Talk:Wang Zheng (pilot)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flying solo.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2019

deletion section LAWSUITS Holmes767 (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 03:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

No consensus provided - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Lawsuits quote

I've moved the quote added to the "Lawsuits" section by EdiK2016 here for further discussion because I think it would be better to take a closer look at it. There seems to have been a lot of editing to this articles by WP:SPAs who may be either connected to Wang or involved in a real world dispute with Wang, things that might indicate that their interests and Wikipedia's interests are not one and the same. Some prior comments made to this talk page by EdiK2016 had to even be revision deleted because they pretty much were a violation of WP:OUTING, and the article has been protected because of the disruption; so, this is probably a good time to try and sort through things and see if a consensus can be established regarding this.

The quote which was added by EdiK2016 is as follows:

Wang Zheng has not provided evidence of her global flight in accordance with the bonus requirements. So far, we do not know whether she has completed the global flight... At that time, awarding her prizes was a mistake and should not be confirmed before the evidence was obtained." (original texts in Chinese: "“王争一直没有按照奖金的要求提供她环球飞行的证据，到目前为止，我们不知道她是否完成了环球飞行……当时给她颁奖是有失误的，不应该在没有得到证据之前确认。")

References

There are few things that I think should be resolved before the source is re-added.

1. The first thing that should be figure out is whether the sources cited in support are reliable per WP:RS. Although Wikipedia prefers that sources written in English be used, it allows sources in other languages to be used per WP:NOENG as long as they are reliable. I don't read Chinese and am not familiar with the two sources cited. Are they just news aggregators or do they generate there own content subject to editorial control? I tried a Wikisearch of scnews.newssc.org, but came up with only two hits; I did the same for www.sygdw.com and came up with no hits. Of course, I could've searched incorrectly, but it might also mean that these sources are pretty much not being used at all. (For comparison purposes, The New York Times got pages upon pages of hits even at 500 entries per page) So, it might be a good idea to seek input from WP:RSN or WP:CHINA on this since that's probably where editors familiar with Chinese language sources are likely to be found.
2. If the sources turn out to be OK, the next thing which should be discussed is whether a quote is actually preferable to plain prose. Wikipedia allows us to use short quotes per MOS:QUOTE as long as they are properly attributed and not really WP:UNDUE. The way the quote was added in the middle of a section about lawsuits does seem to give uneccesary emphasis to what was said by one side involved in the dispute. If the same encyclopedic information can be expressed in a more neutral manner as simple prose, then maybe that should be considered. In addition, adding the original Chinese text direct to the body of the article does seem to place more emphasis on the quote, compared to the other content in the section. If we quote one side then maybe we should also quote the other side for proper balance.
3. If the consensus is that a quote is OK, it should be incorporated into the article better. There are ways using the |quote= parameter with {{cite news}} (see Template:Cite news#Parameters), or even an explanatory footnote like {{efn}} to provide the original Chinese text to the reader; it doesn't need to be directly added to the body of the article. Moreover, any English translation should be made as carefully as possible. Machine translations or Google translate are fast and easy, but there accuracy can be a bit iffy which is generally why Wikipedia advises not to use them in WP:MACHINETRANSLATION (that's about translating entire Wikipedia articles but I think it also applies here). It would be much better to have someone competent in Chinese unconnected to Wang to check the translation and make sure it's good enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Once again, perhaps someone at WP:CHINA or maybe even WP:TRLA can help with this.

Feel free to add any comments below. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:52, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Quotes concerned here were originally made by Wei Chen, the AOPA China director and circumnavigator, who set the 1M flight prize.

Original report was published on Oct 9 2018 by Chengdu Commerce Newspaper 成都商報 https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%88%90%E9%83%BD%E5%95%86%E6%8A%A5

Agree. Perhaps someone at WP:CHINA or maybe even WP:TRLA can help with this.

Further, public statements made by Chen was published on Sep 21 2018 at:

References

Lithiam (talk) 04:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Search Zheng Wang at Florida 15th circuit court: https://applications.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/search.aspx

Two ongoing litigation against Zheng Wang/James Frechter/CGA.

