Talk:Meng Wanzhou/Archive 1

Archive 1

This is kidnapping

The Kidnapped people tag should be added to this article. 66.181.181.197 (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Except it isn't... --Kuzwa (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Was Meng on Interpol list ? Otherwise its strange behaviour by Canadians. --PetarM (talk) 11:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Arrest Kidnap I think it is easy to differentiate.--Aoke1989（Talk） 14:09, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Kidnap?? The US government suspects that her company has violated the No-Trade rules with North Korea and Iran so they issued an arrest warrant for her. Canada has an extradition treaty with the US, so they are required to arrest her and attempt to extradite her. She can certainly fight that in court.

  The US Justice Department sought the arrest as part of ongoing investigation, according to a law enforcement official. Meng "is sought for extradition by the United States, and a bail hearing has been set for Friday" https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/05/tech/huawei-cfo-arrested-canada/index.html

Peter K Burian (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Dirty crooked kidnapper 150.129.143.56 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The 7 december Reuters article mentions that the U.S. didn't make a formal extradition request yet. She apparently did not appear on any known "Wanted" list, so it's logical to see her arrest as made by surprise, somewhat as if she was a terrorist carrying explosives, an immediate threat. In the CNN source mentioned above, a U.S. Democrat senator talks about "risk to American national security", a Republican senator mentions "Chinese agression"... Nuance is in order on both sides. Wakari07 (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a time for soapboxing. If reliable source say it is kidnapping then we say so otherwise we leave it out as just opinion. Waskerton (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet

Global News reports the Chinese state media as saying the arrest is "basically 'kidnapping'". Wakari07 (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: Why was she arrested in Canada? A New York court issued an arrest warrant for Huawei Technologies’ chief financial officer Meng Wanzhou on Aug. 22, asking she be detained to stand trial to face U.S. charges https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-china-huawei-tech-court/us-court-issued-huawei-cfo-arrest-warrant-in-august-idUSKBN1O62I6

The charge was based on allegations of a conspiracy to defraud banks which had cleared money that was claimed to be for Huawei, but was actually for Skycom, an entity claimed to be entirely controlled by Huawei, which was said to be dealing in Iran, contrary to sanctions. None of the allegations have been proven in court. url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-08/market-shaking-u-s-case-against-huawei-cfo-rolls-into-next-week%7Ctitle=Chinese state media says U.S. trying to 'stifle' Huawei with arrest

Meng is "charged with conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions," https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bail-hearing-huawei-cfo-1.4936150

U.S. authorities will allege that Meng played a direct role in a fraud by telling banks that there was no link between Huawei and Skycom. These banks then cleared financial transactions for Huawei, said Gibb-Carsley, inadvertently doing business with Skycom and becoming “victim institutions” of fraud. https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/07/tech/huawei-cfo-us-case/index.html Peter K Burian (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This "newspaper" is state controlled so it will say whatever the government is telling them to say:

   “Without any solid evidence, the Canadian and U.S. governments trampled on international law by basically ‘kidnapping’ Chinese citizen Meng Wanzhou, the chief financial officer of Huawei,” Wei Xinyu, a research fellow with the Ministry of Commerce, wrote for the Global Times, a tabloid owned by the Communist Party of China.

So, yes, a person with the Ministry said that. But is it a rationale statement or soap boxing on his part? Peter K Burian (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

The question is if the Chinese state is a notable party in the case. If so, this reaction matters, I'd argue. Of course with correct attribution (and the usual disclaimers, I guess). Then also, it should be clear that this is China's, not Wikipedia's opinion. Same thing for the other party ;-) Wakari07 (talk) 22:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not what op saying/asking. ~ (talk) 06:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

It's evident enough. Wakari07 (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

No it is not. op is just ask to put the kidnap people TAG not your theory about attribution. Waskerton (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC) sockpuppet

