Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LarryTr7 (talk | contribs) at 08:13, 17 July 2013 (→Newspaper reports about Suzhou University statements and potential legal actions). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC This article was accepted on 17 September 2012 by reviewer Joel Kirk (talk · contribs). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. China High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Women scientists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amazon "Attack"

Ping Fu is currently subject to an attack, at . Daily Beast characterizes it as an "online Chinese attack," saying that it "bears elements of the type of Internet bullying—known by the ominous phrase “human flesh search”—that is increasingly common among Chinese bloggers."

In the last few days, there have been a number of anonymous edits to this article that appear to be related to the Amazon attack. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has a policy on how to handle biographical material about living persons; see WP:BLP. It applies to every page on the project, including this talk page. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to put The Truth about things you think are being covered up. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox to share your opinions. Nor, especially, is the the place to put "evidence" you've dug up (using original research) about who people are or how what they think is wrong.

It might be helpful for you to read Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not, and Misplaced Pages:Talk page guidelines. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP should be observed. But this page itself violates it, namely WP:SELFPUB, unduly self serving self published source. I agree with First Light that qualifiers such as "In her biography" or "Ping recounts" should be added to the relevant paragraphs. By the way, let me introduce myself. I have observed the Ping Fu memoir controversy since the very beginning and have done a lot of my own research on this issue. I consider the current page unduly biased in favor of Ping Fu and will try to help improve it, without violating WP:BLP. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

If you see valid edits that should be done to the page, then you should do them. Be sure to read ],WP:OR and WP:ADVOCACY VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to be confrontational with you. I appreciate your contribution here. But I believe you have been overly zealous in your defense of Ping Fu, and in so doing have practiced WP: ADVOCACY and violated WP:NPOV by pushing an exclusively negative viewpoint about the criticism / doubts casted on Ping Fu's memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Please clarify where I've practiced advocacy or violated NPOV. I need specific examples to be able to respond meaningfully. VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Case in point. One of the sections on the talk page you just deleted, “NPOV label added”, is the first entry of the talk page. In that entry, Cloudsorest raises the valid concern of WP:NPOV, pointing out the WP:SELFPUB nature of the Ping Fu page. It further correctly points out one of the inconsistencies in the original version of this promotional page: “exile” and “student visa” are self contradictory. Cloudsorest's whistle blowing was vindicated when Ping Fu herself acknowledged the use of "deportation" and "exile" as improper. Please consider reverting the section added by Cloudsorest to its original form. As this talk page stands right now, it looks suspiciously like a WP:SOAPBOX for your personal animosity toward the protest that happened on the Amazon site. Respectfully, Majiaerhao (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Amazon, Misplaced Pages has a policy on how to handle biographical material about living persons; see WP:BLP. It applies to every page on the project, including this talk page. Misplaced Pages isn't the place to put The Truth about things you think are being covered up. Misplaced Pages isn't a soapbox to share your opinions. Nor, especially, is the the place to put "evidence" you've dug up (using original research) about who people are or how what they think is wrong. Cloudsorest's comments wouldn't have passed muster on the article page, and they didn't past muster here. I stand by my edit. See WP:TPO VanHarrisArt (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware of WP:BLP. At the same time, the talk page exists for a purpose: for people to discuss possible changes (or potential issues) with the page in question. WP:TPG "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation". Given that Cloudsorest raises valid WP:NPOV concerns in his/her post, and that his/her speculation has been vindicated by the acknowledgement of Ping Fu herself, your invocation of BLP to delete Cloudsorest's post in the talk page comes across to me as unnecessary. It can be perceived as bullying by those holding opinions different from your own on the Ping Fu memoir controversy. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Majiaerhao, other editors here believe that the article in its current form is balanced in the way it treats the controversy about the book. The online attacks and claims are covered, along with Ping Fu's defense. These things are treated in the same balanced way that reliable sources are treating it. If anything, the controversy is given too much coverage, but all in all, this article and the subject are being treated in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies on WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. If you think otherwise, then you are free to open a new section on the talk page to discuss your concerns and to see if you can change the minds of the long established and uninvolved Misplaced Pages editors who also see that the article is relatively balanced. First Light (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I will try to lay out in a new section why I think the page as it is right now is biased. Time permitting, I will do that tonight or tomorrow. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

First Light, I don't think that this page in its current form is balanced. The part about Ping Fu as the subject is virtually an extract from Bend Not Break, and contradicts a lot to Ping's first memoir in Chinese. Many such details are actually unnecessary for a Misplaced Pages article, and best left out to avoid controversy.

For now, it is not different from an advertisement for Bend Not Break, which is a violation of Misplaced Pages rules. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Most of the bio sections are referenced to Inc. (magazine), which is a reliable source. Do read the links under the "Welcome" message on your talk page so you can get a better grasp of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. Some helpful ones are: WP:NPOV; WP:RS; WP:UNDUE. First Light (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First Light: There's good evidence that the LarryTr7 account is associated with a false identity created solely to astroturf this issue. The identity has been used to post many hundreds of critical comments on nearly every website that mentions Ping Fu. VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice trial, private investigator VanHarrisArt with deep personal interest in Ping Fu and her company. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

VanHarrisArt, how did you prove you used false information to create your account? LarryTr7 (talk) 23:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We have ways. You may find out soon. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, why don't you keep your name as VanHarrisArt? Just want to fool others to believe you have supporter(s)? By the way, your account at Amazon is being investigated for threatening others in public domain. Keep on the 'good' work and nail yourself down. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

You're sweet, Larry. Wanna dance? Yworo (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If there is a board of supervisor for Misplaced Pages, I'd recommend a thorough investigation of Yworo, aka VanHarrisArt. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• LarryTr7 - You can raise this issue with the administrators at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Help with new draft

Hi there everyone. As has been noted already on this Talk page, the publication of Ping Fu's memoir has led to significant attention (much of it quite negative) being brought to this article in the last week.

Even before the recent spate of edits, the article needed some work to bring it in line with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for biographies, and the edits from detractors created new problems by adding unsourced material and original research. Editors who have worked on the article in the last day or so have made improvements but—as the tags on the article indicate—more is needed. I'd like to help with making this article more accurate and make sure that it fully meets WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, as well as generally making it a better resource for people who would like to learn about Ping Fu.

I'm introducing myself here as I am working on behalf of Geomagic (the company she co-founded) to produce a new draft for this article. My aim is to have impartial editors review the draft to ensure that it provides a neutral, accurate biography. I'm fully informed of the guidelines around conflict of interest and will not be making any edits directly to the page myself. If you're interested in helping with this, you can reply here or on my Talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the most pressing need is for third-party reliable sourcesWP:RS. For the last 15 or so years, there should be plenty of sources, as Ping Fu has been relatively high profile as a businessperson. I believe we need some good citations regarding her college time in the US, including her time at NCSA, and her relationship to the Mosaic project.

Looking at the Life and Career section, the first two paragraphs dealing with her early life seem uncontroversial, and correlate with what was known to be happening in China at the time. I have removed the controversial material from the third paragraph, but I think we still need any good secondary source citations that are available.

Much of the controversy over Ping Fu originated with blogger Fang Zhouzi. While he is not a reliable source himself (he definitely lacks NP:NPOV) he has raised issues about inconsistencies in Ping Fu's memoir, Bend Not Break. The subsequent response from Chinese and Chinese-American netizens has been so large in scale and so widespread that it is notable in itself, and justifies a separate section in the article. (What has been called a Human Flesh Search attack against Ping Fu manifested here in both IP vandalism and negative feedback, and has resulted in the page being semi-protected, and added to the article feedback blacklist.) So, we will likely want to have any citations available related to this controversy.Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You make some good points here and it's definitely my intention to work on adding more and better citations for all the information in the article. On your last point, I agree that the response to her book does merit mention (perhaps in its own section) — there are lots of good sources available, but feel free to note here if there are any in particular that you think should be cited and I'll take a look. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 18:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I want to add that when incidents in her life (other than the most factual statements like parent's names, location of birth, etc.) are referenced solely to her biography, then such statements should be preceded by something like "In her biography, Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds, Ping describes...." and later "Ping recounted....," etc. That isn't needed in every sentence, but perhaps at the beginning of a paragraph that is entirely from her book, and then later in certain instances. First Light (talk) 21:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The very first sentence stating Ping as an internet pioneer is without merit. What is the source of information for this statement? An internet pioneer hired by Ping did not necessarily make Ping herself an internet pioneer. Laserweld (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fixed. VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

In this article: "The company offered a Ph.D assistance program, through which Fu enrolled in the computer science Ph.D program at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC). At UIUC she completed a master's degree in computer science."

