Talk:Min Zhu/Archive

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)

• Point taken, at least provisionally. Shall we refer to categorization of Michael Jackson as our prototype? Larvatus 03:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

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. — ₀₉₁₈^BRIAN • 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 qupted 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