Talk:Extradition case of Meng Wanzhou

Move discussion in progress - November 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Meng Wanzhou which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merge discussion in progress - August 2021

There is a merge discussion in progress on Talk:Meng Wanzhou#Merger proposal which proposed to merge this page into the latter page. Please participate in the discussion on that talk page and not this talk page section. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Spelling error

original: determined that Meng was a permanent resident since her surrender of PR status in 2002

edit: determined that Meng was not a permanent resident

I'm not familiar enough with this article to just edit the page and fix this. Please make this change or alter the sentence to be logically correct. 2001:56A:F260:F400:8993:D8BA:6486:6192 (talk) 08:00, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the Lede

Estnot Qiushufang I'll move this discussion about your edit in the lede to this talk page. With due respect, Esnot, your edit regarding the content of the statement of admission by Meng is not an accurate representation of the source. The source, Globe&Mail states,

"In the agreement, which is not an admission of guilt, Ms. Meng accepted that she made “untrue” statements to bankers about Huawei’s relationship with Skycom Tech Co. Ltd., which conducted business in Iran and was in fact controlled by the Chinese company. She accepted that Huawei caused Skycom to conduct about $100-million worth of U.S.-dollar transactions via a bank that cleared them through the United States – “at least some of which supported its work in Iran in violation of U.S. law.”

She did not misrepresent so that Huawei could conduct business in Iran, contrary to your edit. Huawei was already conducting business in Iran through its subsidiary. Meng did not misrepresent to conduct business in Iran, which was already taking place. She gave false statement so that the Huawei subsidiary could clear money in the US, which was then used to support Huawei(or its subsidiary)'s work in Iran that violated US Law.

To be clear, the purpose of Meng's untrue statement was to allow Huawei to clear money in the US, not to do business in Iran, which was already taking place. If you have a source that supports your edit, I invite you to cite it. Otherwise, your edit is not supported by the article by Globe&Mail, which is an authoritative media outlet HollerithPunchCard (talk) 13:57, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

- You are right that was a mistake in my part. I’ve adjusted some of the content and we can discuss those edits here if you have an issues with them Estnot (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Estnot Thank you for being candid, and I like your last edits, which I thank you for. Cheers. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Divide big chapter into multiple sections

Currently on Mobile view, it takes a lot of effort to scroll down since the article is long. Propose we just divide the currently enormous 'courtroom arguments' chapter into dedicated multiple number of collapsible chapters. So it would make it a lot easier for readers to quickly navigate the current page. Just collapse and uncollapse instead of having to tirefully scroll down a really long singular section for a long while just to reach the bottom parts. 49.180.139.69 (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Pleaded "not guilty"

There is nothing to discuss. Many sources says she pleaded "not guilty" on Friday afternoon. Obviously the deal allowed her to do that otherwise they wouldn't had let her go free. She not only didn't have to plead "guilty". She was also allowed to plead "not guilty" and that's precisely what she did without violating the deal agreement in any way. If she wasn't allowed to do that, they would had detained her. Except immediately right after pleading "not guilty", the US fully aware that she formally denied her key charges, then dropped their extradition request. Unless you have a very good argument and source proving she was not allowed to formally deny key charges, then do show it. It doesn't exist so quit arbitrily changing it. I added a source now- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1046919457 49.180.139.69 (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

-“ Did not have to plead guilty” and “allowed to plead not guilty” are literally the same thing. I really cannot see why you are so hung up on this wording. Incidentally the globe and mail article uses the exact phrase “did not have to enter a guilty plea”Estnot (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

What are the relevant views by the prosecution?

The lead did not have any information on the extradition process itself. I added some but then Estnot reverted saying that it was too detailed and not neutral. I have since added that the prosecution disagreed or denied the allegations made by the defense, however that seems to be the extent of their PoV. What sort of information can be added to make the lead more "balanced"? Qiushufang (talk) 00:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

the quotes by the judge have to be removed because it is clear it isn’t appropriate for a lead section. That information contains far too much detail and does not describe a key development in the extradition case as it is merely one opinion of many which the judge gave. Your usual claim that the quotes are the last judicial statements is not correct (that probably would have been when she bid Meng farewell) and appears to be pure speculation (proceedings were held behind closed doors). However, even if the quotes are the last judicial statements given it leaves out important considerations, chief among which is that that fact is a technicality (so the deferred prosecution agreement short circuited the entire cross examination process) and still does not change the nature of the material which is that it was an opinion/statement that had no actionable effect outside the courtroom/legal arguments. The only reason why anyone would want to exaggerate the importance of this cherry picked quote is to give readers the misleading impression that the case was so clearly flawed from the beginning that even the judge could see through it. This is blind prejudice working in plain sight and is the sort of wool over the eyes that everyone should be trying to lift Estnot (talk) 01:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

"it is merely one opinion of many which the judge gave." - such as? I have asked many times for this. Qiushufang (talk) 01:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

For example when the same judge ruled in May 2020 that U.S. extradition request passed legal muster in Canada Estnot (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing Cyrus Janssen under Reactions to arrest

Under "Reactions to arrest" -> International -> United State a man named Cyrus Janssen is cited. I do not think that is a good idea to cite him. Apparently he is a paid Chinese propagandist. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djXYBU1T-Ek Maybe removing his cite is a good idea. Better add a real journalist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:6D40:232F:5401:DDBB:5A01:257:2191 (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)