Arrest

I noticed that User:Zanhe recently (1:52 on Dec 8) made an edit deleting some "lesser details" of the aftermath of the arrest. These details included specifics about the charges Meng is facing as well as whether she will be granted bail. As this is a major international news story, I believe details of this kind are relevant and need to be included. I propose restoring these changes and will do so depending on the outcome of any discussion. Dash77 (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Dash77: Please familiarize yourself with WP:Recentism, WP:Too much detail, and WP:NOTNEWS. A judge declaring he's not yet making any decision is definitely not important enough for inclusion. -Zanhe (talk) 02:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Are you in agreement that once the judge makes a decision on bail, it may be important enough for inclusion? Dash77 (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Fine in the short term. But in the medium to long run, whether she is granted bail or not pales in comparison to bigger questions such as whether she is extradited, and if so, whether she is convicted and sentenced, and how her fate affects the trade war and international relations between the US, China, and Canada. See WP:10 year test. -Zanhe (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Trade tensions and stock market reaction

User:Waskerton reverts, arguing that the effect on US-China trade tensions would not be notable for the lead. I beg to differ. Wakari07 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC) :It isn't. At least not as stand alone sentence. And defiinately not this point of the trade talk. All we have from articles is just speculation of journo about why there is impact of arrest on trade talks. Not even a reality of it. Stoke fear of continuing trade tensions? What does that even means? It is like you are trying to say trade tension will go away or be less without this. Besides why is your focus even on trade talk anyway? plenty of other stuff in reaction section you could write about but you just choose that one to note in lead. Curious why you ignore Canada in all this, i am guessing that is part of your pov push to make it look like Canada is being a lapdog of the us? Waskerton (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Wakari07. Virtually every source about her arrest mentions its impact on US-China relations and stock markets have reacted accordingly. -Zanhe (talk) 10:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@Zanhe: But we are talking of impact of the trade war not the relation as a hole. And besides you have both government trying to say this is separate from the trade war. Aside from speculation of journos and recentism of coverage this like i say is all just speculating. At least we need to wait until a few days to see if anything ACTUALLY happen on this tradeing issue. Waskerton (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the trade war issue should be mentioned in the lead. This is an article about Meng, not Meng's arrest. STSC (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Right. We may need a separate article for the case, since Meng seems notable on her own. But meanwhile, all notable content should remain here. User:STSC is even removing the well-sourced mention of links with the 2018 China–United States trade war, Canada–China relations and China–United States relations... That's the Donald Trump agenda according to Reuters' December 7 article, which in their December 8 article is summarized as: Trump and his top economic advisers have played down its importance to trade talks after the two leaders agreed to a truce. Bloomberg describes it in today's article as a market-shaking case. Wakari07 (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

By all means, mention any trade war issue in the Reactions section, but we should not put any sort of "see also" links to other articles in the main body of the content, it's just a question of style. STSC (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Your comment make no sense but in interest of just to make compromise and not do more edit wars i remove hyperlinking so we just get the text. Waskerton (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC).

We use hatnotes at the top of a section to direct readers to other articles. STSC (talk) 10:37, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the most major events in Meng's life is her arrest, especially if she is extradited to the USA and tried there. This DOES need to be in the lead. Peter K Burian (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Her arrest is mentioned in the lead. STSC (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I nixed the stock market reaction part. I explained why in the edit, but the section was taken almost verbatim from the NYT which is plagiarism, also the plagiarized section is taken out of context which misrepresents the source it plagiarizes, which is interesting, but nevertheless irrelevant. Anyhow, I nixxed it instead of rewriting it because inorder to actually convey what the article is saying it would take much more space and go in to fears of interest rate hikes and all that which takes us wildly off topic, and to just say Meng arrested thus Stock market falls is inaccurate, what's more is that the Stockmarket really didn't fall that much on December 3rd, and actually opened up. Alcibiades979 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"brewing trade war"

Would anyone mind if I took the word "brewing" out of the link? I thought perhaps it had to do with beer. Putting the word "brewing" before the link results in the words "trade war" indicating a link, which is easier for someone like me to understand. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead, be bold. STSC (talk) 13:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

a note on terminology

The article currently states, "Meng was arrested by Canadian authorities at an extradition request of the United States". But that is not strictly accurate. She was arrested because of an application for provisional arrest (made by the US pursuant to Article 11 of the Canada-US extradition treaty and sections 12 to 14 of Canada's Extradition Act); there did not exist a request for extradition (which is provided for in Article 9 of the treaty, and sections 15 and 16 of the Act). This is clear from the reasons of the Supreme Court of British Columbia dated 11 December 2018, at paragraphs 3 and 5. The court states that Meng was arrested on a Provisional Arrest Warrant (not a "Request for Extradition"). This may be a technical point, but if Wikipedia can use the correct terminology, we might as well do so. I know it's complicated because the news media sometimes use incorrect terminology. Mathew5000 (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

