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 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
      • Can you provide a link to your excerpt of conferecingnews.com's story? In the conferencing news archives for May 2005 there is no such headline. Demi ^T/_C 18:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • 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)

Contentious links

• Calendar information of Santa Clara Superior Court Case Number CV-809286, styled Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx, whose publicly accessible filings contain a documentary record of Erin Zhu's sworn complaints about her rape by her father Min Zhu.

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.

• Erin Zhu's complaints about her rape by her father, attested in public record on Usenet

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

• Another complaint by Erin Zhu about her rape by her father, reproduced verbatim from public record in Santa Clara superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx

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.

• Erin Zhu promises that she will not be a monster like her father and complains that he devoured her body with his lust, reproduced verbatim from public record in Santa Clara superior Court, Case Number CV809286, Zeleny v. Zhu & WebEx

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