• Although this description has been used many times elsewhere, it does not make much sense. Failure to get the Ph.D degree is not to be proud of. Spending employer's money without the desired result makes it even worse.
• Such description might have confused some media into believing that Ms. Fu had obtained the doctorate degree instead. I'd recommend simplify it into stating that she got a master degree only, without the first sentence mentioning the money.
• It's amazing to look back and see how much has been corrected in this article! LarryTr7 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Concern about Controversy section

Hi, as I've written above, I'm working on behalf of Geomagic on a new draft for this page, which I'll hopefully have ready to share with editors here soon. Meanwhile, I see that a Controversy section has been added to the article. Right now, this section is quite long and I'm concerned that its prominence in the article will lead to it becoming a focus for POV edits to the article. The main issue with the section is that it seems WP:UNDUE, compared to the overall length of the article, and particularly compared with coverage of her career. I'm curious to get other editors' input on this. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Having "Controversy" sections in an article are discouraged (see WP:STRUCTURE, among others), so I've renamed that section after the book. There probably should be a section just on the book, since it's one of the 2-3 things she is most notable for. Just looking at references, it appears that the book received more positive reviews than negative "controversy," so the section should reflect that. First Light (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for renaming the section. We can expect to see periodic POV edits and ip vandalism, based on the continuing cyber-bullying that's going on (look at any of the recent media citations in the article, then check out their comment streams. It's vicious.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both of you for your edits. The section is looking better now, for sure. Do you think it's worth asking for the semi-protection of the article to be extended for a while? I think I've seen before that editors tend not to want to keep semi-protection in place if there's not a lot of negative activity, but I don't really know what's considered a problematic level. Do either of you have any experience with this? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

There is not enough vandalism at this point to justify semi-protection. Misplaced Pages errs on the side of encouraging contributions, so it's not a step that's taken lightly. I'm certain that you're tracking this article in your watchlist. I'm fairly certain that others are too. If it gets to be a problem, it can be dealt with. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the article is being watched and any vandalism or POV edits have been reverted. If it gets really bad, than it can be semi-protected. First Light (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense to me. And thanks for your input - like I say, I don't have much experience around semi-protection, so it's good to get a better understanding. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:29, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP violations

I'm at my third revert in 24 hours on this page, and don't want to violate WP:3RR, and end up in an edit war. Next POV or OR post, I'll escalate it to the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I've posted a note at the BLP noticeboard about this article. The stream of brand new single purpose account(s) seems to be a longer term trend, so this should get more experienced editors watching the article. First Light (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit War

Lots of excitement in the last few hours. User:Physeng was blocked for edit warring. The External Links section has been killed, and needs to be rebuilt properly. So, the page is being watched. And there is work to do to get this cleaned up. VanHarrisArt (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That External Links section was bloated beyond repair, in my opinion (see WP:EL). Kudos to the admin who deleted it. It would be better to rebuild through discussion, though none of those links were essential according to WP:EL. First Light (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

based on the sock puppet attacks I have requested page protection. note that the attacks are also being carried on through the new article creation process something else to keep an eye out for. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - it's time for protection. It looks like the online campaign against Ping Fu is still going on, based on the continued stream of negative reviews at Amazon. First Light (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I see that User talk:Wiki_Truth_Finder007 has been warned 3 times, and has ignored the warnings. (He/she just did it again!)

While, in most cases, I'm willing to assume good faith, this case is a bit special. Wiki_Truth_Finder is a WP:SPA created exactly for the purpose it's being used for - to post defamatory content about Ping Fu. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule: Wiki_Truth_Finder should be blocked, irrespective of whether the page is protected.

On a related note, there is strong evidence that User talk:LarryTr7 is a Sockpuppet (Internet)#Meatpuppet -- not under the typical WP:meatpuppet definition, but rather under the more serious Internet definition -- and is here, not to build an encylopedia, but rather as part of a coordinated cyber-bullying campaign. The persona associated with the account uses a Facebook account that appears to have been created as a false identity a few months back, and which has been used only to post negative comments on Ping Fu around the web (over 400 in the last month.) Yes, I'm familiar with the seriousness of a bad-faith accusation. I wouldn't do it without strong evidence. If I've overstepped, please let me know. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think you've acted in exactly the right manner. Personally, the name "Wiki_Truth_Finder" should immediately ring alarm bells - users like that often push fringe theories, or hateful content. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

VanHarrisArt is a productive defender of this article, but its arguments contradict from time to time. Editors of neutral position are needed to monitor this page. People associated with Geomagic or 3D Systems shall not be too actively involved. DevanYaris (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what you mean about being a defender of this article, but I do try to defend the integrity of Misplaced Pages. I'm not sure what you mean by "its arguments contradict." The purpose of a WP article is not to make arguments. In any event, this article has been watchlisted by Misplaced Pages administrators, so it is being watched. And no people from Geomagic or 3D Systems are currently editing, or (to my knowledge) will be editing the article. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Romantic Realist agrees with Van Harris Art that no people from Geomagic or 3D Systems should edit Misplaced Pages entry on Bend, Not Break. Such Code of Conduct should also extend to people associated with public relations agencies and investor relations firms, and law firms working on behalf of Ping Fu, Geomagic or 3D Systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 03:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

From: Romantic Realist Bing says: The wiki references originally has included two reports from the Guardian, Feb 4 and Feb 13, on the controversy about the memoir. Now the one on Feb 13 titled "Ping Fu's childhood tales of China's cultural revolution spark controversy" is not there anymore. Ref 12 and Ref 19 are the same, both retrieving the Feb 4 review titled "Chinese cast doubt over executive's rags to riches tale."

The Guardian review on Feb 13 is the only news report that has interviewed about 9 to 10 experts on various issues of inconsistencies and fabrications other than Ping Fu's own clarifications. Someone is trying really hard to hide this Guardian review on Feb 13. How can the wiki editors be notified?

Sorry, it's a little bit confusion. The Ping Fu wiki page is hiding the Guardian review on Feb 13, but the Bend, Not Break wiki has listed both reviews from the Guardian on Feb 4 and Feb 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 20:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of citations is to identify the reliable sources on which the article is based. If the citation you're talking about is not there any more, it's possible that it's not needed to support the article. There's no requirement that all the possible citations on a subject be included. But, let me add this: A quick look at your talk page User_talk:Romantic_Realist might cause one to question your concerns. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

The most controversial source is the memoir Bend Not Break, but ironically, the most cited source in this article is Bend Not Break. What's your logic to justify that, VanHarrisArt? LarryTr7 (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu's first marriage missing

This is a formal biography, and critical information such as a marriage shall not be missing! In this case, Ping Fu herself stated clearly that she had her first marriage from 1986 to 1989, in her interview with DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW, a journalist with New York Times. (see http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/20/true-or-false-the-tussle-over-ping-fus-memoir/) A first marriage is a very important event in one's life, omitting it in this biography is not acceptable.

Richewald (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

The book Bend, Not Break is a Memoir, not a formal biography. Memoirs are not required to include all events in the author's life. And didn't you just nominate this page for speedy deletion? VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This article is about Ping Fu, and must not be used solely as a tool to promote one single book of hers, namely Bend not Break.

For the sake of Misplaced Pages, it shall promote other books written by the author, in this article about her. Richewald (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of Misplaced Pages is not to promote books. Consider reading WP:What Misplaced Pages is not to understand this better. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

To make it fair, contents of both memoirs shall be removed from this article, to avoid conflict of interest and suspicion of book promotion. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

VanHarrisArt, Please note that this article is about the person of Ping Fu, not her English memoir. Don't mess up with these two. Thank you. Richewald (talk) 05:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent disruptive editing

The Ping Fu page was protected yesterday, so things have calmed down there. Over the last few days, a couple of users were blocked for WP:Edit Warring, and several Ping-Fu related ] pages have been deleted, including: WP:Articles for creation/漂流瓶- A Memoir by Ping Fu, 漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_by_Ping_Fu, 漂流瓶-_A_Memoir_in_Chinese, and 漂流瓶 -_A_Memoir_in_Chinese.

Another page, Bend, Not Break, was created as an attack page, but was stubbed and rebuilt by an editor as a book page. I have some concern about this, as much of the controversy perceived to be about the book Bend, Not Break is actually directed not at the book, but at Ping Fu personally. Because of that, the controversy, to the extent that it should be covered in WP, should be covered here, rather than on a separate book page. Further, the new page is essentially a fork of this page, and it has the unintended effect of making the semi-protection of this page moot. VanHarrisArt (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Above argument strongly suggests that VanHarrisArt is emphasizing too much on personal interest about this article. Such behavior violates the neutrality rules of Misplaced Pages. Richewald (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, it doesn't. Neutrality has to do with article content, not anyone's behavior. Yworo (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look in the controversy session, VanHarrisArt does not even allow others to add reference, just because VanHarrisArt believe that is not necessary. Why others can not even add reference? Isn't he/she making this article his/her own property? LarryTr7 (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Bend, Not Break for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bend, Not Break is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bend, Not Break until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

The above AfD was closed procedurally. Safiel (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The AfD clearly got closed due to lack of interest. I would like to reopen it because of the following reasons.

• The page was created by a wikipedia user with a user id called realmeimeifox, presumably the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir "Bend, Not Break". The content of this wikipedia entry was based completely on the memoir, which was advertisement in nature and violates WP:NOT.
• Because the article was based on a memoir, it is poorly sourced, and violates WP:RS.
• There are subsequent attempts to edit the page by Ping Fu critics and supports to include controversies around her memoir. This effectively made the page a soap box for opinions, which violates WP:NOT.
• The section regarding "Bend , Not Break" has quoted an opt-ed article by Sir Harold Evans. Such opinionated article should not be quoted as a verdict on the controversy, which violates WP:NOT. Further, wikipedia is not a news paper (WP:NOT) for reporting such events.

The page as it stands appear to be a joke, and is a shame to wikipedia's reputation. Until the dust settles, the page should not have a place in wikipedia, it only serves as a bait to all kinds of detractors.--Annchomski (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Wrong on the lack of interest count, wrong on the person who created the page, wrong on your interpretation of policy. Want to make any more incorrect statements for any experienced editor to refute? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Rfc: Should Bend, Not Break exist as a content fork of Ping Fu or should it be merged/redirected to Ping Fu ???

The following discussion 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.