New article about the detention

Hi, I'm planning on creating a new wiki article on the detention of Meng Wanzhou because there's a lot going on with the detention. XingranLiu (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

"detained" in one of her two mansions? Do me a favour and write about the "imprisoned" canadiansFeldercarb (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Why does China care so much about this person?

Given China's very bad track record of killing their own citizens - whether they are from Tibetan, Uygher, Falun Gong practioners, that proves they don't care about humans in general - so why does China care so much about this person "above Tibetan, Uygher, Falun Gong practioners" - they are all humans and should be treated as such, not this one being singled out by China. China's eratic behaviour makes them the most laughable country in the World. ZhuLien (talk) 12:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.21.215.97 (talk)

Article needs clarification as to which charges pertain to Meng personally

@Wildcursive: (a) The article currently mentions twice that there are "23 criminal charges against Wanzhou Meng and Huawei". But most of those charges relate to the corporate entities or other individuals. The number of charges against Meng Wanzhou personally is much less than 23. A redacted version of the "superseding indictment" filed Jan. 24 2019 can be read online. In my view, this article (i.e. Meng Wanzhou) shouldn't even mention that "23" figure, and it shouldn't mention corporate espionage, theft of trade secrets, or any of the other components in the indictment that are not alleged against Meng personally. At any rate, if the "23 charges" is mentioned in the article, we ought to state explicitly how many of them pertain to Meng personally.

(b) It seems that the US government refers to her as "Wanzhou Meng" (given name first) but should Wikipedia follow that usage when discussing the indictment? Or should we be consistent in referring to her as "Meng Wanzhou"?

(c) The photo of 8 US government officials making an announcement, apparently a screenshot from a Youtube video, was removed and reinserted in the article [1][2]. In my view it doesn't belong in this article. Or if it is included, then we should also have a photo of a Chinese government official making a speech about the matter. I hope we can reach consensus about this. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

One other comment with respect to this edit. The sources do not explicitly say that the extradition request was received on 28 January. What they say is, on 28 January Canada confirmed to the media, that the request had been received. Mathew5000 (talk) 07:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Sabrina Meng and Cathy Meng + 7 passports?

Anybody know why she has two different names? Is this usual or unusual for a chinese national? seems weird to me, wondering if anybody found any info on this.

Also, why seven passports? Seems strange.

It is very common for Chinese nationals or Chinese-descended Canadians living in Vancouver to have an one or more Anglicized names.

Meng holds both a Hong Kong and mainland China passport, which is also very common for Chinese elites, since the Hong Kong passport allows much more visa-free travel. It is likely that the other five were either expired out out of space for stamps. Smithereen (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

perhaps common, but China does not permit dual citzenship, which a 2nd (?or 3rd) passport would seem to imply.

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/douglas-todd-second-passports-can-come-with-big-trouble-for-chinese-citizens

Trade Secrets Theft

February 13, 2020 Indictment

I suggest to add a paragraph about the significant event today February 13, 2018 about US criminal charges & indictment which named Meng Wanzhou. How about the draft paragraph below? With notable source.

On February 13, 2020 US criminal charges named Meng Wanzhou. The unsealed US indictment alleged a "decades-long" effort to steal trade secrets from American companies, that Huawei and its proxies conspired "to misappropriate intellectual property", and Meng lied to HSBC bank. If proven guilty Meng potentially faces up to 10 years imprisonment per 18 U.S.C. § 1832.

