Jump to content

Talk:Min Zhu/Archive

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

Bias template

I've removed the bias template as being unjustified. The statements made in the article are backed up by evidence provided in other articles, namely WebEx. That's not to say the article's language is encyclopedic or that it conforms to WP:MOS. It could use some wikifying in those regards, but the claim of bias does not hold up in light of the evidence presented elsewhere. FeloniousMonk 16:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not see how classifying Min Zhu as a rapist or putting him in the incest category is justified. I have seen the WebEx article. It contains allegations by a former business partner and, how does one put it?, colorful personality, Mikhail Zeleny. An allegation is not proof. Min Zhu is entitled to a presumption of innocence. So all we have is some allegations made on the internet by Mikhail Z and his former girlfriend, Erin Zhu, about her father. Does not make him a rapist. Wikipedia should not leap to judge. Lao Wai 12:42, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The listed categories are derived from allegations made by Erin Zhu in public fora, private correspondence, and sworn testimony. While it is true that such allegations cannot amount to proof, Wikipedia categories make no such distinctions. For instance, Pete Townshend is listed in the category of Child sex offenders despite never having been convicted of any such offense. Larvatus 12:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC) larvatus
The difference there is that Pete Townshend admitted it. It was true. What we have here is two damaged individuals making unproven allegations against a third party, without testing them in a court of law, which that party, to the best of my knowledge, rejects. It is not that they do not amount to proof, it is that there is no reason to think they are true at all. I do not see any justification for Wikipedia reproducing what are disgusting allegations about Min Zhu without some reason to do so. I would go further and question the whole point on this article - what is it doing on Wikipedia at all except as part of some vengeance scheme on the part of someone who does not like Mr Zhu? Mr Zhu remains entitled not only to the presumption of innocence, but to be treated with the minimum of decency. The allegations ought to go. Lao Wai 14:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Pete Townshend admitted nothing of the sort. Nor was he convicted as a child sex offender. As stated in the Wikipedia article in question, the offenses were merely alleged. The police cautioned him in connection with images found on his computer. This cautioning resulted in his being placed in the official child sex offender registry. Larvatus 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I am not. He admitted he had viewed child porn and he had. I did not say he was convicted. I said he admited what he did. There is a world of difference between Townsend and Dr Zhu. 220.233.169.39 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you saying that "there is a world of difference" between a man inducted in the category of child sex offenders for admitting having viewed (but neither acquired nor possessed) child porn, and the man so qualified on the basis of his refusing to deny his daughter's allegations of deflowering and repeatedly raping her, to the extent of both of them fleeing the United States and instructing their lawyers to refuse to accept judicial summons for their questioning on that issue? Larvatus 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I've read the same evidence at the WebEx article you have, and I feel the categories are easily justified. There, I see that Min Zhu was accused of molestation in sworn testimony by his own daughter. Min Zhu settled the suit brought by his daughter for molestation out of court; it was settled using WebEx shares. And particularly damning, Min Zhu did not contest Zeleny's allegations in his suit concerning his rape of his daughter, but instead chose to side-step the issue. Absent an actual conviction or at least a police report filed alleging molestation, being accused in sworn testimony by his own daughter is as convincing as evidence gets. Taken with Zhu's subsequent actions, I think the categories are justified. FeloniousMonk 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
You mean that Z alleged that Min Zhu was accused of molestation in sworn testimony by his own daughter? Where is this alleged testimony? We do not know Min Zhu settled the suit with his daughter. The article says "apparently". So no evidence of that either. I can't imagine why a Father might not pursue his daughter for such allegations but it is noticeable that he has pursued Z's claims by getting Yahoo to delete them. It is not damning that a Father might not want to drag his family through the courts in such a demeaning manner. Especially if he is a rather old fashioned Chinese man. It is hardly convincing at all. There is no actual conviction, as you point out, not even a police report, as you also point out. There is no real evidence of this at all apart from comments Erin Zhu is supposed to have made to Mikhail Zeleny who is, well, notoriously litigious so I won't finish that statement. Find me some sworn testimony. All Zhu did was leave the country. Again for an old fashioned Chinese male avoiding more damaging publicity is hardly an admission. It cannot, and should not, be taken as an admission of guilt. So what we have, as I said, is the unsubstantiated, unproven allegations of two damaged people against a third. Who is unconvicted and uncharged. Should Wikipedia be in the business of making such vicious character smears without evidence? Why does this article even exist? What is the public interest here? Lao Wai 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure how your allegation of my damaged nature bears on the issue at hand. As to the facts, the referenced case court files contain documentary evidence and sworn testimony of Min Zhu settling not only his daughter's claim of child rape, but also the subsequent claim of her lawyer alleging fraud in paying hush money to his daughter under the table so as to cut him out on his contingency fee. The relevant parts of the transcript of Erin Zhu's deposition have been filed as court exhibits. In addition to me, Erin Zhu made her comments to numerous other parties who so swore in their declarations. Her letters to Blixa Bargeld, found in the same files and reproduced verbatim on my web site [[1]], tell of her father "devour[ing] her body with his lust". Her Usenet postings, accessible via Google Groups search [[2]] and also linked on my web site [[3]], complain of Min Zhu deflowering her. By leaving the country, Min Zhu did not avoid any damaging publicity. He merely failed to contest the allegations still being made against him in numerous public fora. As of this writing, WebEx is about to testify as to the reasons for his departure. As I explained to Subrah Iyar [[4]], this testimony will involve thorough examination of corporate policies responsible for decisions to spend shareholder resources on groundless gainsaying of Erin Zhu's allegations against her father. And yet, neither Min Zhu nor WebEx have dared to bring a legal action contesting Erin Zhu's charges of sexual molestation against Min Zhu. In fact, according to their lawyers, both Min Zhu and Erin Zhu have moved to China, and are unwilling to accept the service of deposition subpoenas for further testimony concerning to his sexual abuse of her, as demanded for the purposes of ongoing litigation between me and WebEx. In essence, they are refusing to contest under oath the facts of her rape by Min Zhu, consistently recounted by Erin Zhu over the span of sixteen years. These facts, witnessed by public records of Erin Zhu's complaints, are of obvious general interest in so far as they impinge on matters of corporate governance of a publicly traded corporation and public trust in entrepreneurial ventures funded by NEA on behalf of Min Zhu. Larvatus 01:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
It bears on the issue at hand if Wikipedia is being used to further a personal dispute with no public interest whatsoever. Why does Wikipedia have three pages discussing this issue? So we are still at the point where there is no evidence, just some allegations. Dr Zhu clearly did limit the amount of damaging publicity, but that is hardly the point. It is not a confession. Wikipedia should not take it as a confession. There are any number of sensible and justifiable reasons why a man might not want to fight with his daughter in court over allegations of rape, especially if he is a slightly old fashioned Chinese gentleman, and many of them are perfectly innocent. The fact that Dr Zhu does not drag his family name through the mud is irrelevant to this article. And now Ms Zhu has also decided not to pursue this allegations. Go figure. So we have a girl who was involved with you, and at that time, and subsequently, made some allegations she does not wish to pursue. She is not trying to have her father arrested in the PRC, nor have him extradited. Were her recollections "recovered" memories by any chance? This looks more and more like a vendetta without any public interest at all to me. The WebEx article contains all the material that any public interest might require. There is no need for three separate articles. And as Dr Zhu is not a convicted rapist or child sex offender, there is no justification to include those categories. In fact I think the whole article ought to go. 220.233.169.39 05:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
To this day, the American public continues to be invited to invest in ventures controlled by Min Zhu. As explained in the attached article, these ventures are no longer limited to WebEx. This fact suffices to establish legitimate public interest in his felonious background, confirmed by his daughter's sworn testimony. As to the issue of relevant categories, until and unless Wikipedia recognizes a separate classification for allegations of child rape and incest, the existing identification will do the job. Needless to say, nothing but the likelihood of being served a subpoena in the ongoing legal actions should be stopping you from registering as an editor and performing these tasks yourself. Larvatus 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Templates

