Talk:Justin Sun

SEC charges

The article states "In addition, eight celebrities, including " - 7/8 are named, why then not all?; Michele Mason (Kendra Lust) - pornstar is missing. ~2026-36795-82 (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

BLPCrime?

1. Don't cite Twitter.

2. The WP:SUSPECT part doesn't mention criminal activity. You should explain how it violates it. Further, the most rigorous, extended form of BLPCRIME protection is limited only to non-public figures. I'm sure that doesn't apply to some former government representative. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 05:44, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Also came here to cite WP:PUBLICFIGURE in that regard. It's covered by reliable third party sourcing and the language is clear about only restating what was already said; no WP:SYNTH issue.

I'm not convinced the latest rephrasing of the early life section is necessary either. If there's a basic factual error regarding the signing that can be corrected, but not based on a Twitter reference, and the rest just sounds like WP:PUFFERY. As a matter of fact the previous citation to China Digital Times makes no mention of the charter whatsoever, so if we don't have a better source we may need to strike that remark entirely.

Tagging @Enrico Chou and linking previous discussion for others. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 08:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Per WP:SUSPECT, “[a] living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law”. Per BLPCRIME editnotice, “[e]ditors must seriously consider not including any material which suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.” The WSJ quotation is the clearest example of presuming guilt before conviction, not even “suggesting” guilt. WP:PUBLICFIGURE may allow for attributing the SEC’s decision to drop the case to Sun’s connections with the Trump family but you can't say you're confident he is guilty, when he is not convicted guilty by a court.

The previous wording by User:IrisChronomia says that Sun signed the charter and delivered the speech at UPenn. It is unclear where or when exactly he signed the charter, but the signatory itself lists Beijing, and the speech took place in New York; neither was in Philly where UPenn is located. The New York speech was widely reported; saying only that he "delivered a speech”, without mentioning its location, subject, or any other context, is oddly curt and inappropriately vague.

The X citation can be removed, as it is only one of several sources concerning his involvement in activism at the time. The China Digital Times is cited for his speech, not the charter. Enrico Chou (talk) 11:19, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the new source you added for the charter is a primary source (and a fairly low quality one at that), but since it's only supporting the basic fact that he did sign I think it's sufficient in this case. It wouldn't fly elsewhere on more contentious claims. If you or anyone else happens to run across a more reliable source it wouldn't hurt to drop that in. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:37, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

“A fairly low-quality one” in what respect? If you are judging the website by the coding and design skills of Chinese dissidents in the 2000s, that assessment seems unwarranted. Enrico Chou (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I left it in. Why are you still arguing? The fact is if you use such a source on a more contentious claim it's likely to be removed, so I'm trying to inform you so you don't waste your own time and can look for better ones in those situations. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Then you probably have a misplaced idea of WP:PRIMARY, which clearly states "a primary source is generally the best source for its own contents, even over a summary of the primary source elsewhere..." The original signatory page is the best source for verifying that he was a signatory, rather than a secondary source. Enrico Chou (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Get the point: your edits reads promotional, and I don't accept it. Wikilawyering is not going to change anyone's mind, and if you truly stand by your contribs, we'll go to the DRN. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If the statements of fact, as you call them, shine any kind of light on any one, that is not why the facts exist. Although I have tried hard to assume that your continued opposition to including his early life is in good faith, I think that, at the very least, you know too little about China (or as you acknowledged, about the subject’s early life) and hold too strong an opinion about him now to conduct the basic research. This makes you unqualified to judge whether the material is promotional or notable. You also repeatedly accuse other editors of holding strong opinions about, or even having a personal interest in, the subject simply because they add factual statements that you dislike. This is frankly unprofessional conduct on Wikipedia. With some basic research, you would find that his early life was far from obscure. Enrico Chou (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

huh?

We'll let lads and gents at the DRN decide, then. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 14:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

k Enrico Chou (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

that is not why the facts exist. Facts don't need a reason to exist. They just are. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That's my point. I am referring to the claim: "Your edits, while being statements of facts, reads like they're trying to shine a very positive light to the subject." Enrico Chou (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. So you think the fact that SEC has an opinion is to be an exception because it's implying guilt to the subject. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 15:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Not that I think. I was referring to WP:SUSPECT and BLPCRIME editnotice, as explained. Enrico Chou (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

That's referring to how it's phrased - the aforementioned WP:PUFFERY/PEACOCK. The facts are what they are (per available sources, anyway), but how they're presented can greatly affect reader interpretation - hence WP:NPOV. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Not that I want to elaborate here, but this probably touches on a deeper aspect of the issue: his liberalism, social commentary, Southern Weekly, overseas activism, and so on cast him in a far less positive light among Chinese readers than many Western readers might naturally assume. That is why I found it amusing when IrisChronomia first accused me of being so fond of him. I had almost forgotten that such labels are unquestioned badges of honor to many English speakers who do not follow China, where the optics are much more complex. Enrico Chou (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