Should Bend, Not Break exist as a content fork of Ping Fu or should it be merged/redirected to Ping Fu ??? Safiel (talk) 05:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

• While WP:POVFORKs are not acceptable, spinning out content into child articles when there is sufficient content about the more specific topic is what we want to happen to grow the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 07:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's not really a content fork, is it? It's notable on its own, so... this needs its own article. Lukeno94 (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• It makes sense to have a separate article for Bend, Not Break, using the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article template. My concern is that the demarcation between the two articles will be hard to maintain. It will become a content fork. VanHarrisArt (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge This is a hard one and both sides make good arguments. However, as I looked at this again this morning, reviewed Google results and looked at the arguments made in the brief "AfD", on the other talk page and here, I have come to the conclusion that both articles should be kept separately. Both articles unmistakeable and robustly satisfy all relevant notability guidelines with no question whatsoever. And the article on the book can exist without constituting a POVFORK. Of course, it is a very rightful concern that the other article will be used for POV, editors simply need to refer to Misplaced Pages policies for dealing with that. Safiel (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• I support above suggestion, to merge Bend Not Break into Ping Fu. This is consistent to removal of articles about this author's other memoir. In addition, Ping Fu's first memoir in Chinese, 漂流瓶, should be included into this page for Ping Fu. This will make description of the person, not the book, complete. By the way, this article is not about promotion of a specific book to boost its sale, is it?? Richewald (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• WP:OTHERSTUFF, mr SPA. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• This BEND, NOT BREAK entry is about a book – its content, its reviews, controversy over factual allegations in this book, reaction from the Asian American community as a result of the use of the term “Hermaphrodite” by Sir Harold Evans in defense of Bend, Not Break. This entry is not about its author and co-author. Therefore, this BEND, NOT BREAK entry should stand on its own, separate and apart from PING FU entry in Misplaced Pages. Detailed discussions in PING FU’s Misplaced Pages entry on the controversy surrounding this book should be deleted, and merged into this Misplaced Pages entry for BEND, NOT BREAK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge Bend, Not Break should be separate, under WP:WikiProject Books. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Merge Parts of the Ping Fu article should be migrated to Bend, Not Break if they are solely supported by the memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• Since there is no support for a merge, I've removed the RFC template. VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to add contents about Ping Fu's first memoir, 漂流瓶

Since Ping's new (and second) memoir is extensively described in this article, it's totally unbalanced to exclude her first memoir, 漂流瓶, ISBN 7535315445, 9787535315441. Richewald (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• No. I've seen no evidence this memoir actually exists, or that it was actually written by Ping Fu. SPAs promoting the Anti-Fu campaign are the ONLY time it's ever come up. Considering you've had the article you're pushing deleted at least twice, you're clearly not in a zone to propose this. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, it's been deleted 4 times in the last 3 days, but who's counting? The book does exist, and was written (in Chinese) by Ping Fu. But to even consider including citations to the book here, we need to look at WP:NOENG. For verifiability, we would need an English translation - and, judging from the contentiousness of the situation, it would need to be from a reliable source. VanHarrisArt (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The book does exist, just the Misplaced Pages article about it was vandalized, four times in a row! Why is somebody so afraid of it? LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The article was not vandalized; it was nominated for deletion and deleted. If anyone wishes to improve or discuss it, the current incarnation is at 漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese‎. However, please note that simple existence is not sufficient for an article to exist: it would need to be established that the book is notable. Given that I can't find a single discussion about it in English, nor a single library holding it anywhere in the world, I doubt it's notable, but that can be dealt with on that page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Not likely that any discussion of the book will pass WP:Verify, because of WP:NOENG and no WP:RS. There is no electronic version of the book. It is paper only. There is no English translation, and there won't be one, because of copyright. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: I found verifiable citations. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: This book of 漂流瓶 by Ping Fu can be found. See search result at National Library of China: (http://find.nlc.gov.cn/search/showDocDetails?docId=8553630059355238704&dataSource=ucs01&query=%E6%BC%82%E6%B5%81%E7%93%B6%2F%E6%97%85%E7%BE%8E) 高阶陶瓷 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• OK, that book exists, but is there any proof it isn't just a fake, made by Fu's detractors? And if the book IS legit, why have I seen publishing dates of 1996 and 2005 on different things different people have provided? Hmm. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Proving that the book exists is not the same as proving that this person wrote it. We need some sort of reliable source. A library catalog is pretty borderline, but if an independent, reliable editor (i.e., not one of the dozens of SPAs who've sprung up on this article recently) can verify that the page clearly indicates that that book was written by this author, we could include a sentence here stating that. Of course, we would not include any commentary about it, unless that commentary appears in RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

About this book being written by this Ping Fu, here is her own saying as confirmation: At 27:00 of this recording, http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/jan/14/bend-not-break-china-america/. It was her interview by Leonard Lopate of WYNC on 1/14/2013. Richewald (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ping Fu has authored or co-authored about 40 academic papers too, but just because someone writes something, doesn't mean it belongs here. The book you're trying to get included here doesn't have an English translation. VanHarrisArt (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Following VanHarrisArt's argument, I'd recommend removal of Bend Not Break from this article about Ping fu. Otherwise, this article will have to include all her papers written in English. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Not all of her papers, only those that have been given coverage by reliable, neutral, third-party sources. Such as Bend, Not Break. First Light (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The severe controversy on Bend Not Break has greatly lowered its quality as a reliable or neutral source. Obviously it should not be regarded as a third party source, either. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to argue the importance of including Ping Fu's Chinese memoir in this page. If Ping Fu herself passed the threshold of noteworthiness to merit a wikipedia entry, so should the major works of her life. A memoir is by no means a small undertaking, and ignoring it is cherry picking at best for the purpose of narrating her life. To argue that the book was published by a Chinese publisher does not make it any less important, given the fact that there are far fewer publishing houses in China than in US, and a publisher with a readership of 1.3 billion cannot be ignored. To argue that book was written in Chinese and hence should not be in an English wikipedia page is also a bad argument. With that logic, all major publications by Einstein also should not be qualified in Misplaced Pages because they were written in German. Using Language as an excuse is simply separating the world rather than bring people together. I don't think this is wikipedia policy, but I have not checked. There should be plenty of Chinese speaking editors on Misplaced Pages, please consult them when deciding on the fairness of any translations. A final note, you might have noticed that only Ping Fu "supporters" are against including this work into her wikipedia entry. Is there anything they want to hide?Annchomski (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, I'm neither a supporter nor a low-life hater of Fu, I'm a supporter of Wiki guidelines being followed. Lukeno94 (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Calling Ping Fu critics LOW LIFE HATERS OF FU has revealed your political position on this matter and hence discredited your claims as a neutral observer who's only interested in policing wikipedia guidelines. Not a very smart move. Annchomski (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, I'm not calling her critics "low life haters". I'm calling the people whom persist on spamming defamatory things about Fu "low life haters" - there is a difference, you know. I have no political position on anything, other than wishing politicians would actually do things of use. Likewise, I wish the stream of Fu-hating SPAs that this article attracts would find something better to do than spread their bile about a living human being (and no, I'm not saying you're a Fu hater, but as far as I can see so far, you are an SPA). A bunch of people smearing someone, who hasn't actually hurt anyone, like this, is about as sad as it gets. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• Luke: You are actually making it sounds worse. Let me give you an example. Sir Harold Evans, an adamant Ping Fu supporter, is the one who called a mother of two and a Chinese American "hermaphrodite". If such public speech is not "spamming defamatory", anything said by anyone online can never be qualified as defamatory, but constitutionally protected free speech. If you are a fair minded person, you should take note of that. Unless it is the first time you use internet, you should notice how people talk in discussion forums, and you should not always read politeness. Like it o not, this is one of the things you must deal with on a free internet. Using the fact that some people made rude remarks as an excuse to make similar rude remarks is not a way to prove you are better, especially on Misplaced Pages which is not a discussion forum. Annchomski (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ann Chomski is a fake identity used by a member of the Rénròu Sōusuǒ targeting Ping Fu. The account is also associated with a person using the name "Yang." VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• VanHarrisArt is a fake identity used by a member of Ping Fu gang targeting Ping Fu Critics. The account is associated with a person using the name Van Harris. Is this something that is even relavent to my point? To be honest with you, I have no interest in further criticizing Ping Fu. All the major facts are now clear and she has admitted she was wrong. The only thing left for her to do is to take responsibility. I have been fair all the way through on the discussions. You on the other hand have been biased, and you can't deny that. FYI, |Rénròu Sōusuǒ] is a verb, not a noun. It simply means search online for information in a collective manner, there is nothing negative about that. In China, criminals and corrupted government officials are exposed using it. In a country where power is controlled by a few, Rénròu Sōusuǒ is the best thing that from the internet that gives people power. We should have it here in America too in case freedom of speech and freedom of information is threatened by the corporate media. Annchomski (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted my comments this afternoon, I am already subject to ad hominem attacks from a mysterious group of users as seen above. Even though I don't know who they actually are, their motives are very obvious. Misplaced Pages is a place where people look for good information rather than point of views. Ping Fu's Chinese memoir is by all means good information about the subject of this page, and should be included. We should be careful not to do a comparison or using one book to criticize the other. All people want to know are 1. There is another book about Ping Fu, written by herself rather than a ghost writer; 2. The synopsis of the book. That's all that is needed in the wikipedia page, no more , no less. Annchomski (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speculate all you want about VanHarrisArt, I don't know who their main account is, nor do I give a crap. My contributions are available for all to see, and I've got a range of contributions to almost every type of article you can think of. You, on the other hand, have solely edited to do with Ping Fu. Trying to school me on "internet lessons" is quite laughable, to be frank, I'm well aware of how people use the internet. I haven't personally attacked you, in fact I've been very careful not to. Also, at the risk of sounding like a crank, free speech is a myth - there isn't a place in the world where you can say anything that you want to, without consequences, and that includes America. If you've got nothing positive to contribute to an article, which you apparently don't, then why are you here? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • VanHarrisArt here and VanHarris at Amazon has been a great defender of Ping Fu. However, both accounts ceased their action from 3/24/2013. VanHarris deleted hundreds of its comments at Amazon over night. This tells how suspicious they are. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• No, it doesn't, and besides, the irony/hypocrisy of a sockpuppeter who has nothing better to do than slander a living person saying that is unbelieveable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Tension and Proposal for Change