I have removed the libelous category templates. Min Zhu has not been convicted of any crimes, nor has he admitted to any crimes, therefore to categorize him as a "rapist" and "child sex offender" is highly out of order. If you would like to create a category for "Alleged rapists" - I invite you to do so. But to categorize someone as a "rapist" who has not been convicted of anything is absolutely not in keeping with verifiability standards. FCYTravis 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegation

I have removed the accusation and the "sources" which supported it. LiveJournal and usenet postings are not "sources" for such a serious accusation--if a newspaper or other reputable source covers a court case on the matter, then it could be repeated. Recent events have taught us to be strict with sources, especially for biographical subjects, and it is not Wikipedia's job to provide a vehicle for people to get wider play for their accusations than they can get from blogging services and online forums. Demi T/C 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Of course. Crap like that should be deleted immediately. Livejournal, blogs, livejournal, email, livejournal, myspace, and livejournal are not reliable sources. Neither is livejournal. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-23 01:31
    • The relevant part of Wikipedia policy states: "Primary sources present information or data, such as ... historical documents such as ... transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview... Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The court records in Santa Clara have been properly cited in the WebEx article referenced herein. Every statement that you find objectionable is borne out thereby. This factual support by historical documents falls within the quoted Wikipedia definition. As referenced at the WebEx discussion page, it has been independently verified by other Wikipedia contributors. In summary, your beef is with verified, source-based research that Wikipedia defines as fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Larvatus 03:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
      • You've merely added back the same livejournal and usenet posts. These are not primary sources. Please do not add back this information without a reputable source, as defined in WP:NOR. Demi T/C 03:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Usenet is a reputable primary source as to Erin Zhu's allegations of her rape by Min Zhu. The referenced court files in Santa Clara Superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx, contain copies of other primary sources attesting the same allegations by her, including correspondence and records of interviews and sworn testimony. The accuracy of their reproductions in the referenced LiveJournal records has been independently attested. This satisfies the letter and spirit of the requirements defined in WP:NOR, as quoted above. Please do not remove this information without a good reason as per WP:NOR and other Wikipedia policy statements. Larvatus 05:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
          • "1/6/2005 10:00AM CV Dism aft Settle;225/45da Dismissed" - The only thing verifiable at this point is that you were engaged in a legal battle with Zhu and WebEx and settled the case. There is nothing available which substantiates any allegations of sexual abuse. I will note that you have reached your revert limit per WP:3RR. Further reversions today may subject you to being blocked under Wikipedia policy. Discuss the issue here. FCYTravis 06:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
            • " Wikipedia:Reliable sources says personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources. That is, they may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website. The reason personal websites are not used as secondary sources — and as primary sources only with great caution and not as a sole source if the subject is controversial — is that they are usually created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work. They may be uninformed, misled, pushing an agenda, sloppy, relying on rumor and suspicion, or insane; or they may be intelligent, careful people sharing their knowledge.--FloNight 06:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
              • There is a whole world outside the Internet, grasshopper. It includes tangible things like court files and evidence contained therein. Those are my primary sources, as referenced herein. Feel free to verify them personally, as others have done. Till then, you have no grounds for criticizing this article. Larvatus 06:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus


            • "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views.
            • From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:
            • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
            • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
            • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.--FloNight 07:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Thus spake WP:NOR: "Primary sources present information or data, such as ... historical documents such as ... transcript of a public hearing, trial, or interview... Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is strongly encouraged. In fact, all articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research," it is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Once again, the court records in Santa Clara have been properly cited in the WebEx article referenced herein. Every statement that you find objectionable is borne out thereby. This factual support by historical documents falls within the quoted Wikipedia definition. As referenced at the WebEx discussion page, it has been independently verified by other Wikipedia contributors. In summary, your beef is with verified, source-based research that Wikipedia defines as fundamental to writing an encyclopedia. Please show some evidence of understanding these points by responding to them in your next contribution to this discussion. Larvatus 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus


                  • More from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. It is not our job to expose people's wrong-doing, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Min Zhu was driven into an allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. by allegations of incestuous pedophile rape made by his daughter Erin Zhu, and publicized by Michael Zeleny. This sentence is not acceptable in Wikipedia.--FloNight 07:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability are the standard for Wikipedia articles. This article doesn’t match these standards. I’m sorry that you can’t see the problem. As an ex-romantic and business partner of Erin Zhu and an adversary in a legal case, you’re too close to the situation. I suggest that you step back and let the community develop this article.--FloNight 03:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Your sorrow is irrelevant to the substance of this article. It is verifiable, and has been independently verified, from primary sources. That is all that counts in this matter. In this regard, it is no different from the case of Michael Jackson, except in so far as the King of Pop had the guts to answer his accusers, whereas Min Zhu tucked tail and ran off.Larvatus 07:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
    • Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine Wikipedia is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not: Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. Subjects that have never been written about by third-party published sources, or that have only been written about in sources of dubious credibility should not be included in Wikipedia. One of the reasons for this policy is the difficulty of verifying the information. As there are no reputable sources available, it would require original research, and Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Insistence on verifiability is often sufficient to exclude such articles. Min Zhu was driven into an allegedly voluntary exile from the U.S.A. by allegations of incestuous pedophile rape made by his daughter Erin Zhu, and publicized by Michael Zeleny. This statement has not been verified by a reliable third-party such as a media outlet. It can stay on the talk page but not in the article.--FloNight 07:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • On May 3, 2005 ConferencingNews.com published a notice, entitled "2nd Day of WebEx User Conference Cancelled Due to Protester" in its section of Breaking News. This notice read as follows: "The WebEx User Conference and Partner’s Summmit was abruptly canceled today due to an individual, without any affiliation to WebEx, 'protesting' against WebEx outside the Westin St. Francis in San Francisco yesterday afternoon. A Russian rifle and ammunition were found in his car, and he was then detained and let go without his weapons. Evidently, the 'protester' in question has had a grudge against WebEx, and WebEx thought it best to cancel the remainder of the conference, attended by about 350 WebEx users. WebEx pointed out that security was of prime concern to its customers, partners, and employees, and indicated that it would continue the rest of the conference via WebEx within two weeks." Ten days later, a WebEx press repease [5] stated: "WebEx co-founder Min Zhu has retired as chief technology officer and a director. Zhu is relocating to China and will become a WebEx Fellow." Another press release [6] added: "'Min is undeniably the pioneer of real-time collaboration, added Iyar. 'His technical vision, strategic insight and inspired leadership have transformed the way companies around the world conduct business. With our seasoned management team in place, Min is free to retire from day-to-day operations.'" This story was confirmed by WebEx's SEC filing of May 17, 2005 [7] and noted by posters on the Yahoo! WEBX stock board [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. As a minimum, it follows from this factual record that Min Zhu resigned from WebEx and left the U.S.A. on May 13, 2005, ten days after Michael Zeleny caused WebEx's User Conference to shut down by publicizing allegations of his incestuous pedophile rape made by his daughter Erin Zhu. I am amending the article accordingly. Larvatus 14:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
          • The conferecingnews.com's "breaking news" story of the WebEx User Conference closing down in response to my protest has been deleted from that board. However, it is referenced in the posts made by various shareholders on the Yahoo! WEBX discussion board: [14], [15], [16], [17]. WebEx's corporate counsel David Farrington, 408-435-7528, has been reported to confirm this turn of events in response to inquiries by the shareholders and the press.Larvatus 06:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
This is interesting [18] FeloniousMonk
And this [19] FeloniousMonk 09:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
A blog and... a blog. Neither of which are considered reliable sources per sourcing guidelines. "(Blogs) may never be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website." But you knew that, didn't you? FCYTravis 09:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. The rules are quite explicit: it must be verifiable from seconadry sources - these are 'not secondary sources. I think the most we can say is that it was following allegations made by Michael Zelney, who was in dispute with Zhu. And the links to Zelney's livespace blogs do not belong here because thay are the equivalent to a POV fork, just off-site. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:48, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