PLANE SMART AVIATION LLC sues Zheng Wang/James Frechter/CGA for unpaid aircraft rental in her 2016 circumnavigation over 60k USD. (50-2017-CA-010573-XXXX-MB) SARASOTA AVIONICS INC counterclaimed Zheng Wang/James Frechter/CGA for unpaid avionic installation service for her 2016 circumnavigation over 58K USD. (50-2017-CA-004444-XXXX-MB)

Search James Frechter at Florida 15th circuit court: https://applications.mypalmbeachclerk.com/eCaseView/search.aspx

Chen sues James Frechter/CGA for libel and promotion of faking Wang's record. (50-2019-CA-005290-XXXX-MB)

Lcarie (talk) 12:09, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Request edit

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

I am Wang Zheng, the subject of this page. Earlier this year, as you can see from the history, this page was vandalized with the result that there was a tit for tat of revisions until the page was locked.. Much of the content has now been restored -- the photos to which there is no copyright issue still need to be replaced -- but there is now a section entitled "Lawsuits" that is the result of one person alone manipulating Wikipedia with the specific intention of injuring my career as a professional pilot . That person, or her proxies, alone have been contributing or editing the "Lawsuit" section of my page, contrary to Wikipedia's rules on BLP and COI intended to protect living persons from abuse, and perhaps others.

This person, who was editing as "EdiK2016" or other names or proxies- her friends perhaps, has been using this section deliberately to smear me and my husband in violation of WP rules on BLP and COI. Why COI? The woman was my competitor in the around-the-world flight event in 2016. She has never gotten over it and has sued me twice in China, the first time resulting in the Court dismissing her action for failure to prosecute and the second resulting in a trial and verdict 100% in my favor, with final judgment dismissing her complaint against me. Strange how there's no entry to my page about that. The point is that the comment from Chen Wei that a few of your editor's spent so much time on in the spring is rank hearsay and nonsense and without the background that makes the comment and source unreliable. Chen wei himself vetted and approved the bona fides of my flight in November 2016, but never funded or paid the $160k cash award that attached to winning the flight event which I did. ChenWei appears in many photos on the internet presenting me a giant replica check for one million yuan but the real money was never paid. Finally, in March 2018, my attorneys sued Chenwei to recover the cash prize. ChenWei's response -- his defense to the lawsuit -- was the lie that he wasn't sure whether I'd flown around the world or not. Chen Wei died several months later, having crashed his private jet on 12/20/18. How does EdiK2016 fit in? Once Chenwei made this statement, she started using it in the hope of disqualifying me from receiving the cash prize so that she can claim it after my disqualification. You needn't take my word for it; that it what she wrote in the complaint she filed in Palm Beach County Circuit Court against my husband for libel, claiming that my husband promoted a fraudulent story about my flight, and that once she proves that my 2016 circumnavigation flight is a fraud, she will become the "first" Chinese woman to fly around the world (through my disqualification). This is not a joke. I am an active 3,500 hour regional airline captain, certified flight instructor and FAA-designated chief pilot of an FAA supervised flight training provider. In June, I published a fairly comprehensive multimedia archive of my 2016 circumnavigation flight on the internet so that anyone could see for themself the bona fides of my flight. www.flywithjulie.org/beta The GPS tracking data itself confirms my flight, from two different transponders. She remains a several hundred hour private pilot who counted her eggs before they hatched.

You folks know these rules much better than I ever will and so I'm asking you to apply them in the spirit and letter in which they were adopted, namely, to protect people like me from being abused by people like her on the WP platform. Personal vendettas have no place on the platform and the rules are in place it seems fairly obvious to prevent them from migrating from the real world on to WP. Honestly, the way I read the BLP and COI rules, the entire "Lawsuits" section should come down. The source material is only from or created by EdiK2016 or her proxies and so not only is the information not reliable or properly sourced, but she has an interest in discrediting me and is actively making the case that the prize money should go to her. The article she's citing to most recently, from the Palm Beach Post, was arranged by her lawyer and he's quoted in the article extensively. She did the same thing in China by getting a reporter in her hometown in China to write effectively the same article with nearly the identical title: "Who is the First Chinese Woman to Fly Around the World?" But to be clear, it is literally she alone pushing this. At one point someone asked, well, there is a lawsuit, right? and the answer is yes, there is a lawsuit by the only person in the world not only challenging my accomplishment but trying to wrest it away from me so it can be theirs. It is as if the 10 people who believe that the moon landings are fake got the New York Times to write an article "NASA Alleged to Have Faked Lunar Landings: Were they Real or Not?" and then Congress called in the NASA chief to testify.