• WP:INDEPENDENT Much of the tension surrounding the Ping Fu article is due to the lack of independent sources for the stories about Ping Fu's early life. Majiaerhao (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The Ping Fu article was created as a professional biography by Meimei Fox, the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir, Bend Not Break. Almost all of the material in this page came from the memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • The lack of independent sources was noticed by Misplaced Pages editors soon after the article's submission, several months before the memoir triggered a backlash. Majiaerhao (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not “Misplaced Pages is not a place for self promotion.” WP:AUTO “If you create an autobiography, you must have no promotional intent and must be willing to accept it being neutralized if it is not neutral, or even deleted if it comes to that.” Majiaerhao (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• In light of the observations above, and with due respect to WP:BLP, I propose all parts relying solely on Ping Fu's memoir to be deleted from the Ping Fu article. Majiaerhao (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Including info from an autobiography is not self-promotion. This article itself is not an autobiography, because it wasn't (I assume) written by Ping Fu. What a subject says about themselves is perfectly acceptable for inclusion. Should conflicting sources become available, then we could include those as well, assuming issues like WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are handled. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion. I quote WP:AUTO only to point out material taken from a memoir is subject to wikipedian scrutiny. As for self-promotion, I mention it only because the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir is the one who created this article. Majiaerhao (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• WP:INDEPENDENT. “A primary third-party source is one that originates written information and is independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a primary first-party source, which originates written information but has a vested interest in the subject of a written topic, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals.” Majiaerhao (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• Feel free to update the article with constructive edits to "neutralize" it. Just make sure your contributions are WP:verifiable, from WP:reliable sources. If you're uncertain, you can check here, or go to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard By the way, if you delete large chunks of the article, a bot will show up and quickly restore them. Trust me, it's not worth the trouble.]] VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think you missed my point. Please read WP:INDEPENDENT. Majiaerhao (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• And I quote WP:PRIMARY. “Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.” Majiaerhao (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Fearofreprisal did do some “constructive edits” earlier. But that's the wrong approach! We cannot conduct original research to decide on our own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I copy here Fearofreprisal's comment from an earlier section. Fearofreprisal: “Looking at the Life and Career section, the first two paragraphs dealing with her early life seem uncontroversial, and correlate with what was known to be happening in China at the time. I have removed the controversial material from the third paragraph, but I think we still need any good secondary source citations that are available.” Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• This is original research. You cannot decide on your own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Majiaerhao: Do NOT put a comment right in the middle of one of my existing comments. It splits it up, and makes it unreadable. I have moved the offending comment down here, to the bottom.
• Here's a diff of the edit you were criticizing 04:21, 11 February 2013. All the changes were based on, and cited to, the book. As far as my characterization of "controversial": What I meant was "made up by people who haven't read the book, and who can cite no reliable sources." VanHarrisArt (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Your comment? You are Fearofreprisal??? Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• I duly apologize if you felt my reply split up your comment. I simply meant to place my reply closer to the sentence in question. Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
• The diff. It proves my point. This wikipedia article is about Ping Fu. It is not about what's in the book Bend Not Break. The previous version, which you say was "made up by people who haven't read the book, and who can cite no reliable sources.” cites the 2005 inc.com report. You don't get to choose which of these two sources to be controversial or non-controversial. Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nice try... but this article has been through enough review over the last couple of months that it's not too likely that you're going to get much agreement to eviscerate it. But what's your end game? You don't want anything about the book here? Do you want it in Bend, Not Break instead? VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Redacted BLP material. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• LarryTr7: It is a violation of the WP:BLPTALK policy to post Contentious material here about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Slicing between two articles

I don't see any substantial support for a merge at this point, so I figure that Bend, Not Break is going to stay separate, as a book page. The interesting question is where the demarcations between the articles should be. I'd suggest this, as a first cut: The questions that have been raised about the book (i.e., accuracy), and their effect on the sales of the book, should be in the article about the book. The Internet vigilantism against Ping Fu that resulted should be covered here, and possibly at Chinese nationalism#Internet vigilantism. (These things, I believe, are all notable, and backed by multiple reliable sources.)

It's not an easy thing to slice this stuff up, but I think this proposal is reasonable. But all alternate proposals are welcome. Even those from Chinese nationalist Internet vigilantes. VanHarrisArt (talk) 00:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Rather than an arbitrary division of topics, the book article and this one should be done in Misplaced Pages:Summary style. That means a short summary of the book in this article, with a link (as I've placed) to the main article about the book. I think that the nationalist attacks should certainly be part of her bio, as they were and are so personal. But they also deserve mention in the main book article, since the so called "controversy" about the book was somewhat artificially created, or at least inflated, by the sheer numbers of attacks. First Light (talk) 02:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have serious NPOV and OR concern here. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should make sweeping judgements on the memoir backlash. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be turned into a platform for vigilante attacks against Ping Fu. Neither should it be a platform for vigilante defense. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Our coverage needs to reflect mainstream coverage by neutral reliable sources. Most articles that I'm seeing give coverage to three main areas, some more than others—but taken in total these are given fairly equal overall coverage: initial positive reviews; concerns about the accuracy of a few things in the book, along with PIng Fu's response; the massive online attacks and their origin. I think that the summary of the book in this article needs to briefly summarize each of those main points. The main book article should go into more depth, according to WP:Summary style. First Light (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the summary approach, but we need to get the summary right. Here are my concerns.

• I'm worried about historical revisionisms such as suggesting the controversy as having been created by the online response, rather than the other way around.
• I disagree with the seemingly dismissive characterization of the doubts cast over Ping Fu's stories, as just about “a few things”. Here is how two Guardian reports describe these doubts:

• Feb 4, “a series of inconsistencies and improbabilities in interviews she has given”
• Feb 4, “sceptics, including Fang Zhouzi, an influential blogger who scrutinises Chinese academia, say much of Fu's story does not ring true.”
• Feb 13, “fresh contradictions emerge and experts cast doubt on key elements of her story”
• Feb 13, “Closer examination of her book and interviews reveal numerous conflicting claims and experts told the Guardian several parts of her story were implausible.”

• I also disagree with the sweeping characterization of the online responses as nationalistic. Notably, the New York Times, Guardian and the initial Forbes reports have all refrained from doing so. Majiaerhao (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• • Majiaerhao: Not sure where your NPOV or OR concerns come from. Of course, you know this article is already a target for vigilante attacks. As for characterization of the online responses: there are WP:RS that describe the attacks in a way that is consistent with Chinese nationalism. (Cultural, not political.) But I'm not pushing any viewpoints, or suggesting OR.
  • First Light: What you're describing is pretty much what I thought the right way to handle it would be. Thanks. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Majiaerhao, plenty of reliable sources highlight the internet attacks as having a cultural basis— Telegraph, Daily Beast, New York Daily News, etc. Ironically, the lead paragraph of our Fang Zhouzi article states that "Chinese scholars have accused him of vigilantism," so he isn't as widely respected as you make him out to be. First Light (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't write that sentence about Fang Zhouzi. It was Tania Branigan, the China correspondent of Guardian, and Ed Pilkington, the chief reporter for Guardian US, who wrote it. Last I checked, I didn't point a gun at them to force them to write something good about Fang Zhouzi, so that I can throw it at you on wikipedia.
• The thing is, I didn't even quote that sentence from the Guardian to talk up Fang Zhouzi. (Personally, I admire his efforts at exposing academic fraud, but don't agree with everything he does or says). I quoted that sentence only to show that, as I stated, it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that people were having concerns about just “a few things”. To minimize the doubts people had is an act of historical revisionism.
• You are proving my NPOV and OR points.
• It's at least debatable if we don't want the Bend Not Break controversy to be included on the Ping Fu article for BLP reasons. If we include the controversy, we have to get things right. We can't let our personal feelings dictate which reportings get reflected on the Ping Fu article.
• As to my point about “sweeping characterization”.

• Again, we can't let our personal feelings cloud our judgement.
• Here is how the New York Times have treated the critics.
• “her critics, many of them fellow Chinese Americans”
• “Details like that have produced a storm of opposition from some Chinese, especially in the United States, who accuse Ms. Fu of lying.

The Cultural Revolution was bad for many, they agree, but it’s important to be accurate. Ms. Fu’s story simply isn’t.”

• Lastly, let me quote from the wikipedia rule book WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. This rule applies no matter where you stand on the Bend Not Break controversy. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It is not original research to cover a subject the way that reliable sources cover it. We are not reaching any conclusion that reliable sources have not already reached and conveyed. We are only reporting what they say, and with the balance that the mainstream is giving them. First Light (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

First Light, I support your point of using plenty of reliable sources. However, reference from reliable source like the Guardian was fiercely excluded from this article (see Edit War of this talk section). This is simply not right. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

History of Bend, Not Break, prior to its publication (Life Is a Mountain Range)

HISTORY OF BEND, NOT BREAK, PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION

Portfolio Buys Chinese Entrepreneur’s Tale

at the Agency sold world rights to Ping Fu’s Life Is a Mountain Range. Adrian Zackheim at Portfolio acquired the book, which will be edited by . Fu is the president and CEO of Geomagic, a software company based in North Carolina that specializes in digital modeling. Her personal story, though, is what drew publishers. She grew up in China under the reign of Mao and survived a Chinese prison before arriving in the U.S., where she taught herself computer programming. Now an adviser to President Obama, Fu was also named an Inc. Magazine Entrepreneur of the Year in 2005. The agency said the book will offer Fu’s story as “an immigrant entrepreneur,” providing “powerful and inspiring lessons in self-reliance, integrity, and overcoming obstacles against the odds.”

From: Deals: Week of October 31, 2011 By | Oct 31, 2011 http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/industry-news/book-deals/article/49319-deals-week-of-october-31-2011.html

By: Romantic Realist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. See WP:BLPNAME. I have redacted their names.

Misplaced Pages is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I see nothing in this clip that you've provided that adds significant value to the article. See WP:UNDUE. If another editor believes that it's significant, it's their call. VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

This history of Bend Not Break (BNB) shall be used as information related to the article, and indicates that BNB is in reality a commercial act. Misplaced Pages should not be used as an advertising vehicle for BNB. Balanced coverage with emphasis on sources other than BNB would help. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping Fu's education at The University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, needs to be updated to correct inaccuracies, per UNM Records & Registration

BLP Violation Redacted

Do you have a reliable secondary source for that? First Light (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please go read WP:BLPPRIMARY. §FreeRangeFrog 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please correct it once the source is confirmed. This will add value to this article. Laserweld (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have redacted the information posted here. It appears to have been obtained in violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) Further, it is in violation of the WP:BLP policy, as it is original research. VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ping Fu's registration with UNM as an undergraduate student, not a graduate student, was public directory information, as clearly indicated in UNM's declaration. VanHarrisArt's claim is applicable to more personal information, such as detailed courses and grades, which are not in this discussion. Therefore VanHarrisArt's claim shall be discarded. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Were Ping Fu’s parents killed during the Chinese Cultural Revolution?