You have it in first hand testimony: Stephanie Downs at ConferZone reports that the day her presentation was scheduled at the WebEx User Conference in San Francisco, organizers had to cancel because "a protestor with guns was outside the event and was consequently arrested Monday night." Per quoted Wikipedia guideline, the referenced blogs may be used as a source of information about the owner of the website, in her capacity as a participant and presenter in the WebEx User Conference. Larvatus 16:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
The presence of the protester is verifiable, the truth or otherwise of the protester's allegations is not. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:40, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. But the truth of the protester's allegations has not been asserted in the articles at issue. Are you acknowledging the fact and the content of allegations as properly verified? If not, why not? Larvatus 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
WP:ISNOT a soapbox or a propaganda machine. Put it this way: If I decide to publicise the allegation that you are a paedophile necrophiliac who raped his sister's corpse, and insisted on inserting that in your article even though there is absolutely no corroboration from any reputable external sources, how would you feel about that? We (other editors) can verify that a legal dispute exists between you and Zhu. We (other editors) cannot verify that abuse allegations have been made by anyone other than you. All the toher sources you cite are falsifiable. It is close to inconceivable that this could be true without there being a single reputable secondary source reporting it: yet that is what you claim. You are not neutral, we therefore treat your claim with some scepticism. So, link to the police reports or the newspaper reports of the alleged incident. It should be trivially easy, the guy is (according to you) a fugitive from a federal offence. Link to the FBI's "wanted" article. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 18:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no propaganda involved in factual reporting of properly verified contents of court records. You now have the relevant parts of these records at your disposal. They include Erin Zhu's legal complaint against Min Zhu for chilhood sexual abuse. This complaint is complemented by the interview notes that served as its basis. As to your scenario, let us suppose that you decided to publicize the allegation that I am a paedophile necrophiliac who raped my sister's corpse. In the event, I would be very happy to sue the parties responsible for originating the said allegation for slander and/or libel. I would be especially eager to pursue this claim in an English jurisdiction. With the facts on my side, my claim would be a shoo-in on compensatory and punitive damages. I would moreover be very thankful to the media that accurately reported the facts of any such defamation as well as its legal outcome. I urge everyone to draw their own conclusions from the fact that Min Zhu has not only failed to claim libel in connection with my publicly identifying him as a child rapist, but has refused to testify in the recently aborted WebEx libel action against me in regard to my claims of its coverup of his child rape. Larvatus 08:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
As a matter of simple fact, and at the risk of repeating myself, I can't see the evidence that Erin's allegations were ever placed before a court, and thus into the public domain. All I can see from the public record is that, when pressed on this matter, she acknowledged that her account to you was a fabrication. Under the circumstances I really can't see how you could ever describe that in neutral terms, so I think you should leave it to others. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You have it exactly backwards. Erin Zhu's allegations as spelled out in her draft complaint were placed before the Santa Clara Superior Court as exhibits in my pleadings. They remain there in perpetuity as public records, on file in the referenced case, and may be viewed free of charge by any visitor to the courthouse. Anyone may obtain conformed copied at a low cost by requesting them online or by phoning the court clerk. Whereas the deposition transcript is maintained by the named court reporter, and may be viewed only after paying a duplication fee orders of magnitude higher than those charged for courthouse records. Under the circumstances, were I to leave this matter to others, your confusion would be likely to persist forever. Larvatus 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Maybe, maybe not. As far as I can tell they would not be admissible as evidence of that offence because they are nto sworn statements, whereas the statement where she repudiates the allegation is. But I'm content to wait for the arbcom ruling at this point, and I suggest we all sit back and cool it in the mean time. Find some other articles to work on, eh? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 23:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Please recall that you had agreed to act as an "editor with a real edit history and no obvious axe to grind" in evaluating the proof of statements at issue. I have counted on your abiding by our agreement in generating the proofs. The arbcom is not about to wade through hundreds of pages of evidence bearing on this matter. Your reversal on this issue would seriously prejudice the case for my defense and hamper our task of achieving editorial consensus. I have gone to great trouble and expense to do my part of our bargain. I stand ready to deliver more copies of public records upon your request. I ask you to abide by your commitment to verify them thoroughly and impartially. Larvatus 08:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
You are confusing "reviewing the evidence" with "agreeing with a specific view of the evidence". - JzG 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very happy to have you make up your own mind based on a full understanding of the nature of the evidence and the contents of the claims. To date, you have continued to misunderstand them as purporting to evidence the fact of sexual abuse perpetrated by Min Zhu, rather than the claim of its allegations made by Erin Zhu. Let's take it one step at a time. Have you verified the proposition that Erin Zhu had David Affeld present her claims for child rape to Min Zhu in January of 2000? Larvatus 09:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
As previosuly stated, I have verified both the original unsworn statement in support of a plaint not apparently lodged and the subsequent sworn testimony that no rape took place, and that she lied when she said it did. You know this from the text I inserted in the article. FloNight is more concerned than I am, Felonious is more bullish; I see merit in both arguments. Let's wait for ArbCom. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content.

Usenet is not public record, anyone can say anything on Usenet.

This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content.

This is not verifiable, we do not have access to the papers and only have the word of someone who acknowledges they are not neutral as to that content. Also the link description is grossly POV.


All of the above is verifiable, and in fact has been verified by other editors at the courthouse. Anyone can view the referenced filings and court rulings in person, or pay for official copies. Your unwillingness or inability to make an effort or spend money to confirm the underlying facts is immaterial. Larvatus 16:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Which would be original research, and in any case only an allegation. All you need to do is link the trusted secondary sources which have reported this. Police reports, newspaper reports etc. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
WP:No original research expressly endorses reliance on information collected from primary and secondary sources, classified as "source-based research". You have no basis for arbitrarily disqualifying judicial rulings and sworn testimony on the basis of your unwillingness or inability to follow other editors by verifying them. Larvatus 17:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
And WP:RS explicitly excludes blogs and Usenet as sources, which are the links I've removed. Do please name the other editors who are in possession of the transcripts you mention, thus far none have come forward to substantiate the claim you make. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 11:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk has repeatedly substantiated the claims at issue. By now, you are equally well positioned to do so. Please review your objections on the basis of new evidence. Larvatus 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Reference

Added reference (Forbes Rice Fields Yield Internet Riches Russell Flannery, 11/04/2004) from mainstream media to backup specific biographical details.--FloNight 06:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Info from article
  • "No. 163 on our list of China's richest people for 2004."
  • "Zhu's personal wealth is conservatively worth $100 million, based on his stake in WebEx."
  • Education a. "After finishing his government-imposed farm work, he managed to enter a local university in pursuit of an engineering degree at the ripe age of 30." b. Then, "one of only two people in his home province to win a government scholarship to study abroad." c. "a master's degree in engineering from Stanford in 1987."
  • US Business Dealings a. "found[ed] Future Labs, a desk-conferencing forerunner of WebEx in 1991" b. "formed WebEx in 1996 with an Indian partner, Subrah Iyar" c. "When he set up WebEx, Zhu needed engineering firepower in a hurry, so he combined staff from China with those in the U.S. Today, he employs 1,600 people, about 1,000 of which are in the U.S.; another 500 are in China, and most of the rest are in India."
  • Other "While many Chinese who come to the U.S. eventually get U.S. citizenship, Zhu carries a Chinese passport (one reason that he is eligible for our list of China's richest). He says he still feels strongly about the land he was raised in, and wants to overcome what he says is longtime discrimination about being Chinese -- a feeling that is a big part of the Chinese psyche today."
--FloNight 14:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/WebEx and Min Zhu/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed text

Moved disputed text for discussion and consensus. Please do not re-insert without discussion. This will prevent 3RR war, blocks, and bans.--FloNight 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Zhu's daughter Erin sued her parents, partly on the basis of alleged molestation during her teens. This matter appears to have been settled out of court. Zeleny has alleged that WebEx tried to cover this up, but there is little if any evidence for this claim. No mainstream media have covered the case and no prosecutions have been brought against either Zhu or WebEx.