Look at what's there. It's cherry-picked nonsense -- almost unintelligible without any context -- unsubstantiated, unfoundfed allegations, and all of it posted by someone who has an interest in discrediting me -- clearly an interest opposed to Wikipedia's -- and is or should be conflicted from editing my page. That's not even the BLP prohibitions, which by their clear directives are to weigh very heavily against allowing contentious material that could be libelous. She keeps posting about lawsuits against my husband, moreover, on my page, and his private information. Another editor flagged her for "OUTING." Again, it's just deliberately to smear us, with no other motive.

I'm raising these issues here so that they can be hashed out calmly and rationally. Please carefully consider what I've written here and don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have. Zheng Wang65.210.8.4 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you condense? This note is too lengthy. El_C 03:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Just a quick reply, but I have edited this article, including some of the content in the Lawsuits section, and I have absolutely nothing to do with anyone related to this topic and no conflict of interest. The fact is that wikipedia articles are based on what is in the sources, and there are reliable sources that note the fact that there are disputed claims and various lawsuits. I have at times removed some of the content added by the editor mentioned above, and also tried to write the content included in as neutral a way as possible, but suggesting that the entire section should be removed doesn't cut it - see WP:LUC. This article was originally created by an editor who had a clear conflict of interest that was 'pro' the subject of this article, and the later another editor edited it from the 'other' perspective. The goal for the rest of us is to include what is in the sources, including the controversy, in as neutral a way as possible. Melcous (talk) 03:16, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Request edit October 14, 2020

Dear Wikipedia Editors,

This is Wang Zheng again, the subject of this page. I am writing here to request that material recently added to my page must be taken down as violative of WP policy.

The recent edits to this BLP’s page by Dtool97 and JaneLoo1996 – the 2d through 6th and 9th paragraphs of the “Flying” section of the article, and the 3d paragraph of the “Lawsuits” section – appear to be sock puppetry and/or undisclosed COI by an “avowed rival” of the article’s subject, and must be immediately removed for multiple violations of Wikipedia’s content guidelines and policies. This appears to be the same person(s) who previously attempted edits as EdiK2016 which edits “made to this talk page by EdiK2016 had to even be revision deleted because they pretty much were a violation of WP:OUTING, and the article has been protected because of the disruption,” among other violations of WP policy. The suspect editor is engaged in various active lawsuits with the subject and has added content in violation of the biographies of living persons policy that provides: "[A]n editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual – whether on- or off-wiki – or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. This is an instance of actual undisclosed COI editing a BLP page. [COIBLP] The recent edits to this page also violate other BLP rules including those governing: • Court cases (“editors should not write about court cases in which they or those close to them have been involved, nor about parties or law firms associated with the cases” [BLPLEGAL] • Using BLPs to continue off-wiki disputes (“Wikipedia is not a forum provided for parties to off-wiki disputes to continue their hostilities . . . Therefore, an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest. . . .”; • Contentious material (“Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted as appropriate”) [BLPRS, BLPSOURCE, BLPSOURCES, BLPTALK]. • Tone (“Do not label people with contentious labels or loaded language”); • Challenged or likely to be challenged (“all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation; material not meeting this standard may be removed. This policy [under BLP] extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. This applies whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable and whether it is in a biography or in some other article. The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism.” The edits also violate Wikipedia's three core content policies Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR).