On March 11, 2013, NPR reported that “Fu is a refugee of the Chinese cultural revolution whose biological and adoptive parents were killed. She says that before she could finish college in China, she was told to leave or be killed. Fu immigrated to the U.S., got a degree in computer science, and went on to, among other things, found Geomagic.”

NPR’s March 11, 2013 report contradicts Ping Fu’s 2012 memoir (Bend, Not Break) and her 1996 memoir (Piao Liu Ping).

These contradictions (whether her parents were killed during Chinese Cultural Revolution) needs to be resolved. Alternatively, questions regarding Ping Fu’s parents’ death need to be disclosed.

The Most Talked About Tech And Culture Trends At SXSW Interactive Elise Hu and Laura Sydell March 11, 2013 7:20 AM

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/03/11/173928533/the-most-talked-about-tech-and-culture-trends-at-sxsw-interactive

Romantic Realist (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)§

What is that supposed to contradict? Yworo (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ping's parents were both alive after Culture Revolution, according to both memoirs of Ping's. This contradictions shows that how inconsistent among what Ping said in different publications. When selecting source of information about her, try to include more. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

NPR doesn't say when they were killed, only that they were. Is English not your first language? Yworo (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really, Yworo? Check the citation again. It doesn't say what you thought it did. And, even if it did, the people who supplied the info here were upfront in their specific intent to generate controversy. This is not a tabloid! VanHarrisArt (talk) 01:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really. The quotation above ( “Fu is a refugee of the Chinese cultural revolution whose biological and adoptive parents were killed") was actually in the article when I checked it at the time I made the addition to the article. The NPR article has since been changed. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Very odd. The sentence is now back in the NPR article. Yworo (talk) 01:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

VanHarris, please explain to Yworo how the NPR site was 'hacked'. Thanks. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• VanHarris never made that claim, furthermore, WHY are you trying to restart a discussion that finished weeks ago? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

NPR hacked?

So, the first time I looked at the NPR article, it said her parents were killed. The second time it said her parents were exiled. The third time it says killed again and continues to say killed. Tell me, if you were a hacker paid by the Chinese government to change the article, which would you be doing, trying to add "killed" or trying to remove it? Yworo (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Now it says "whose biological parents were sent to exile in a remote area" again. Very interesting watching the Chinese Ministry of Truth in action. Clearly her parents were killed and they don't want that said. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Get some screenshots so we can use them as basis for exclusion. If that's really happening then by definition it ceases to be a reliable source. §FreeRangeFrog 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll decline on that and just wait. NPR is still a reliable source, even if they are being hacked right now, they will soon repel the hackers at which point we can rely on the stable content of the article. Yworo (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Occam's Razor. You're probably experiencing a caching artifact from the use of Akamai. VanHarrisArt (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Doubt it. If NPR were changing it, they'd add an errata stating that they had changed it. Neither version has such an errata. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're drawing conclusions with no basis. NPR doesn't add errata to articles. They have a separate corrections page. I notice that corrections sometimes take several days to appear on that page. Incidentally, even more likely than Akamai cache latency problems are human causes: overlapping edits by two people. The least likely possibility is Chinese hacking. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's been in the news, what can I say. They do it. Personally, I find yet another apparent Single Purpose Account that appears to be arguing with these other folks over on the Amazon.com forums almost as difficult to take seriously as the other SPAs. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Chinese hacking has been in the news. And it is real. But correlation is not causation, and it's a contentious subject. As for my SPA: I ran it by the audit committee soon after I created it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• That may be, but off-wiki argumentation at Amazon.com shows a, shall we say, perhaps too much interest in the subject. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Let's not go there, Yworo. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Nowhere further to go. Yworo (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yworo, did you have reliable information to conclude for hacking at NPR? Please follow Misplaced Pages rules to make any statement here. Laserweld (talk) 06:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Persecution for one child policy research

Source conflicts. What to do?

• Inc.com : Ping spends two years in the countryside for infanticide research. Turns over finding to professor in 1980. In January 1981, Shanghai Newspaper publishes report based on Ping's research. The story is subsequently published in People's Daily. International outrage. UN sanctions. Thrown into Nanjing prison. Deported to the United States two weeks later.

• BNB: In her senior year, Ping spends several months in the countryside doing thesis research on one child policy. Submits thesis in spring 1982. Shanghai newspaper publishes editorial. People's daily picks up the story. Cries from UN for sanctions. Kidnapped by state agents on the campus of Suzhou University in fall 1982. Taken to Nanjing and imprisoned for 3 days. A few weeks of house arrest in Nanjing. Told to leave China by Nanjing police. Meets secretly with a sympathetic pregnant policewoman who helps Ping with her passport application. Receives her passport several weeks later.

• Boxun : Ping is arrested and admonished for her infanticide investigation. Before graduation, Suzhou University suggests Ping leave China. She gets her passport in August 27, 1983 through KMT general who pleaded with Deng Xiaoping. Majiaerhao (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Citations and exact quotations that reflect the conflicts? The Inc magazine article (if I'm guessing the one you're referring to) was not verified with Ping Fu before publication, so it's likely to have some errors. And Boxun is not a reliable source. In any case, it's an easy fix, by attributing the information to her book. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The link to the boxun article is on the main page. You yourself have cited the boxun article before! I'm sorry to say this, but it looks like you are using it as a reliable source only when it suits your agenda. WP:NPOV
• “The Inc magazine article ... was not verified with Ping Fu before publication” How do we know? WP:OR? In any case, are you accusing Inc Magazine of making up all those dates and details by itself?
• How do we interpret the discrepancies across these sources? If we assume all journalists and writers involved in these sources acted in good faith, then can we interpret the discrepancies as the narrative of her story changing dramatically as times change? Doesn't this call into question the reliability of Bend, Not Break as a source for Ping Fu's personal experiences? Majiaerhao (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're right. There are discrepancies between different sources. Let's call Jimmy Wales right now, and tell him we have to close down Misplaced Pages, because we're unable to perfectly reconcile our sources. I mean, I bet they've never had to deal with this situation in the past. Or, is it possible that this isn't really a problem? (I'd check on Boxun, but right now, according to Google, it's hosting malware, so I don't think we want to do anything with it at the moment.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• No, we don't have to close down wikipedia. You are not the boss of wikipedia, even though you seem to enjoy behaving like one. (There are “chinks” in your shining armor, shall we say?) All we need to do is simply removing material that is contested, given the discrepancies we see, and given Ping's acknowledgements of inaccuracies. I am not prejudging why there are these inaccuracies. We can add things back if reliable sources sort everything out in the end. What we shouldn't do is POV synthesis of sources, seemingly in an effort to discredit all who doubts Ping Fu's story as irrational.
• That comment about boxun is so disingenuous. You yourself added the boxun citation to the Ping Fu article! Majiaerhao (talk)
• Here is what you wrote when you cited the boxun article. “She has provided evidence supporting the stories in her book to media outlets.”. Majiaerhao (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Ridiculous. Of course things change over time... that's why there are discrepancies... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• That is quite arrogant of you. In her book, she tells the feel good story of getting her passport from a sympathetic pregnant policewoman, in 1982. Now she tells Boxun that she got her passport through a personal connection to Deng Xiaoping, in 1983. They can't both be true. Consider this scenario. Julian Assange writes a book about getting the wiki cables from a sympathetic soldier. When challenged on the veracity of his claims, he turns around and says he actually got the cables through a personal connection with Obama. Majiaerhao (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Majiaerhao: Please review WP:Civility. It is part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct. Calling another editor "arrogant" is not a particularly good way of endearing people to you. Regarding the passport discrepancy you raised: There is no mention of how she got her passport on the Article page, so your point is moot. But, even if it did matter, you've posted contentious remarks without providing reliable sources, in violation of WP:BLP. Further, you're manufacturing the discrepancy that so concerns you through WP:SYNTHESIS, and what seems like intentional misinterpretation of sources. Why not just stop for a moment, and tell us what you'd like to accomplish? What's your end-game here? VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
• Majiaerhao: This talk page is kind of like a "forum." Please don't go back to your earlier posts here and substantially change them, as you've done here. It destroys the context of the replies. Also, if you're going to use a Chinese language article as a source for a bunch of detailed information, where a Google translation isn't sufficient (as in this case), it's going to need a reliable translation. It probably needs to be done by someone who hasn't been pushing an agenda, and who is not a WP:SPA. You might check at Misplaced Pages:Translators_available#Chinese-to-English to see if you can find someone willing to do it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Web Pioneer:

TheRedPenOfDoom - The citation you didn't like was pretty good, but I probably should have included page 346, which says that, in addition to Ping Fu, Tim Berners-Lee, Mick Draper, Joseph Hardin, Kevin Hughes, Steinar Kjaernsod, Hakon Lie, Bob Metcalf, Arthur Secret, and Dave Thomson, were interviewed for the book. Since *each* of those people are web pioneers, and the book is The Story of the World Wide Web, there's a pretty strong implication that she is a WWW pioneer.

Here's another citation, from the Seattle Times, that includes Ping Fu among the people who developed the idea for Mosaic:

• The question of who came up with the original idea for the graphical browser remains a running argument in NCSA circles. Andreessen, hailed by the media as the "boy genius of Silicon Valley" and the "next Bill Gates" after Netscape rocketed to fame, drew resentment from insiders after articles credited him with the original idea. Today, Andreessen and Bina, who contributed the bulk of original programming on Mosaic and later helped build the Netscape browser, say their contribution was to add graphics and user-interface improvements to browser technology...The project coordinator, Joseph Hardin, however, said the idea arose "organically" from discussions among Andreessen, Bina and another NCSA programmer, Dave Thompson, as well as key managers, including Ping Fu, Andreessen's supervisor. Fu herself recalls suggesting the idea of a graphical browser to Andreessen.

Here is a biographical note, provided by the White House and published by USA today:

• Fu has more than 25 years of software industry experience in database, Internet technology and visual computing. Before Geomagic, she was the director of visualization at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications and is actively involved in promoting entrepreneurship and women in mathematics and sciences.