Zeleny further alleges that Zhu has "fled" to China in direct response to his publishing the allegations, including a demonstration which caused the WebEx user conference to be closed. Neither WebEx nor Zhu is known to have commented on this.

What are you disputing in the above? Larvatus 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Good question. I put that in, so I'd quite like to know :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Besides breaking three or more WP policy/guidelines, it does not accurately depict all the actions of all the main parties involved in the legal cases. Need to choose my words carefully so someone will not charge me with making a personal attack on a fellow editor. Not saying that Larvatus would, but an editor not familiar with his life might misconstrue my statements. Also, identifying his daughter by name is below mainstream media standards. I’ll work on wording to replace the text. I’ll put it here first for consensus.--FloNight 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not? Larvatus 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Yes, I quoted it to you on Dec. 23, 2005 02:02--FloNight 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you realize that Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors? Larvatus 00:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Wikipedia does not reveal the names of sexual abuse victims, child or otherwise, unless information is reported in the mainstream media. When the mainstream media reports any abuse, I will be the first person to put it in the article.--FloNight 02:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Your assertion to this effect has no policy force. Please cite a published Wikipedia policy or concede that your feelings in this matter lack any such basis and revert your unilateral elisions to content previously established by others. 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, during the writing of Wikipedia:Biographies of living people, I tried to get my fellow Wikipedians to remove the section that said incorrect biographical information must stay in WP if it appears in a mainstream media article. (From WP:BLP For example, the New York Times says that John Doe was born in 1955 but John Doe himself tells you this was a mistake and that his year of birth is in fact 1965. The Wikipedia article must reflect the published record, and not what John Doe has told you privately. If a correction is published, this is verifiable and hence usable.) I said the New York Times was not the best source for a birth date. I pointed out that the best source for a birth date was a birth certificate, with drivers license or other government license almost as good. I argued in favor of letting the subject of the article correct misinformation by submitting birth certificate, marriage license, etc. I was told it simple was not practical now. The opinion of the majority of editors is that this practice will allow more bad information in than it keeps out. They want the mainstream media to screen or investigate for them. I disagree with their pov. That is the reason I volunteered to read your court records. If the records you provided gave rock-solid evidence of a child-rape, I would go to these people and argue to change policy or make an exception. Larvatus, the records are non-conclusive. I'm not going to argue for an exception in order to put in a recanted allegation of child-rape.--FloNight 04:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You are continuing to avoid the issue. The truth of Erin Zhu's rape allegations against Min Zhu is not relevant to the passage that you have unilaterally censored. Only the facts of these allegations having been made by her need to be asserted. These facts have now been verified with source-based research at your disposal. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 07:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Except, as has been pointed out multiple times, there is no substantive allegation of rape only of molestation. She has stated on oath that she lied to you about the rape. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 09:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you read Erin Zhu's draft complaint against Min Zhu for childhood sexual abuse based on the enclosed interview notes? How does that fall short of a substantive allegation of rape? Larvatus 19:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Yes, and her subsequent sworn testimony where she states that she was not raped, that no intercourse took place. If she swears on oath that she was not raped, specifically in response to questioning on that exact word, I really can't see how we can say she was. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] RfA! 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
We are neither affirming nor denying that Erin Zhu was raped. Can we get past this point already? Our job is to report her allegations, as contained in verified documents extracted from court filings. Please confirm your understanding of this distinction, and your agreement with, or dissent from, my formulation of our editorial agenda. Larvatus 08:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Despite my best efforts, and I really did try, this information is not encyclopedic and doens't belong in WP. I wrote David Hager and will write or endorse similar material about this person if based on verifiable facts. See below for more.--FloNight 23:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLPOpinions of critics, opponents, and detractors

Many persons that are notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia about them are likely to have detractors, opponents and/or critics. Their views can be presented in a biography providing that these are relevant to their notability, based on credible sources and do not overwhelm the article. Note that for each detractor a public figure has, this person may have thousands that do not share these detractors views and by default their views will not be represented in the article. Be careful not to give a dispropotionate voice to detractors, opponents or critics as you could be representing a minority view as if it were the majority view.

Negative information related to a person's notability should be mentioned if solidly verifiable, e.g. plagiarism by an artist, fraud by a scientist, doping use by a sports person, etc. Remember that verifiability requires direct evidence regarding the subject of the article specifically. --FloNight 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:BLP, written to clarify these issues, insists that there be verifiable, direct evidence that relates to the persons notability. That does not exist about the issue we are discussing. There is no blue dress! There was no lawsuit! Zhu has never been charged in civil or criminal court! Sensational false allegations do not belong in an article. No evidence of any truths, only many different versions of disputed allegations. Only if the mainstream media or the SEC launches a full investigation will the truth be known. Until then our hands are tied. This is not encyclopedic.--FloNight 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Court documents are at least as verifiable as primary sources as an article in The Nation [20] is as a secondary source in a matter never brought in any judicial venue. You have seen proof of Erin Zhu accusing Min Zhu of having raped her, in an interview with her lawyers. You have seen her state under oath that Min Zhu "molested" her, short of intercourse. These allegations should be incorporated in the article under discussion, just as similar allegations have been incorporated in the article on David Hager that you cited above. In the meantime, please abstain from unilateral removal of content and oracular pronouncements on the truth or falsehood of allegations at issue. Larvatus 00:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
My fellow editor from California, there is no harm done to anyone if the text stays out of the article. There is potential harm to the Zhu family, Wikipedian editors and readers if false sexual abuse allegations are inserted in the text. Let’s wait until the mainstream media investigates and reports. Fellow editor from KY, --FloNight 02:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Please recall that we are not proposing to pronounce on the factual basis of the allegations at issue. Speaking as the recipient of independently witnessed and documented threats and menaces visited upon me on the behalves and in the names of Min Zhu and WebEx, let's not wait for anything. Your proposal is meant to harm me and any other recipients of the Zhu family values. Your deference to "the mainstream media" is not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. By contrast, court records are specifically recognized therein as a valid basis for source-based research. In short, you are not giving any objective reason for your censorship attempts. All you offer is your feelings. Larvatus 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, we simply disagree. You provided a large number of files, and I read them all. We came to different conclusions. That is one reason it is original research, in my book. We had to research, analyze, synthesize, and report. If it was straight forward we wouldn't be stuck in this Wikihell going over the same points again and again. Your frustrated. I'm frustrated. This is not my fault or yours.--FloNight 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
This is no simple disagreement. My position has cited support in the definition of source-based research. Once again, your "book" appears to contain nothing but your feelings. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
My fellow editor from California, start at the top of the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Larvatus, then read all the comments on the Rfc page. Then read the talk pages of WebEx and Min Zhu. Next go to the Rfar statements, then read the Rfar evidence. While your doing that I will pull out the dates of the threads of Wikipedia English email list where this has been discussed for 5 years. And I will look up all the dates of the major re-writes of NPOV, RS, NOR, and V. This was discussed by WP community each time. If you finish before I do, read the talk page of WP:BLP. WP:AGF is an code of conduct for one's self. I think every one in this dispute is doing a good job of WP:AGF and said so. No 3RR, no temp blocks or bans. I want to keep it that way. Fellow editor from KY, --FloNight 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Larvatus asks a valid and necessary question, and you seem to be dodging it. On exactly which policy are you basing your unilateral censorship of relevant and necessary information? Information I'll remind you that is freely available to anyone as part of the public record. Your insistance on protecting Erin Zhu's identity is admirable, but about 14 years too late and not a concern apparently share by her [21]. FeloniousMonk 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll thank FloNight for assuming that I've done my homework before asking my question, and for answering it forthwith. Please cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, are you saying that the text I removed from the article is accurate? The best explanation of the events? --FloNight 10:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am requesting that you cite Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Your tirade in the following section conspicuously avoids any mention of support in Wikipedia policy. Please revert the article forthwith. Larvatus 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Making Min Zhu a good article

Making Min Zhu a good article is important, because we must get the article right. We need to be sensitive to the fact that a Wikipedia editor Larvatus is involved with Zhu and his family in personal and business matters. Of course, Larvatus is an expert on his own life and knows a great deal about his own romantic and business interests! Many motivated editors do not have the time to read hundreds of legal records necessary to become an expert on Larvatus and the Zhu’s life. This disparity of knowledge raises issues of article ownership that I discussed in Rfar that will be addressed in that forum. Probably, it is best for Wikipedians to discuss these concerns there.