Here are the specific problems: • “Lawsuits” section, 3d paragraph is deliberately and falsely misleading the audience to conclude that Wang Zheng lost the lawsuit because her complaint was “dismissed.” The editor omits that the dismissal was not on the merits but only on issue of proper forum. The California court judge’s “dismissal” sent the lawsuit to China for trial and determination of the merits. The China court has now refused to accept the case deciding that it lacked jurisdiction and the case is going back to California. This is flagrant misrepresentation and inherently biased. It is hardly balanced and dispassionate treatment of the content. It violates WP COI, BLP, BLPLEGAL, NPOV policy among others, as does most of the content of the "Lawsuits" section as it is completely one-sided and cherry-picked, giving the audience a totally misleading impression. • “Flying” section, 2d through 5th paragraphs are irrelevant and the use of “self-reported” “self-announced” “self-submitted” are intended to disparage the subject and her credibility without any foundation. Again, violating WP COI, BLP, NPOV, among other WP policy. • “Flying” section, 6th paragraph, is an improper attempted “synthesis” of the prior paragraphs, seeking improperly to imply the conclusion that there were “discrepancies” in the subject’s around-the-world flight. (“The discrepancies of Wang's flying facts arose arguments on her flight record . . . ) There is no source/support of any kind for the assertion that there are “discrepencies” in the subject’s flight record. The editor is trying to fabricate those discrepancies here on WP. There is no inline source/support for the assertion “Wang never provide "evidence to support her claim to the prize",” and Wang filed a lawsuit against Chen.[20] [see more in Section Lawsuits]. Chen’s supposed statement about Wang not providing evidence was previously the subject of discussion in connection with this page and the statement already appears in the “Lawsuits” section and there is no need to have it repeated here This is in violation of WP COI, BLPRS, BLPSOURCE, BLPSOURCES among others. • “Flying” section, 9th paragraph, the statement “In November, 2019, AOPA China withdrew its prize granted to Zheng Wang in 2016 [22], has no source and must be removed. (Footnote 22 refers not to any revocation of Wang’s accomplishment but to the November 1, 2016 award ceremony at which Chen proclaimed Wang the first Chinese woman to fly around the world). Again, this is in violation of WP COI, BLPRS, BLPSOURCE, BLPSOURCES among others.

WP states that it is not a forum on which to continue off-Wiki disputes. That is exactly what these prohibited edits by or on behalf of someone with an actual COI are designed to do, specifically to bring the ongoing litigation on to this page, not for the purpose of informing the audience in a balanced way but to smear the subject. I have no problem with balanced, dispassionate journalism about these lawsuits and there have been real news articles that reported the litigation professionally, in a balanced and dispassionate way. But the edits to this page are biased, unbalanced, piecemeal, cherry-picked and deliberately written to disparage the subject and to have the audience to draw unwarranted conclusions, all against the strong WP policies intended to protect victimization of living persons on WP. 8.34.172.6 (talk) 23:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello again. This article is in bad shape, and needs a complete overhaul, and I might be willing to do that when I have a little extra spare time in the near future. This is only because I have an interest in flying myself, although I must admit I find this all a little boring compared to flying fighter planes. That's not to make light of your accomplishment, but just to put it in perspective.

Here is the problem I have so far: I get about ten sentences into your request above and my eyes glaze over and my head starts throbbing. Please understand that I mean no insult by this, but i think you've spent too much time in a court room, because your statement reads like something a lawyer would write, so I am really having a hard time wading through it to dig out what the real problem is.

Just so you know, I've spent over ten years at WP:BLPN, and I am very familiar with policy in these regards, so you can assume there is no need to point them out or quote them to me. I'm not a lawyer and this is not a court room, and WP policy is not written nor interpreted in the same way as laws, so all that is doing is really just obscuring the real issues you want to have resolved.

My suggestion is this: please rewrite your request in a much more precise and concise manner, so I can figure out what exactly it is that you want changed. Leave out all the policy links and acronyms, and just focus on the parts that you want changed, or the bad edits you think should be removed. Talk to me like I'm a normal human being rather than a lawyer, and make it as short and simple as you can, and use paragraph breaks to separate one point from the next so I can better follow along. If you can do that I would be happy to give this another shot, but as is I can't really scrounge through all the above so I can tell what it is you think should be fixed. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I just did a preliminary assessment and trimmed out many of the obvious faults. There is still a lot more that needs to be done; more info will likely get deleted, and possibly some added, the flow and tone need to be improved, grammar fixed, and sources verified. That will be the hard part, is going through all the sources. That will take some time. In the meantime, I still encourage you to rewrite your request in a more direct fashion, so that I can tackle any non-obvious BLP problems first. Thanks. Zaereth (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Close Connection editors

This wiki term was added, closely monitored and maintained by Julie Wang (Zheng Wang) and her husband or so-called attorney James Fechter (Kigen). The two persons abused Wiki's trust and influence to advertise themselves for their own interests.