Sources

Francewhoa (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Document from the British Columbia courts

A document was posted by the British Columbia court system: https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/20/07/2020BCSC0785.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 05:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Use of words "defraud", "conspiracy to defraud"

I removed thee terms from the article outside the quote from the Extradition letter. The alleged "fraud" in this case involves lying about the direction of funds. This is not what most people assume when they hear the term "defraud", and as such the use of the word is misleading. She was arrested for evading US sanctions on Iran, we can all agree on that. Calling this fraud is misleading POV coming from the Eastern District of New York that most news outlets ignored when reporting on this arrest, and so should we. Mottezen (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We made it clear that they were only allegations, I don’t feel like this edit was appropriate. Its not misleading and it certainly isn’t a POV violation its an allegation from a reputable public prosecutor which we will treat the same as any other allegation from a reputable public prosecutor. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Also lying about the direction of funds is fraud, thats well within the commonly understood definition. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

The definition of fraud is "A deception practiced in order to induce another to give up possession of property or surrender a right". What people refer to when they think of fraud is lying to extract funds. This is not what Meng Wanzhou is accused of. She is accused of evading sanctions on Iran using a complex arrangement of subsidiary companies, and not disclosing that to American banks. Nobody would have been defrauded, and it would confuse readers to think somebody was. Mottezen (talk) 08:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, the lead still says she is arrested on fraud charges, which is undeniable. And indeed, criminal charges need to be properly attributed and put in context, as you are saying. Mottezen (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Fraud as a criminal charge and fraud as a dictionary term are though different, aren't misleading in this case. The article makes it clear that fraud is used in a criminal law context. [[3]]. Meaning here.70.55.8.116 (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Poor and bias description of legal context

The article has considerable issues with describing the law and the facts of the case. For example there is significant discussion about the defense team's arguments against arresting agencies/crown and presenting it as somehow problematic. These are legal arguments and ones without any clear factual confirmation. In addition, the article goes into detail about information not really relevant to the legal case. I'd request individuals with some understanding of how criminal law works to please clean up this article. 70.55.8.116 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2020 (UTC) :What do you have in mind? What changes do you propose? I think i generally agree with you that overall for the article, there appears to be bias for Mrs. Wanzhou's account of her events. But there must be more precision for the changes you are requesting. Without that, it would appear that we will not be able to address the concerns you have in mind. Fortliberty (talk) 21:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC) sockpuppet

Still CFO?

Is she still CFO? How can a company operate with their CFO basically in detention/house arrest? Feldercarb (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that she's being detained incommunicado, only that she's "released on a $10 million bail that was granted with conditions, including electronic surveillance". I imagine that she could still have Zoom meetings with her people. Santamoly (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

this is a joke

this page read like it was written by one fo Meng Wazhou's lawyers or one of her fanboys or fangirls. Why is the reactions to her arrest almost all critical? Where are the reactions that support the arrest? there is endless evidence that show the majority of the Canadian public and the western world are supportive of her arrest. And also what the canadian government did and has been doing since. But you would never know from reading this article. typical wikipedia where what's written in the encyclopedia and what happens in real life are two parallel worlds. I ask that some one with the time and knowledge fix and do a major clean up of this embarrassment of an article. GMPX1234 (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2020 (UTC) — GMPX1234 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Waskerton (talk • contribs).

I wouldn't call the article a joke, but I agree that detailing every one of Meng's legal arguments is tedious and reads like a gish gallop. Perhaps a more experienced editor could comment? Smithereen (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Add in expert opinions too?

I feel notable experts published in reputable papers like Steven Roach had explained that ""A number of financial institutions, including JP Morgan, Bank of America, Wells Fargo and international banks, were all judged guilty and paid enormous fines for violating sanctions in the last several years," and "None of their executives, of course, went to jail — why is Huawei being singled out for the sanctions violations?"

or that as The Globe and Mail observed, "it’s highly unusual to go after individual executives carrying out company business rather than indicting the corporation for illegal offenses; indeed, one such example was the case against HSBC. Obviously, the special circumstance for going after Meng was that she was the daughter of the founder of Huawei."

But the current article only has chapters for legal commentary and politician's voices. Is that normal? I thought north american experts and newspaper editorials can also send their independent analysis of the case and would like to add that in if it's allowed.