I want to give you a full explanation about why I removed the text. More important, I want to explain how we should go about writing a good article about Min Zhu. I will start with the basics and build from there.

WP:BLP reminds editors to avoid advocacy journalism point of view, hagiography or a hatchet job. To achieve an appropriate effect, the overarching writing style and tone must be neutral, factual, and understated. Be very firm about high quality references — particularly about details of personal lives. Be aware that the use of self-published primary sources could be problematic. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input.

1. A biographical article needs to reflect primarily what is notable about the person so named. Min Zhu is notable for three main reasons. First, he is on the Forbes list of 200 richest people in China. (As No. 163 on our (Forbes) list of China's richest people for 2004. Zhu's personal wealth is conservatively worth $100 million, based on his stake in WebEx.) Second, he founded a successful Internet company during the time many tech/Internet companies were going bust. (Some press release type articles on at least half a dozen mainstream financial websites talk about this a little.) Third, his expanding business ventures in US and China. (A bit more information is available in press release style articles on reliable mainstream websites.)

2. Other general biographical information is desirable. Such as birth date & location, family, education, other interests or insights about the person. (Zeleny probably knows all this information but chose not to include it in the article. Some of this information is in the legal files.) Might be able to verify some of this information on legitimate websites. (I don't speak Chinese so finding and verifying information about his life in China will take longer, but is doable.) His wife, children, (and maybe other family, cannot remember.) are named in legal file. With lots of work (and time) probably can verify some of the information in legitimate reliable sources by working backwards. It is much more doable if you already have it and are verifying in mainstream media. CA local newspaper articles, newsletters, magazines and other stuff in local public libraries. Pretty sure Stanford will have stuff on Zhu and likely mention his family. The Forbes article has some goods quotes about Zhu's pride in carrying a Chinese passport that should go in the article.

3. Zhu's verifiable involvement in corporate scandal of any kind should be included. We need to do more comprehensive research on all of ActiveTouch/WebEx/LiveShare's legal problems for this article and WebEx. The information on CA court websites is reliable and verifiable. Therefore, some comprehensive straightforward statement about the status of corporate legal cases in which Zhu was involved is fine. *No* speculation or conclusions can be drawn from them though.

4. Commonsense, journalism standards/ethic, and Wikipedia policy/guidelines say that the sources for benign text can be less impeccable than ordinary text, while the sources for highly controversial and very critical text must have the extremely reliable, verifiable sources.

5. Now to the thorny issue of the legal files that Zeleny emailed us, we read, and now reside on Wikisource. These legal records fall into the category of self-published primary sources. They are files provided by David W. Affeld, Zeleny's friend and lawyer. They are extracts from the civil complaints that never went to trial. They must be used with great caution!

A. That a former romantic-business partner of Zhu's daughter sued WebEx/Zhu is notable enough for a very brief mentioned if it could be verified. Additionally, it is notable that WebEx sued Zeleny. It can be verified on CA website that Zeleny sued, and that WebEx sued Zeleny. The exact nature of Zhu's daughter and Zeleny's relationship is a little bit more problematic. Because this statement is benign and is not disputed in the records, I could be convinced to include it, as long as it does not mention the daughter’s name. Zeleny's lawsuit against WebEx/Zhu, and the reverse, stays focused on this business-biography with a little bit more detail about who Zeleny is. (p.21 of DEPO ZhuE 031110 TRANSCRIPT.pdf)

B. Zeleny's legal records report that Zhu's daughter received cash from her parents multiple times as an adult. Commonsense says that wealthy parents give their adult children money. This in and of its self is not notable.

C. Zeleny claims that the legal records show that Min Zhu paid money as settlement for damages from child-rape to his daughter. The legal records from Zeleny are confusing on this point. His daughter made a wide variety of statements over many years. (They include the claim that another close family member sexually abused her. In addition that her mother, brother, and her were plotting to kill her father.) Most important to note that no medical records, police reports, child protective service records are provided. No prosecutor charged Zhu with a crime. No jury found him guilty or liable. Some legal records dispute a settlement occurs.

D. The text below has several problems. I tried to re-write it but I keep running into the same brick wall.

Zhu's daughter Erin sued her parents, partly on the basis of alleged molestation during her teens. This matter appears to have been settled out of court. Zeleny has alleged that WebEx tried to cover this up, but there is little if any evidence for this claim. No mainstream media have covered the case and no prosecutions have been brought against either Zhu or WebEx.

Zeleny further alleges that Zhu has "fled" to China in direct response to his publishing the allegations, including a demonstration which caused the WebEx user conference to be closed. Neither WebEx nor Zhu is known to have commented on this.

i. Erin did not sue her parents. No legal case was ever filed. Interestingly, in the Deposition the questioner uses the language *threatened to sue your parents and gotten a settlement as a result*. (line 10 on page 102 DEPO ZhuE 031110 TRANSCRIPT.pdf.) An actual lawsuit causes public disclosure in papers with the court. Since no papers were filed, not possible to know if Min Zhu saw the Draft Lawsuit. Because the attorney was a friend, David W. Affeld, (Zeleny's lawyer in other legal matters) this reduces the official nature of the legal threat, too. Affeld has filed statements in support of Zeleny attached to legal pleadings. Zhu's daughter has denied it in legal pleadings.

ii. Why has Zeleny focused on sexual abuse charges? Because they are attention grabbing? Because they are more likely to draw a reaction from readers? Although Zeleny focuses on sexual abuse, his daughter had a long list of complaints. Isolation from children her age, forced to study all day, not allowed to engage in the same activies as other American children. Her most consistent complaint was the harsh discipline to enforce the above.

iii. Timing of articles. Moreover, why self-publish now? The Live Journal articles, Yahoo postings, and 10 Wikipedia articles with content about Zhu family/WebEx have material that Zeleny knew about them since 1991. Are Zeleny's highly charged edits to Wikipedia and other online sites advocacy journalism? Could it be called a hatchet job? If so, how do we separate the corn from the chafe in the legal records that are hundreds of pages long?

iv. To counter these concerns the sources must be highly verifiable and reliable. The self-published extracted records from Zeleny's lawyer on Wikisource are not adequate to support these highly charged claims. Wikipedia needs to wait for the mainstream media, a criminal civil court or the SEC to investigate.