On Oct 23, 2020,IP address 12.21.15.66 submitted intensive edits to this term. This IP address is from Florida where Julie and her husband live. The editor shows a strong and subjective tendency to delete all content not favoring Julie Wang while adding misleading, flattering and corky content, including content not known to public.

Examples submitted by Florida IP address editer (12.21.15.66):

-"Deleted earthrounders fault report. It was submitted by someone but not Julie Wang. "

How do you know? In real life from Julie her own?

-"earthrounders website has involved of making fake record in Julie Wang’s lawsuits. It became an unreliable source."

Really? When and where? How do you know? In real life from Julie her own?

-" Deleted the article about her casual local flight. It’s a wrong article reference to her flying around the world"

Why? Who to decide which report is right or wrong? WIKi is supposed to be neutral.

-"Deleted Faux statement. Julie Wang does not own any business, She is an airline captain. And before her departure the round world flight. several different flight plans doesn’t make her actual flight different versions."

How do you know? In real life from Julie her own? Again, Who to decide which report is right or wrong?

-"Make it clear by attach an good source of media report."

Again, what is good what is faux and what is wrong? By the standard of favoring Julie the most?

Who is behind this IP address?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaneLoo1996 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Some lawsuits in “Lawsuits” section are incomplete or incorrect

For most of the lawsuits that Chen sued Wang, Wang had won, but there’s no statement in this section. As a Wikipedia editor I want to add such truth.

"Truth" is subjective, because it deals with facts and theories (opinions). Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning we let the secondary sources sort out the truth. All we need for anything to be added to this article are WP:Reliable sources.

This article has a long history of edit-warring between the two parties involved in these suits. I would advise that anyone who is involved with this (mind-numbingly boring) dispute --or has any affiliation with anyone involved-- it is a violation of our WP:Conflict of interest policy to edit the article yourself. This article does not belong to you or anyone here. It is the property of Wikipedia, and it needs to adhere to all policies, especially the WP:Biographies of living persons policy. I highly recommend reading WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. We report the good, the bad, and the ugly, and people with a conflict of interest are physically incapable of editing the article neutrally. The proper way to handle this is to --bring your sources-- to the talk page, declare any COI you may have (if any, I'm speaking to everyone here), and ask us uninvolved editors to make any corrections for you. For the best results, make your statements as brief and concise as possible.

Wikipedia is not a battlefield, and we do not want this one fought here. Take it somewhere else and try to work it out like adults. Zaereth (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

By the way, to those involved in this edit war, I am a bit versed in flying, considering I wrote nearly all of the basic fighter maneuvers article, and several aerobatic-maneuver articles (and I rarely write about stuff if I don't have some kind of first-hand expertise in it). Sorry I don't seem too impressed with a round-the-world flight, but that's already been done close to a hundred years ago, so from my perspective it seems like "much ado about nothing".

While I don't speak Chinese, I have been fascinated by the culture since I first saw Bruce Lee in The Chinese Connection when I was very young, and have been predominantly a Taoist for many, many years. I know that "Wang" means "King", and "Zheng" means "Virtue". In fact, my own kung-fu teacher called me Wang Láng, or King Wolf. The problem is that I have not seen much virtue from either side in this edit war. To put it in Chinese terms, the behavior I have seen from both sides is dishonorable, and the only way for anyone to save face in all of this is to step up and start playing by the rules. (It looks really bad for anyone claiming to tell some kind of truth, in this case on both sides.) I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

@JaneLoo1996, AthenaMT, and Ifnord: Please use this thread for dispute resolution instead of editing the article yourselves (courtesy ping for Ifnord who posted this to RfPP). --qedk (t 愛 c) 09:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)