Considering that Ping Fu hired Marc Andreessen, was his direct supervisor when he worked on Mosaic, and, at a minumum, contributed to its conceptual design, it seems reasonable to say that she was a WWW pioneer. VanHarrisArt (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

to get from any (and even all) of the sources you have provided to "WWW pioneer" requires huge leaps of WP:OR. see also WP:PEACOCK - any such descriptor would need to be attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• The term "pioneer" is not puffery - it's merely descriptive: It plainly summarizes verifiable information. The Seattle Times citation alone is sufficient to show that Ping Fu was among a small group of people at NSCA who together first conceived of, and took steps to develop, what became the modern web browser. No original research required. If you prefer not to use the term "pioneer," we can use a much longer and completely verifiable and notable description. Or, if you like, we can get a WP:THIRD opinion. Whichever way you prefer. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Speculation is not proof. Stick with Wiki laws. Kellytriangle (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

The following accounts have all been confirmed as sockpuppets of Richewald:

• Laserweld (talk · contribs)
• LarryTr7 (talk · contribs)
• Richewald (talk · contribs)
• 高阶陶瓷 (talk · contribs)
• DevanYaris (talk · contribs)
• Kellytriangle (talk · contribs)

Surely there are more on the way, but at least for now these can be reverted until they are blocked by any admin watching this discussion. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Richewald for the confirmation. First Light (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Really not surprised by this. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• Shocking. §FreeRangeFrog 21:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
• I was actually kinda surprised. Isn't the whole point of the human flesh thing that you get meatpuppets rather than socks? At any rate I feel dumb that I didn't file a SPI quite a while back. a13ean (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Probably, but evidently, some of the people who decide to participate in such a vile thing aren't the brightest knives in the draw. I find it suspicious that almost every single one claims to be a Chinese person living in the States... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Remove BLP violation. NE Ent 19:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Propose Page Ping Fu for deletion

I believe the page should be deleted for the following reasons.

• The page was created by a wikipedia user with a user id called realmeimeifox, presumably the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir "Bend, Not Break". The content of this wikipedia entry was based completely on the memoir, which was advertisement in nature and violates WP:NOT.
• Because the article was based on a memoir, it is poorly sourced, and violates WP:RS.
• There are subsequent attempts to edit the page by Ping Fu critics and supports to include controversies around her memoir. This effectively made the page a soap box for opinions, which violates WP:NOT.
• The section regarding "Bend , Not Break" has quoted an opt-ed article by Sir Harold Evans. Such opinionated article should not be quoted as a verdict on the controversy, which violates WP:NOT. Further, wikipedia is not a news paper (WP:NOT) for reporting such events.

The page as it stands appear to be a joke, and is a shame to wikipedia's reputation. Until the dust settles, the page should not have a place in wikipedia, it only serves as a bait to all kinds of detractors.--Annchomski (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If I don't see reasonable objections to this motion, I will put prod tag on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annchomski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. How the hell do you think this is such? As I said with regards to your attempt to blend this in the "Bend, Not Break" comments: you clearly have a totally incorrect interpretation of policy, you are wrong on it being based completely on the memoir, wrong about it being poorly sourced (34 sources is poor?). Deleting an article for being controversial is not a remotely valid thing to do. Please read Wiki guidelines properly before making any more frivolous comments. Or better yet, find something more constructive to do generally, Mr. SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I find it ironic that a detractor would say that the page is bait for detractors. Annchomski might have a bit of a challenge putting a "prod tag on the article" considering that the page is protected, and his account can't edit it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can safely ignore you two for your "opinion". If there are no rational objections, deletion of the page is uncontroversial. Thank you for your attention. I am waiting for objections from sane human beings. --Annchomski (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
• Here's the process for WP:prod: To nominate an article, place the Proposed deletion tag on the page. This lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. If anybody objects to the deletion (by removing the tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. Knock yourself out. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• You can't "safely ignore me for my opinion", as I'm a more experienced editor than you, and I'm not an SPA. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, or you may be blocked from editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Reference section of Ping Fu: Inclusion of news article in Chinese from Chinese newspapers in Greater China and Chinese newspapers in North America?

Reference section of Ping Fu: Inclusion of news article in Chinese from Chinese newspapers in Greater China and Chinese newspapers in North America?

Reference 21 is a news article in Chinese by a small newspaper (Boxun.com) with unproven circulation. If a news article in Chinese is permitted to be included as a reference material in Ping Fu’s Misplaced Pages, then the other news articles in Chinese, published by reputable Chinese newspapers with proven circulation, should also be included as reference in Ping Fu’s Misplaced Pages entry.

21 • ^ "美国杰出华人企业家傅蘋遭遇方舟子的跨境毁誉战" (in Chinese). Boxun.com. Retrieved 2013-03-01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the citation you mention is merely about Ping Fu having given supporting information to media outlets, we could find a different citation. Which one would you like to use? This seems so important to you that I'd hate to choose one you don't like. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In reply to VAN HARRIS ART comment, the following newsworthy news articles in Chinese, from reputable news media, should be added as reference to this Misplaced Pages entry for Ping Fu:

Reference:

方舟子盯上“奥巴马座上宾”傅苹 质疑其文革经历太过“传奇” http://cn.ibtimes.com/articles/20932/20130131/446792.htm

大胆而有争议的女士——傅苹 http://www.forbeschina.com/review/201302/0023170.shtml

傅蘋：像竹子般韌性 http://www.worldjournal.com/view/full_news/21321868/article-%E5%82%85%E8%98%8B%EF%BC%9A%E5%83%8F%E7%AB%B9%E5%AD%90%E8%88%AC%E9%9F%8C%E6%80%A7?instance=news_pics

读报：华裔精英傅苹自传遭方舟子质疑 http://cn.wsj.com/gb/20130205/BRF102405.asp

透視中國：海外傷痕文學與「高大全」 http://www.bbc.co.uk/zhongwen/trad/china_watch/2013/02/130219_china_watch_fuping_controversy.shtml

傅苹"10岁遭轮奸"引争议 专家称红卫兵作案可能性不大 http://cn.ibtimes.com/articles/22679/20130304/fuping.htm

美国成功华商傅苹传奇受质疑 http://www.gcpnews.com/articles/2013-02-20/C1063_94127.html

傅苹自传满纸荒唐言 http://wb.sznews.com/html/2013-02/23/content_2384315.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 15:51, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Help to review new draft version

Hi, I've opened up a discussion at Talk:WikiProject Biography about a new draft for this article, which I've written on behalf of Geomagic (the company founded by Ping Fu). The draft aims to address some issues in the current article around sourcing and inclusion of facts that have been disputed or don't have citations. I've also added more detail about Ping's career and written up the list of awards into prose. I'd like to ask editors here to review the draft and offer their constructive feedback. Please come join the discussion if you're interested. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick update here: after review by a few editors, User:Majiaerhao has moved the Early life and education and Memoir sections from my draft into this article. I'd like to again invite editors from this page to review the draft (see also the discussion on the Talk page) and see if the other sections can be of any use, particularly the Career and Awards and recognition sections from my draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

A request for any editors watching this page: the Memoir section contains an error that was added after it was moved into the article and I wonder if someone could fix this. The description of the memory relating to a teacher being pulled apart by horses is now incorrect, as the wording originally said in my draft, Fu related this story in an NPR interview - it was not included in her memoir. There is also now a typo in this section: the sentence "She acknowledged that there were some inaccuracies in the book" should end with a period, not a comma. Finally, I think that the detail about this may now be too much but I leave that to others to decide. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

♦Quartering by horse is in the memoir. The memoir goes, “, and another quartered by four horsemen on the soccer field.” Those without the book can do a google books search. Majiaerhao (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I checked the citations, and corrected the text to reflect what they actually support. I don't think it makes a big difference in the substance of the article -- just makes it a bit more accurate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

♦I reverted your changes before seeing your comment here. Anyway, I think my changes are more accurate.

♦Branigan

♦"'When I was young, these are the stories being told to us and in my nightmares they come back again and again. That time was so traumatic. I was taken away from my parents,' she said.”

♦“But she now accepts that her imagination may have played tricks. 'Somehow in my mind I always thought I saw it, but now I'm not sure my memory served me right. I probably saw it in a movie or something, and I acknowledge that's a problem.'”

♦Sherwell

♦“Miss Fu now says that she believes that as a young child, she had confused tales told to her of barbarity in old China with the brutality she witnessed and experienced after the Cultural Revolution was unleashed by Mao's Red Guards in 1966.” Majiaerhao (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. Unlike you, I do read the talk page before doing reversions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry all, I was basing that detail on the articles in The Telegraph and The Guardian, which specifically mention the story being from the NPR interview rather than the book. I'd missed it in the book, so thanks for catching that and also thanks for fixing the small typo in that section. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 13:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Fang Zhouzi was convicted of libel in 2006

The main accuser of Ping Fu, Mr. Fang Zhouzi, was convicted of libel in China in 2006. Moreover, Fang had posted death threats against the judge on his website, publicized his opponents' phone number and address, supplied the Court with a fake address (the sources are here. So Fang's credibility is dubious on this issue.--Justicezheng (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Award of "Inc. Magazine Entrepreneur of the Year 2005" is highly disputable

In 2005, Inc. Magazine selected Ping Fu as its Entrepreneur of the Year. One key reason is based on false information that "In the past five years, Geomagic's revenue has grown by 2,105%, to around $30 million a year". (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20051201/ping-fu_pagen_1.html)