6. The sexual abuse issue is too complicated for a few sentences. Any attempt to expand them will overtake the other content in the article. First, we need to expand the business-biographical material. Then we can work on putting in carefully worded sentences that give a complete description of all the facts, not the narrow Zeleny point of view. --FloNight 15:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Seems like there's a lot of new hyperbole introduced being introduced around this that's going delay consensus and obfuscate the issues.
For example, the claim that "...the legal files that Zeleny emailed us... These legal records fall into the category of self-published primary sources. They are extracts from the civil complaints that never went to trial. They must be used with great caution!"
There's no specific policy that says these particular records must be viewed any differently than any other sworn testimony found in the public record of the courts. The only necessary and relevant issue is whether the documents are sworn testimony and freely available as part the public record, which they are.
Now you may choose to approach them with "with great caution," but since the veracity of the docs being sworn testimony in the public record is already established (not the claims they contain, an important distinction), don't be disappointed if others here and elsewhere, now or later, view and treat them as just another bunch of sundry court records outlining another shabby corporate scandal which happens to include claims of molestation made by a daughter against father, co-founder of the corporation, and the same corporation with which the daughter also happened to have business relationship.
When it's all said and done, I predict that any resultant accurate and complete detailing of events will coincide point by point with the specific details originally found in the Min Zhu controversy section of WebEx article. While it's necessary for all editors to contribute responsibly by abiding by the policies as they exist, I'm not going to engage in any unnecessary tip-toeing and hair-splitting. I'll just address the facts dryly, and conform to the community's policies as and when they apply; nothing more, nothing less. FeloniousMonk 17:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be surprised if it does. To overwhelm the article on a significant sized corporation with one trivial legal dispute would be quite unusual; it is not as if this dispute threatens to bring the company down or anything. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I meant coincide on the points, not the size. As I believe I accomplished earlier, there's a way to hit all the points in a concise manner [22]. FeloniousMonk 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I see that in retrospect. And I vote: "Er, maybe" :-) Bloody hell, I'm up for WP:RFA as you know, and if this is what it's going to be like every time I wonder if I've made a bad mistake! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 22:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • FloNight brings out two relevant points. The first is based on a misreading. While it is true that Erin Zhu did not file her lawsuit against Min Zhu, we know that Min Zhu has seen Erin Zhu's complaint for childhood sexual abuse from the title page that notes its recipient as James Barrett, Min Zhu's lawyer in that matter. We also know that from David Affeld's previously posted declaration describing his presentation of Erin Zhu's claims to Min Zhu in person, in a meeting in Palo Alto in January of 2000. The second point is verifying the settlement of Erin Zhu's claims. This is already partially attested in her correspondence mentioning the trust fund established in her name by Min Zhu. I will circulate court documents witnessing a previous payment made by Min Zhu in March and June of 2000 in the amount of $300,000, ostensibly meant to settle Erin Zhu's claims. I will also circulate materials from David Affeld's lawsuit against the Zhus for breach of contract and fraud in connection with the said trust fund, which Erin Zhu had represented in the prevously posted correspondence as established in additional compensation for her rape by Min Zhu. As witnessed by the Santa Clara court docket files, the Zhus settled Affeld's lawsuit before skipping town. I repeat my request that FloNight cite the policy in support of her demand that "Wikipedia needs to wait for the mainstream media, a criminal [or] civil court or the SEC to investigate" the matter at issue in her unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. As regards the concern voiced by Just zis  Guy, you know?, the issue deserves exactly as much space in the relevant articles as is required to lay it out accurately and dispassionately. Finally, I join FeloniousMonk in his prediction. As far as I can tell, the elided Min Zhu controversy section of the WebEx article is correct all the way down to specific details. Larvatus 20:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Policies that determine type & quality of material that is acceptable

V, RS, NPOV, NOR, BIO --FloNight 05:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I second the point made by FeloniousMonk. FloNight, please explain your application of the policies that you have cited to the matter at hand. Larvatus 08:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Please assume good faith. As you know, I can not fully explain my position in this forum. In so doing, I would make statements that an uninformed editor may think is a personal attack on Larvatus. That is one of several difficulties raised by someone editing a Wikipedian articles about themselves.--FloNight 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Your faith is not at issue. Only the soundness of your policy application is in question. Please explain your application of Wikipedia policies that support your unilateral censorship or revert the article to content previously agreed upon by other editors. Larvatus 19:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Self-published material as a source

~Self-published material (for example, a personal website) may be usable if

  • The information is relevant to the person's notability;
  • It is not contentious;
  • It is not unduly self-serving;
  • It does not involve claims about third parties or about events not directly related to the subject; that is, it may be used only as a primary source.

A blog or personal website written by the subject — so long as there is no reasonable doubt that the subject is in fact the author of the website — may be listed in the external links/further reading section, even if the subject is regarded as unreliable as a source.

Be aware that the use of self-published primary sources could be problematic

  • The biography may end up packed full of trivia, which will lead to a badly-written article. Some trivia may, of course, be of interest, giving a relevant insight into the subject;
  • The personal website you believe belongs to "John Doe" may have been set up with malicious intent by another person. Do not use a personal site as a source if there is any reasonable doubt as to the identity of the author;
  • If the subject reveals a detail and later changes their mind and removes it, it leaves the material in the Wikipedia article without a source;
  • A quality reference should ideally have had some form of third-party scrutiny, which all non-vanity publishers and newspapers perform to some degree. With self-publishing, there is no critical third-party input. ~

--FloNight 05:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with FeloniousMonk. As discussed and agreed in this connection earlier ([23]), my self-published materials (i.e. the relevant entries in my journal) can only verify my allegations about the Zhus and WebEx. Court filings may be self-submitted, but they are in no way self-published. Please be assured that I hold no equity interest in the Santa Clara and Los Angeles Superior Courts. If you believe otherwise, please explain your interpretation. Larvatus 08:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus.
Larvatus, now would be a good time to step back and shut up. You are not neutral and we already know what you think; at present you are shedding more heat than light on this issue.
Felonious, I think there are at least two problems here. One is the precise text of wording to do with abuse, which needs to be handled sensitively as the only public record is one where Erin Zhu appears to work quite hard to minimise the extent of her claim (and it does not look to me as if the original Affeld papers are public records, as such). Another is speculation as to the reason for Zhu leaving WebEx. And let's be clear here, it is speculation. We can say with some confidence that his departure followed the demonstration (as the WebEx article says now), but we have no verifiable evidence that the demonstration or associated claims caused him to leave. I also have some qualms about overplaying this controversy since the fact it has not been picked up by other media indicates to me that, however large it looms in the life on one person with an agenda, it is not considered significant by neutral third parties in relation to that company. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Censorship

Moving controversial inaccurate text from the article to the talk page for discussion is not censorship. It is recommended by Wikipedia policy/guidelines. Please stop saying (in bold text) that I'm unilaterally censoring material out of Wikipedia. --FloNight 13:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