Also, side note, I made edits to the article recently. In "Allegation of misrepresentation". Meng's legal counsel argued that leaving out the slide gave the impression "that the tech executive never told HSBC that Skycom did business with Huawei in Iran or that Huawei and Skycom had an ongoing business relationship." And that HSBC was actually made aware of that fact. That's the actual and only real misrepresentation argument they made yet it's not even well explained in the past article so I added in clarifications to make that key info clear enough. Casualfoodie (talk) 05:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Balance -- split off arrest&related to separate page.

{{split|date=November 2020|Meng Wanzhou|Arrest of Meng Wanzhou}} The warrant, 2018 arrest and court case should be a separate article. Right now, it looks like the biography is a footnote instead of being nominally the main topic of this article. Instead the arrest etc should be split off into a separate article, where it will be the main topic. A small summary of it would appear on this article, with a {{main}} linking to the the other article. -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC) -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 17 November 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

---

Meng Wanzhou → Arrest of Meng Wanzhou – WP:AT This article is nominally a biography of Meng Wanzhou, but the vast majority of this article is about the charges, her 2018 arrest, the subsequent court proceedings, and political fallout; and not about her biography per se. Thus this article should be renamed to match the main content of the article. The vast majority of the edit history is about this content. A biography can be split off after the move, if it is so desired. -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 20:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Strongly agree Smithereen (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter to me. Most of the viewers of this page will be here because of the continued court proceedings anyways, so I don't see the point. However a dedicated page wouldn't be amiss either. Qiushufang (talk) 22:42, 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.

Aftermath

• @Paine Ellsworth: The page Arrest of Meng Wanzhou (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) did not exist when the move request was filed. -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this explanation. Can see from your request below that you deem the new article as acceptable. The question that remains is "Will this article, titled 'Meng Wanzhou', stand on its own? or should it be a redirect to the new article, 'Arrest of Meng Wanzhou'"? P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 05:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• @Qiushufang: Since you split the page in twain, can you remove most of the content on this page that duplicates the new article you created at Arrest of Meng Wanzhou ? -- 65.92.244.147 (talk) 05:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have the energy right now. There should probably be something in this article about the arrest and extradition process, which requires more effort than simple deletion, if everything covered in the main article is not deleted. If/when I do get to it, it'll probably be next week. Qiushufang (talk) 05:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
    • You forgot to do this fix you said you'll do "next week" in November 2020 -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost all of Meng Wanzhou is duplicate of Arrest of Meng Wanzhou

Under WP:MERGE, both pages are more or less duplicates constituting grounds for a merger: There are two or more pages on exactly the same subject, with the same scope. Overlap: There are two or more pages on related subjects that have a large overlap. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; there does not need to be a separate entry for every concept. For example, "flammable" and "non-flammable" can both be explained in an article on flammability. Everything after the Meng Wanzhou#Career heading is essentially a duplicate of Arrest of Meng Wanzhou. To resolve this, I am torn among 3 courses of action, with rationales for each:

• Merge Meng Wanzhou into Arrest of Meng Wanzhou For the above reasons, a merger is an option. Since the vast majority of duplicated content is related to her arrest, court proceedings, and political fallout, another solution is to merge her bio page into her arrest page.
• Requested move to Arrest of Meng Wanzhou This article is nominally a biography of Meng Wanzhou, but the vast majority of this article is about the charges, her 2018 arrest, the subsequent court proceedings, and political fallout; and not about her biography per se. Thus this article should be renamed to match the main content of the article. The vast majority of the edit history is about this content. A biography can be split off after the move, if it is so desired.
• Reduce everything after Meng Wanzhou#Career into one heading linking to Arrest of Meng Wanzhou I noticed that a similar requested move was closed on November 2020. To reduce redundancy, I'm inclined to simplify everything after Meng Wanzhou#Career into one heading named "Arrest" with a link leading into the Arrest of Meng Wanzhou page.

I appreciate anyone's feedback, as I intend to follow through on one of the 3 courses of action I have detailed. Phillip Samuel (talk) 17:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Reducing the sections in Meng Wanzhou about her arrest and courtroom proceedings would probably be the least controversial action. It all depends on how much you want to keep though. Merging would cause more problems than solve imo because there are already many links to Meng Wanzhou. Qiushufang (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Qiushufang: can you fix the problem you left on this page, when you failed to refactor this article in creating the new one? You said you would fix it next week back in November 2020 -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)