously reverted. [2] I have added some counterbalancing information but will delete the thing in whole if there isn’t a response to my comment in the next couple of days. The content is basically a redundant, verbose and non neutral summary of an already given summary of the courtroom arguments Estnot (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Meng_Wanzhou&oldid=1212738542"