True, but if both Felonious and I agree on something I'd say it was probably not controversial in this context (although looking at it just now I can't find a record stating that Erin Zhu's plaint was formally lodged). Note that it was me who put that sentence in. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for the feedback. Inaccurate is a better and more precise word. The lawsuit's form is a key issue for me. Mid Dec., I first came to this article while I was reviewing crime articles for misapplied categories. I was focusing on living people because they were more likely to raise a fuss if we got it wrong. I spent 2-3 hours then following the links trying to determine if a lawsuit had been filed. Even if Zhu was not criminally convicted, I would have made an exception if daughter had filed a lawsuit and a court settlement was noted. I could find nothing to justify leaving the categories on and removed them. (Of course, they were immediately re-applied.) I focused on this when I reviewed the legal records, too. I see a big difference between a broke daughter pressuring her father for money using a meeting, a few letters and phone calls from a lawyer friend; and a fullblown civil lawsuit. It's a judgment call, for sure, but if she really sued him I would put the categories back on.--FloNight 19:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
"...a broke daughter pressuring her father for money..." Yeah, I always suspected that her father molested her as she claims had nothing to do with the fact he gave her over $300,000 too. Right. Please. There's no shortage of evidence that Erin Zhu took legal action, lot more than just "a few letters and phone calls from a lawyer friend" as you're portraying it. Her draft complaint drawn up by her lawyer David Affeld and now part of the public record [24] (pg 24), and her interview as part of that complaint[25] (pg 36) tell a very different story than what you're trying to portray here, which is increasingly sounding like a whitewash. Anyone interested in actually reading the evidence and not one person's interpretation will find no shortage of it. FeloniousMonk 19:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, FloNight has a point here. Can you find any evidence that Erin Zhu's case was ever put before a court, and thus into the public domain? Because as it stands the documents in the public domain consist, on this matter at least, largely of Erin Zhu repudiating under oath the principal charge which Zeleny has spent so much time and effort trying to make stick. Specifically, she said she lied to him. And by extension to Affeld, so as far as I can see that makes the Affeld papers (which are in any case almost certainly excluded as not being public records) worthless. Of course, I could be wrong, and if I am you will no doubt correct me and I'll be happy either way. I think we probably need to proceed with caution given recent problems over bios of living people, don't you? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. I'm more concerned about the participation of corporate shills, something which I've been looking into and are harder (but not impossible) to verify. As I've stated before, I've verified through Superior Court in Santa Clara that all documents so far presented by Larvatus were entered into evidence as part of either 1-02-CV-809286 Zeleny-Vs-Zhu, 1-02-CV-810705 Zelyony-Vs-Zhu, or 1-04-CV-024062 Webex Communication Inc.-Vs-M. Zeleny (later Los Angeles Superior Court case number BC324927 after a change of venue) and are part of the public record. Your take on the relevance and significance of what you call the "Affeld papers" is in error. The very documents were filed as evidence in 1-02-CV-809286 Zeleny-Vs-Zhu, which Erin Zhu settled with Zeleny out of court. FeloniousMonk 06:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Your comment makes it plain that I have failed to explain my fundamental problem with the Affeld papers. It is this: they are not sworn testimony, were not dictated under oath, were not (apparently) read back and checked subsequently, and are explicitly repudiated at least in part in later sworn testimony. They are a lawyer's notes of his conversations with a client which the client herself has not validated, and recorded in pursuit of a case which was, apparently, never lodged. If these were brought up in court I am pretty sure they would be dismissed as hearsay. At most they prove nothing other than that Erin Zhu told Zeleny (and by extension Affeld) a lie about past events, which is not in doubt since it is part of her sworn deposition in Zelony v Erin Zhu. At worst, entering them in an unrelated case and then claiming them as public record may violate privilege, but it is way beyond my expertise to call that. Either way, the only verifiable facts about them are that (a) they exist and (b) they are not a true record of what happened. I am not a "corporate shill" and I'm sure you did not mean me when you made that remark. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Who died and made you an authority on what happened? Our job is to report the fact of the rape allegation as it pertains to the subject matter of this article. This fact has now been verified with copies of documents in the public record that I have supplied at great personal expense, in response to your pledge to collaborate in verification. FeloniousMonk has now confirmed their presence in publicly accessible court files. If you think that Erin Zhu's very partial and not very credible repudiation of her oft repeated and plurally attested rape story, delivered in the wake of being paid $$$ millions in hush money, also merits inclusion, by all means do so. While I remain happy to assume your good faith, and at any rate do not share your desire to exclude interested parties from editing, you remain bound by your pledge to incorporate matters subject to conclusive proof, as an editor with a real edit history and no obvious axe to grind. To date, your obstructionist attitude does the work of corporate shilling, whether or not this work is undertaken in paid corporate employ. Larvatus 17:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
No, I understand your objection. But I think you're on the wrong track. You are making a conclusion about the veracity of the allegations; drawing an inference from conflicting statements made by Erin Zhu. Doing so constitutes original research. Our only responsibility is to report those facts necessary and relevant for a complete article. Those facts are:
  • That Erin Zhu retained an attorney, David Affeld, to pursue a complaint for childhood sexual abuse against her father, WebEx cofounder and CTO Min Zhu, and went through all the typical and necessary legal steps to pursue that complaint, including making a statement outlining the sexual abuse in her own words.
  • That such a complaint was drafted and present to Min Zhu [26] (pg 24)
  • That Erin Zhu's father, Min Zhu ostenibly settled the complaint before it was filed for $300,000.
  • That at this time Erin Zhu also received 5000 shares of WebEx stock from WebEx [27](pg 3)
  • That after settling the claim with her father and receiving the 5000 shares of WebEx stock Erin Zhu abandoned the ptyx/LiveShare business partnership. [28](pg 2, 11)
  • That her business partner, and former boyfriend, Michael Zeleny, then sued Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, his wife and WebEx for fraud, alleging that Erin Zhu absconded with company assets, namley 5000 shares of WebEx stock, and converted them to personal use, and that her family, as agents of WebEx, colluded (1-02-CV-809286 Zeleny-Vs-Zhu) [29].
  • That at the same time Erin Zhu's attorney in the suit against her father, David Affeld, sued Erin Zhu and Min Zhu for fraud in failing to pay for services rendered. [30]
  • That in filing his suit, Michael Zeleny entered as evidence into the public record the complaint for childhood sexual abuse that Erin Zhu had drafted against her father and related documents establishing where and how Erin received the contested assets. [31] (pg 24, 36)
  • An additional suit for fraud naming Erin Zhu as defendant was brought by Zeleny's father relating to a credit card he'd given her (1-02-CV-810705 Zelyony-Vs-Zhu).
  • In these suits Min Zhu and his wife are represented by WebEx corporate counsel, and WebEx corporate counsel pleaded on behalf WebEx that Min Zhu did not molest his daughter. [32]
  • That Michael Zeleny then made public the details of the draft complaint and interview in which Erin Zhu details the sexual abuse at the hands of father. This is made public on the Yahoo! Finance messageboard for WebEx and Zeleny's blog. In both locations, Zeleny alleges that WebEx was assisting Min Zhu in covering up his molestation of his daughter by using shareholder assets, namely, the services of the corporate counsel and the shares of stock given to Erin Zhu.
  • That while being deposed in the 1-02-CV-810705 Zelyony-Vs-Zhu suit, where Erin Zhu was being sued for fraud, Erin testified under oath that she was sexually abused by her father short of sexual intercourse [33] (pg 129 -131).
  • That WebEx filed a defamation suit against Michael Zeleny [34]. Zeleny responded with an Anti-SLAPP motion. Three of the four causes of action are eventually struck down and WebEx ordered by the court to pay Zeleny's attorney's fees [35].
  • That Erin Zhu, Min Zhu, and WebEx settled all fraud suits brought by the Zeleny family and David Affeld for undisclosed sums [36], [37], [38].
  • That WebEx drops its defamation suit against Michael Zeleny, but not before Zeleny is arrested protesting in front of the 2005 WebEx user conference in San Francisco. Zeleny alleges malicious prosecution and that he will pursue legal recourse. This statement is made at the Yahoo! Finance WebEx messageboard and on his blog.
Those are the verifiable facts. They can be summarized more briefly in the article, but stating anything more or less about the controversy is not supported by policy and does the reader a great disservice. Now you may find Erin Zhu's waffling in deposition troubling, but considering she did it while being sued for fraud, it's not surprising. And when weighed against the other facts, that she herself made public the allegation against her father on the usenet 10 years earlier, and then retained an attorney who started legal proceedings against her father for these allegations, and that her father quickly settled out of court for a large sum, it doesn't make for a compelling case for not noting in the artilce what Erin Zhu chose sued her father for. FeloniousMonk 18:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

When a case goes to trial, both sides of the case have the legal right to gather evidence to present to the jury. Therefore, at least in theory, the full fact of the case should be available. The jury listens to the witnesses, looks at the evidence, and then retires to the jury room to deliberate. The jury analyzes the material and makes a determination. Often, a jury must consider to two or more competing versions of the same events. During deliberation the jury must make judgments about the credibility of witnesses and evidence. The verdict is based on these judgments. After the conclusion of the trial, often, the public and the media have access to court records. The court records reflect the whole process. Sometimes the public has access to the jury’s pov from media interviews.