麦当劳新出的1+1炭烤双层猪肉堡挺不错的 而且可以免费加大可，强烈推荐。

_{In English: The McDonalds China's double-pork combo's great, and you get free large soda. Highly recommended.}

Time to stop making assumptions about me. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 15:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If you have enough experience with China, how could you not have heard of the New Concept Writing Competition and dismiss it as not notable, or have no recollection of Sun in the early 2010s when he was big on Renren, unless you were not online? Enrico Chou (talk) 16:00, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Maybe I am an outlier, or that your assumption is faulty. No idea :P 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

You also seem not know Chen Luyu or Jiang Fangzhou. I doubt my assumption is that faulty. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

This just in: people don't know everything. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Unless it's like Americans don't know Oprah. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM, let's just keep it here. We're going nowhere regarding the article's content, and I'm the least interested in talking about me. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 16:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

The topic was raised because you repeatedly questioned its notability. The point is that if one is unfamiliar with the topic, they should probably conduct the necessary basic research before opining whether it is notable enough for inclusion. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some who don't. Not everyone is chronically online (although admittedly, I suspect that does apply to most WP editors). ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

One may have to be chronically online to follow Sun during his Renren days, but not to know Luyu, or her American counterpart Oprah, or any of the other examples if they lived in China. Enrico Chou (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Nothing says he's guilty, whether in wiki voice or not. The direct quote only says the officials were surprised because they were "highly confident".

As I said, the information for the charter can be corrected if you provide a better source, or we can remove it entirely. I'll rephrase the speech mention for better flow without extraneous additions. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't "highly confident in winning the case" mean the SEC is confident that Sun is guilty? Enrico Chou (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't "highly confident in winning the case" mean the SEC is confident that Sun is guilty?

No. It means the SEC is highly confident in winning the case.

Don't read the implications of the words, otherwise I'll apply the same scrutiny to your text. Your edits, while being statements of facts, reads like they're trying to shine a very positive light to the subject.

It seems like you quite like the guy. Is it so? 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:20, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

No, it means the particular individual(s) that were quoted were. A win is never guaranteed, and assuming that it is based on that quote would be WP:SYNTH. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If you believe that a win is never guaranteed, why do you also believe that the view of someone who is confident that it is guaranteed should be included, except to strongly suggest that one is guilty? How is such hair-splitting over points of view not misleading to general readers? And how does such a quote not go against the principle of BLPCRIME editnotice, which states “[e]ditors must seriously consider not including any material which suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured”? It is also not WP:SYNTH because there is only one quote. You cannot "synthesize" by definition unless there are at least two quotes. Enrico Chou (talk) 12:11, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Call it WP:OR if you prefer. The point being made is that it's highly unusual for the case to have been withdrawn at such a point. If it had occurred under different conditions it would not be worth mentioning. Likewise, if he was not a public figure it would not be appropriate for inclusion - but he is. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

In fact, what you are doing here is the real WP:SYNTH. But so be it. Enrico Chou (talk) 12:41, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Is this what you're arguing?

"I'm confident = He's guilty" : not synth.

"I'm confident = I'm confident that he's guilty " : synth. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:22, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Or even "I'm confident that we would have won regardless of my personal opinion on his guilt." ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not following here. But my point was that the conclusion that all the “conditions” were “highly unusual” constitutes WP:SYNTH. Enrico Chou (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Elaborate, please. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 13:35, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Do you see that phrasing anywhere in the article? ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

If the only reason for including someone’s opinion is to suggest that an allegation is likely true, for example, when SEC officials believe they will win and Sun will be convicted guilty (what else does they will win mean?), that is textbook WP:HEARSAY. It would not be accepted on Wikipedia, let alone in a court of law. ~2026-48044-73 (talk) 17:36, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you think that applies to direct quotes. Talk pages are for explaining reasoning for inclusion - I'm not inserting my own words or assumptions in the article. I'd be willing to compromise by striking the single sentence with the quotes if User:IrisChronomia agrees, but the rest of the text that you removed should stay for context. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

English Wikipedia

While Chinese sources are accepted, it's generally recommended to include English title translations for verifiability purposes, so English readers don't get stonewalled when attempting to fact check. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 06:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I've added a couple of those back where they seemed appropriate, and it looks like the page also had some existing ones with that issue. Would you mind doing the title translations? I don't want to use automated ones and get something wrong. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 09:40, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Engagement

Please note that the word, "betrothal", redirects to engagement. The proper fix is to simply change "engagement" back to "betrothal gift" or "dowry", instead of blanket rewriting the entire paragraph with entertainment-related news.

Again, this is English Wikipedia, and is intended to be read by readers unfamiliar with Chinese culture. Words like "betrothal" should at least given some form of explanation, either via wikilinks or footnotes. 海盐沙冰 _{/ aka irisChronomia / Talk / Uploads} 06:49, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the concern was over the synonym, but whether the additional payment was specifically tied to the engagement or the egg retrieval - hence my slight rewording for clarity. ChompyTheGogoat [ Bleat | Munched ] 07:05, 12 September 2026 (UTC)