This revenue figure was later found wrong, completely wrong -- significantly higher than reality! (http://eye-on-china.livejournal.com/8107.html) Instead of 30 million, it was only several million, and the revenue growth would have been 2~3 times. As a start-up company, such a growth is mediocre at best. Performance worse than that would require financial rescue to keep the company alive. If correct revenue value had been used to evaluate Geomagic, how could she get this honor of Entrepreneur of the Year?? LarryTr7 (talk) 05:57, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• As usual, you're using an insanely unreliable source for your crusade. Please, do us all a favour and stop this campaign against Ping Fu, it has got incredibly tiresome. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • LarryTr7 (Larry Trump) is a sockpuppet. Not just here, but everywhere that the name is used. It is not a real identity. It is being used in a cruel cyberbullying campaign against Ping Fu. Do not expect the person using this sock to have any human decency, or to listen to reason. As for the statements made here by LarryTr7: They are baseless conjecture, intended only to damage Ping Fu. They are just one of a litany of baseless claims that LarryTr7 has been spreading around the web. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
• Did Inc. retract the award or issue a statement to that effect? If so, please share that with us. If not, then I guess this is a non-starter. §FreeRangeFrog 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• Read the content in those two reference sites, if you are brave enough to face the truth. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • "Correction: This article overstated Geomagic's revenue for 2005. The source of the figure cited above, $30 million, was a member of the company's board of directors who was offering an opinion of Geomagic's long-term potential. Geomagic has declined to give an accurate revenue figure for 2005, but has acknowledged that it was significantly lower than the figure cited above. Also, the space shuttle that was evaluated using technology from Geomagic was the Discovery, not the space shuttle Challenger, as stated above. And lastly, the undergraduate degree Ping Fu earned in China was in literature, not English as a second language." (http://eye-on-china.livejournal.com/8107.html) LarryTr7 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • http://business.highbeam.com/498/article-1G1-208504642/corrections
    • http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060301/views-mail.html LarryTr7 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

• Since the article does not quote the 30 million figure and Inc did not retract the award, it's correct as is. Is their a specific edit you're suggesting? NE Ent 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • A reference to the correction by Inc. Magazine for her Entrepreneur of the Year award would be fair. (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060301/views-mail.html) This source should be considered reliable. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• OK, I would agree that the figure stated was rather higher than in reality. However, we have no reliable source for the actual value, and you stating that the award was dubious is WP:OR. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
• The current reference to the award, http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=995, doesn't mention the incorrect 30 million figure so I don't see a reasonable place to insert a reference to the correction. NE Ent 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• This award was from Inc. Magazine, not Metro Magazine (metronc.com). Please use correct reference. Readers shall be informed of such critical truth associated with the award. You should not pretend that it doesn't exist. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• The reference we are currently using for the Inc award is . It is not a matter of whether a fact is true, it is whether it is sufficiently critical to be included in the article. On Misplaced Pages that's decided by consensus. NE Ent 00:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Your argument is inconsistent. Why did you try to confuse reader with the Metro Magazine reference? LarryTr7 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about Identification of 2012 Outstanding American by Choice Recipient, Ping Fu

According to USCIS official website, '2012 Outstanding American by Choice' recipient, Ms. Ping Fu "arrived in the United States in 1983 as a 23-year-old student". (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=651214f929685310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=34165c2af1f9e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD) As a 23-year-old in 1983, this recipient must be born in 1959 or 1960. However, this does not agree with information of Ping Fu of this article, who was born in 1958. In addition, Ping Fu of this article arrived in US in January 1984. Both times are different from the USCIS record. Contradicting information shall not be included in this Misplaced Pages article. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Give it a bloody rest, will you? The article reflects the source, that's the way Misplaced Pages works. See WP:TRUTH. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 06:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both USCIS and BnB are cited in this article. Do you sincerely think it OK to have different birthday for the same person, subject of this article? Although you like to keep the contradiction, general readers do not. Misleading information is not acceptable. Misplaced Pages has its technical and ethic standards, not yours. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think, quite frankly, if you're going to argue about the most trivial things, you should go away and stop wasting our time. If Ping Fu identifies as being born in 1958, then there's nothing wrong with having that as her birthdate. Other articles make notes of when birthdates conflict, but you seem to be advocating no birthdate whatsoever, which is a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

USCIS is this country's immigration authority. As its record of Ping Fu's birthday and entry date are both different from this article, do you still want to tell readers it's trivial? LarryTr7 (talk) 21:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• What's happening here is that LarryTr7, a known sockpuppet, is being used to post WP:OR material that violates WP:BLP here on the talk page. The person using this sockpuppet has created attack pages on WP in the past, and is now trying to turn this talk page into an attack page. They're not interested in a conversation or a dialog. It is a waste of time to engage this person (or persons.) They're interested only in posting negative comments about Ping Fu - as they have done in over 100 posts on many other websites. At this point, I think it makes sense to simply redact all the LarryTr7 posts here that violate BLP. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Most of the ones that violate BLP have been redacted. Unfortunately, the latest ones do not; they may be non-neutral and/or frivolous, but they don't violate BLP. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Job title at 3D Systems, Inc.

Subject of this article, Ms. Ping Fu, is incorrectly described as Vice President of 3D Systems. This position is not what she holds, according to her employer's websites:

• Ms. Fu was hired as Chief Strategy Office only, not Vice President. 3D Systems press release
• Ms. Fu is not listed as a member of management team, which includes vice presidents and above. 3D Systems Management Team
• Please correct this error. Thanks. LarryTr7 (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Not an error, from what I can see, she's both the CSO and VP.. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Her employer, 3D Systems Inc., doesn't grant her the VP title . Her own claim should not count. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Please show me how Market Watch, at the very least, has anything to do with "her own claim". Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is her 'standard' way to "claim" her Ph.D degree in Computer Science (and more): NCWIT

Lucy: "You have a Ph.D. in computer science, and you're also on the Duke faculty, as well as ..."

Ping: "I think space travel is..." (No response to the Ph.D degree that she never holds !)

• I should have used quotation marks on words of "her own claim". Thanks for adding those. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a citation to show that her employer hasn't granted her the VP title? Almost as a rule, people with CXO titles also have VP or EVP titles as well. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Read her employer's news release: 3D Systems press release LarryTr7

• “Geomagic represents the perfect strategic fit for us and we will be thrilled to welcome 3D pioneer and Geomagic Founder and CEO Ping Fu as our Chief Strategy Officer once the deal has closed,” said Abe Reichental, President and CEO, 3D Systems. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Mr. Reichental does not assume CEO automatically be President, too, so both of his titles are shown. LarryTr7 (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Wall Street Journal lists her as vice-president; added reference. NE Ent 00:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Her employer is the authority of her employment, Wall Street Journal is not, as one would understand.
• On the other hand, look at her 'unofficial' education credentials listed at Bloomberg Businessweek , how many of "her" degrees are real? Two out of five !

• MS, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
• BS, University of Illinois-Urbana-Champaign
• PhD, NanJing University
• MA, Suzhou University, China.
• Bachelor's Degree, University of California - San Diego

--It would be funny to think Bloomberg invented her Chinese degrees for her. There must a source from China! LarryTr7 (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• Wall Street is a RS. Your continued posturing is helping no-one. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

• I strongly believe this discussion helps illustrate how much inaccurate information is in circulation. None of the four reference sources cited in this article is from the employer, 3D System Inc. Media sources have proved to have obtained too much confusing or contradicting information about Ms. Fu. Whoever associated with 3D System Inc., please help with an official response about Ms. Fu's job title. Otherwise, this article shall use 3D System's current version in its news release, instead of those from news sources. Thanks. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not following what's being said here. Misplaced Pages policy is to use what's published in what are considered "reliable" sources. Not saying every reliable source is always perfect, but it's the best we can do given we're building an encyclopedia using volunteers. NE Ent 01:46, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

• If we don't count on official information (in this case, her employer 3D Systems, Inc.), other sources can be highly unreliable -- as proved numerous times just for her. Here is another example: is she an Adjunct Professor of Department of Computer Science, Duke University?

--Yes.

--No.

--Which one do you want to believe, 'reliable' sources, or the official source (Duke University) ?

• One of her ex-husbands, Dr. Herbert Edelsbrunner is an Adjunct Professor there. However, there is no indication or reason to believe she can get this academic title through their divorce. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• LarryTr7: The article says nothing about Duke University. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Others understand it's about how much misleading information of her is available on the internet, and that she benefits from such false information. LarryTr7 (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Updating infobox and introduction

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Ping Fu. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Hi everyone! Between February and April of this year I worked with other editors here to address some inaccuracies and issues in this article. At the time I prepared a new draft for this article which was reviewed and revised collaboratively and sections were moved into the live article by other editors. (You can see the discussions about this above.) For full transparency, I'd like to point out again that my work on this page is on behalf of, and with input from Ping Fu and because of my COI with this article, I've only edited in my user space.

I'm reaching out now to see if I can find an interested editor to review and help update the infobox and introduction. The current introduction only covers a few aspects of Ping Fu's career and, given the length of the article, I think a more detailed introduction is appropriate. Here is my suggested revision, and markup, for the introduction - I have rewritten this introduction to provide a fuller overview of the article. Please note that as all the information in the introduction is cited in the article I haven't included cites here too:

And here is my suggested revision, and markup, for the infobox. My goal here was to simplify the current infobox and remove the awards (there are too many to put all in the infobox, so it seems better to simply have those included in their own section) and to correct some outdated information, for example Ping Fu sold Geomagic, so it's not correct to list them as her employer.

If you are interested, please review what I have prepared here and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. If you agree that these revisions are an improvement, and feel comfortable doing so, please add the new markup into the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Luke. Do you think it's worth me pinging some other editors from this page for them to review or are you happy to move these over into the article? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Rhiannon, please provide an official source of Ms. Fu's job title at 3D Systems, which I believe is also your employer. So far from materials published by 3D Systems, vice president is not her title. This would be very helpful. Thank you. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rhiannon doesn't edit the Ping Fu article, so she is under no obligation to respond to your demands. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Larry and Fearofreprisal. I don't mind pointing to the sources in the article that support Ping Fu's job title at 3D Systems. First though, I'd like to make it clear that I'm not an employee of 3D Systems, but am working on behalf of the company on Misplaced Pages to help improve this article.