When a case settles before trial, the case legal records are not complete. It is unlikely that a full version of the witnesses and evidence exists. When a threatened lawsuit settles before being filed then the record is very bare, often intentionally.

When one party to the case publishes the incomplete records to make a point, that is Cherry picking for advocacy journalism. That is not encyclopedic research and writing, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. --FloNight 16:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I see your effort to censor the article continues apace. Your reasoning for justification of keeping Erin Zhu's allegation of childhood molestation against her father out of the article only works as to truth of those allegations, not that the allegations were made, which is what this article did until your censorship [39]. The article did not say that Min Zhu molested his daughter, only that his daughter claims he did, for which, her draft complaint and other public record documents are perfectly acceptable by meeting the standard of WP:V and WP:RS. Stop throwing up roadblocks to relevant and necessary content. Looking over your actions on this page, it's becoming increasingly apparent to me at least that you've censored the article on baseless grounds and that now you're intentionally obstructing the return of verifiable and necessary information to the article. FeloniousMonk 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
FeloniousMonk, please stop making personal attacks. The fact that someone has submitted a pleading in a legal case is not some magical invocation that requires Wikipedia to repeat it. Whether a piece of information is "necessary" is up to editorial consensus, and it would be nice to see comments from you in support of finding that consensus and sounding less like demagoguery. The fact that the matter was settled, that a court was not required to rule on the veracity of the claims in question, is germane in determining the information's verifiability and significance. Demi T/C 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I've assumed good faith, but when FloNight resists multiple calls to cite the policy that specifically justifies her unilateral censorship and follows it up instead with what can only be described accurately as tendentious obstructionism, there's only so much questionable activity WP:AGF can cover. Obstructionism and unilateral censorship, both done outside of policy are by necessity acts of bad faith. FloNight has yet to budge an inch on either of these points, and her actions show every indication that she intends to continue with this line of reasoning and action. Consensus only works when all involved participate in good faith, and WP:AGF is not a suicide pact, or so the saying goes... FeloniousMonk 19:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm wrong, but I think the Rfc supported leaving this information out of the articles. I thought that was community consensus. We need to get more editors involved. The problems is that you have to read 500 pages of legal files to understand this case.--FloNight 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Felonious, that is unworthy. I see no evidence that FloNight has any brief for Min Zhu or WebEx; it seems to me that each of us is is acting out of genuine concern to do the right thing, be it "exposing a monster" or "protecting a legally innocent party". The only one whose motives are open to question is Larvatus, a fact he openly admits. At this stage I would suggest we wait and see what the Arbcom has to say since it seems unlikely that we will reach consensus. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I genuinely hope you are right and I am wrong. Agreed, let's have the arbcomm decide, on both issues. FeloniousMonk 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  • As noted by FeloniousMonk, FloNight continues to avoid answering my request to cite a basis for her censorship in Wikipedia editorial policy. The facts of Erin Zhu's January, 2000 rape allegation against Min Zhu, its presentation to him on her behalf by David Affeld, its ostensible settlement by Min Zhu, the ensuing fraud claim made by Affeld against the Zhus, and its settlement by them in November, 2004, all have been verified by public record presently available online ([40]). These facts are critical to the understanding and explaining the events that preceded Min Zhu's "retirement" from WebEx and his departure from the United States. Only the corporate bias promoted elsewhere by FloNight ([41]) in advocating the exclusion of "people involved in a legal case from editing articles related to people in the legal dispute", and openly expressed herein by Just zis  Guy, you know? ([42]) in declaring the irrelevance of compromising information to "a respected company with a worldwide presence", is keeping them out of the relevant articles for the time being. The truth will out. ([43]) Larvatus 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus

Article text about Zhu and Zeleny dispute

FM, I believe that Just zis  Guy, you know? has suggested that we leave the article text alone until after the Arbcom case. That would be my preference also. But, I suggest using the following text if you feel additional information must be added. It's neutral, factual, and uses sources that are probably within WP:RS. 

==Legal dispute with Zeleny==
On 13 May 2005, WebEx announced that Min Zhu was stepping down as WebEx's CTO and WebEx leadership,
and retiring to mainland China where he would serve as a "WebEx Fellow." [2] This was  amid a spate
of lawsuits between Zhu, WebEx and their former business partner Michael Zeleny for various torts, 
including breach of contract and defamation. [3] Additionally, Zeleny is engaged in a campaign to
alert the public that Zhu diverted WebEx assets to settle a childhood abuse claim made by his
daughter, Zeleny's former domestic and business partner. Zhu and his daughter have denied these
claims in court records. No mainstream media have investigated and reported these matters.

FM, I suspect that you want more details about the abuse. My concern is that the legal records are too complex to summarize in a few sentences. A skewed view of this complicated situation will be the outcome. I would like to see and make suggestions about changes that you make. (I did read hundreds of pages of legal records!) But, I'll leave the final wording up to you.--FloNight 23:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your effort; if we're going to reach consensus before the RFAr begins in earnest, we'll need to settle on mutually acceptable content here, now. Your continued participation here on placement and support of the content in the article will remove my concerns. You've provided a good starting place and I'm only going to make a couple of changes: 

==Retirement controversy== 
On 13 May 2005, WebEx announced that Min Zhu was stepping down as WebEx's CTO and WebEx leadership, 
and retiring to mainland China where he would serve as a "WebEx Fellow." [1]  This was amid a spate 
of lawsuits between the Zhu family, WebEx and their former business partner Michael Zeleny for 
various torts, including breach of contract and defamation. [2] In the course of these, Zeleny  
made public online that a complaint for childhood sexual abuse had been made by Zhu's daughter, 
Zeleny's former domestic and business partner, and alleged that Zhu diverted WebEx assets to settle 
that complaint. Zhu denied these claims in court records and WebEx sued Zeleny for defamation. [3] 
Zeleny's claims have since been settled out of court and the WebEx counter-claim dropped. [4]

Agreed Flo, JzG? FeloniousMonk 23:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine. Go ahead and put in it the article. Might try to put daughters claims and denial in a sentence. Will leave on talk page, if I do. I promise, nothing suicidal! :) FloNight 23:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I can add a sentence about her statements. FeloniousMonk 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm leaning against it. Makes it too long. --FloNight 00:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Fine, we'll go with this as it is. FeloniousMonk 18:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. FeloniousMonk 19:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll be removing the npov and fa templates now as well. FeloniousMonk 19:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
If there's no objections, I'd like to change the subheading from "Retirement controversy" to "Zhu/Zeleny controversy" or "Zeleny controversy." Retirement controversy is not terribly accurate and reads weasely. FeloniousMonk 19:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I like my original heading *Legal dispute with Zeleny*. Is there a controversy? FloNight 20:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's been a little too much controversy here and at the Yahoo! Finance messageboard for my taste... ;-) We could go with your version. FeloniousMonk 20:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Nice. Quiet as a church mouse now, though. --FloNight 21:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
For the record, I am happy with the text as it is right now (per timestamp) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 13:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I propose that Zeleny's allegations be documented by references to the primary sources such as his blog and third party notices of the events at WebEx's user conference. I also believe that the nature of Erin Zhu's rape allegations should be spelled out in a concise manner. Henryuzi 06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi
I propose that you read through the history and archives of this article to see wht that is unlikely to be acceptable in that form. Guy 09:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
My proposal is made with reference to the history and archives of this article. I contributed to the content of Wikipedia article on WebEx long before you started editing it. I made my contributions by personally verifying the claims that Mr. Zeleny made on the Yahoo! WEBX discussion board. I am as familiar with the background as any of my successors. Henryuzi 05:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)henryuzi
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Min_Zhu/Archive&oldid=1137012936"