The following four sources, currently sources 26, 27, 28 and 29 in the article, mention that Ping Fu is the company's Vice President and/or Chief Strategy Officer:

• Triangle Business Journal
• The Age
• 3D Systems press release
• The Wall Street Journal

If you are looking for an official bio on the company's website, I'm afraid one doesn't exist yet. I appreciate both of you looking at this. What do the two of you think about replacing what is currently in the article with what I've prepared here? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• Rhiannon, what do you mean you are "working on behalf of the company" but can not get an official answer from the company about the subject's job title? It's too hard to understand. Sorry.

• In your reference from 3D Systems, the description of Ms. Fu's title is: "...Ping Fu, Chief Strategy Officer for 3D Systems", there is no title of 'Vice President'. Even your reference casts more doubt to your claim. It's better to remove it. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Larry Trump: You're a sockpuppet. You've been banned before for your actions regarding this article. You've been making defamatory posts about Ping Fu all over the web for over 5 months. You have no credibility. Why are you wasting our time with baseless claims? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Unfortunately (for you), all my writings are backed with clear references. However hard you tried to cover up, the truth is being revealed. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, all. I've asked if there are any publicly available sources from 3D Systems (rather than the news items linked above) that can confirm the vice president title and at present there are not. I hope to be able to follow up here soon with a link to a release from 3D Systems that does confirm the title. In the meantime, I have an email from the company's General Counsel (in non-business speak: their lawyer) confirming that Ping's title is vice president and chief strategy officer. I'd be happy to send that to OTRS to confirm this information if there's consensus from editors here that this step is needed. (Obviously, to protect the privacy of the General Counsel and others on the email chain I can't make that email publicly available. )

In the meantime, does anyone have any further feedback on the edits to the introduction and infobox that I've proposed above. If they look ok, is anyone willing to move these into the article? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi all, just popping in here to add a request edit template to this request, which I realized I hadn't included before and also to share a link to a 3D Systems presentation where Ping Fu is described as "VP & CSO" (see slide 30). I hope that this puts to an end any confusion over her title.

Also, it's been awhile and there haven't been any further comments on my suggested wording for the introduction and updates to the infobox since Luke commented back at the beginning of June. If the above look ok to everyone, would someone mind moving them into the article? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhiannon, you got it clarified. LarryTr7 (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Is Suzhou University's statement Vandal ?

Suzhou University, Ping Fu's alma mater, published an statement about Ping Fu yesterday, but someone says it is defamatory content and vandalism. --凡其_Fanchy 17:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• The only thing that statement is good for is the bit about her university days. The rest of what you wrote was defamatory content, and you know damn well it is. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
  • What he wrote comes directly from Suzhou University's official statement. The translation is a bit awkward, but it's an honest and good faithed reflection of the original letter. Not vandalism. Majiaerhao (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
    • It's not WP:BLP or WP:RS. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
      • An official statement from a university published on its official website is not a reliable source?
      • Presenting statements that dispute the article subject's claims does not violate WP:BLP. On the contrary, it serves the WP:BLP's WP:NPOV concern.
        • “... must be balanced against other concerns, such as allowing articles to show a bias in the subject's favor by removing appropriate material simply because the subject objects to it ...”
      • Perhaps we can seek arbitration if you still disagree. Majiaerhao (talk) 03:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• • • • • Feel free to escalate. But let's skip the edit warring. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The English version of their official statement is here: .

• It will be interesting to see how one can argue against an official statement. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Go read . It doesn't pass muster. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The impact of this official statement is undeniable. It's not really caused by the act of revealing, but by the history of the subject.

• With such a disclosure, it's time to re-consider whether this person of interest has enough merit for an article at Misplaced Pages.
• The more facts revealed, the more harm brought to this person. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• No Suzhou students were arrested for anything from '78 to '82? And Suzhou students were exempt from the One Child policy? These claims are so improbable as to be absurd. Given China's overt historical revisionism, it's hard to give this statement any credence. It doesn't even come near to passing RS requirements. If you want to push it, go to the reliable source noticeboard at WP:RSN. Otherwise, give it a rest. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The university didn't claim the students were exempt from the One Child policy. It was claimed by the university that the policy was not enforced by them and "finger checking" never happened.

• As I've stated elsewhere, this is only a RS for the bit about her not getting a degree with the University (whether they're staging a coverup or not, we can't tell, but unless that's proven, it's an RS). It most definitely is not a RS for claim #4, as this is exactly the sort of thing a University would cover up (and I agree with FOR - the chances of every single student abiding by the law for 4/5 years is unthinkable - someone would've been arrested for alcohol-related things at the very least.) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• There is no drinking age limit in China.

• And how is that relevant? Students drink and do dumb things whilst drunk. The chances of no student getting arrested for doing this over a 4 to 5 year period are frankly ridiculous. Even if it's just a "drunk and disorderly" type thing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:47, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure who made the initial comment, but let me respond to your response. 1) You are projecting your imagination onto China's law enforcement. 2) No, the school did not claim no arrests occurred from 78-82. It only claimed that no students from the class of 1978 had ever been arrested during their college years from 1978-82. 3) I am not sure on what basis the school made such a claim. I suspect it's a general remark based on personal recollections in interviews (Or the lack of arrest records in the students' personnel archive?). The statement does not specify. 4) It's too much of an OR to claim that the university's claim is unreliable. Majiaerhao (talk) 16:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• It was an IP. 1: Bullshit. 2: Their statement is junk. 3: That is one of the reasons why this source is unreliable for this information. 4: Bullshit, see point 3. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hey I gained a lot of intelligence after reading your comment. Look, you don't even know the fact that China has no age limit on alcohol consumption, and that few people in China drive in 1978, let alone how school displine are enforced on a school campus in China. You are entitled to your personal opinions, but I don't think they can be taken seriously as far as this matter is concerned. In any case, as JamesBWatson stated, we only need to be sure that Suzhou University actually made such a statement. Majiaerhao (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The relevance of people driving in 1978 China, and the relevance of the drinking age is what exactly? And you make a clear snarky remark that says I have nothing to contribute, well, I see plenty of irony here... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The relevance lies in the difference in law enforcement attitudes towards drinking that may not be apparent to people from a different culture. Obviously I can't speak for Suzhou University. But anecdotally, in my own college years in a different university in a different city, people do get drunk, especially the senior year, and people threw beer bottles along the dorm aisles. I have not seen one person getting arrested for it. We get admonitions from the fudaoyuan (grade level monitors assigned to "nanny" us), departmental disciplinary actions. But not arrests. So while I don't know how reliable SU's claims are, they do appear at least plausible to me. Your adamant assertion strikes me as prejudicial. Majiaerhao (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Before I say anything else about this case, I will explain how I come to be here. A report was made at Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism about an editor who had edited this article. Investigating the report, I could not see anything that was evidently vandalism, but sometimes vandalism is not apparent except to someone who knows the background, so I asked the editor who made the report for clarification. The response I got made it clear to me that the issue is not one of vandalism, but rather one of dispute over whether particular content should be included, with a source's reliability being questioned. I previously knew nothing about this matter at all, and had never even heard of Ping Fu. I have no opinion whether the accusations against her are valid or not. However, in the hope that it may help, I offer an independent outsider's view of the reliable sources question.
• We need to be quite clear about what is being discussed here. The disputed text begins "However, Suzhou University issued a statement on its website claiming that ..." The statement on Suzhou University's web site may or may not be a reliable source for the truth about Ping Fu's experience, but the disputed text posted in the article does not make any statement about Ping Fu's experience: it merely makes a statement about what the university has claimed. The statement on Suzhou University's web site certainly is a reliable source for the fact that Suzhou University issued a statement on its website making the claims in question, which is what the disputed text in the Misplaced Pages article said. There is no doubt that the accuracy of what Ping Fu wrote has been questioned, and the article reports that fact. To try to suppress information about what the university said about this issue on the grounds that "this is exactly the sort of thing a University would cover up" is dubious. In an article about someone convicted of a crime who pleaded not guilty, we do not suppress the fact that they did so on the grounds "well, they would deny it, wouldn't they". If anyone tries to post into the article the statement "Ping Fu was never arrested, and was lying when she claimed that she was", then it would be reasonable to question whether the source was reliable for that statement, but, to the best of my knowledge, nobody is advocating doing that. It is a clear and indisputable fact that the university has posted a notice on its website claiming that Ping Fu was lying about the arrest, and the notice on the university's web site is an unimpeachable reliable source for the fact that they made that claim. I am not sure why anyone would wish to hide the fact that the claim has been made: whether the claim is true or false, the fact that the university made the claim is a significant part of the controversy about Ping Fu's book, and surely it should be reported along with the other parts of that controversy.
• How helpful my comments may be, I don't know. However, it seems to me that parts of the above discussion have to a significant extent missed the point, and I have attempted to remind editors what the issue is. In discussing whether the university's statement is a reliable source about what the university said, the question of whether that statement is a reliable source about what happened to Ping Fu is irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed! Just like Ping Fu's statements about her experiences is only a reliable source for the fact that she made such claims. To keep in this article Ping Fu's unsubstantiated and inconsistent claims, while suppressing SU's official statements in response to said claims, is, I'm afraid to say, a clear case of hypocrisy and abuse of Misplaced Pages rules.
• We can debate all we want about how biased SU (or Ping Fu) can be. But we should not suppress this important piece of information from Misplaced Pages readers. Majiaerhao (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• The version, as reworded by Majiaerhao (ie; the one you're looking at), was a lot better, especially when one takes into account the proper English version of the source. The way Li worded it implied a completely different thing; that the University claimed she didn't get a degree (which was fine), and that it was a fact that her imprisonment was false - with the wording that was present, what I reverted was a BLP violation. I still maintain the comments about Ping Fu's imprisonment in the source to be unreliable, and as such, should not be present in the article. By all means, add the other bits, however. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I disagree with the part of your comment on the imprisonment claims. Look, we can have disagreements about the reliability of the school's specific claims, just like we can have disagreements about the reliability of Ping Fu's own statements. It's only fair that when Ping Fu's claims are included in this article, we also include the relevant party's counter claims. Majiaerhao (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Their claims about whether or not she was convicted are irrelevant anyway, so I'm pretty sure that bit violates WP:UNDUE. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The material in the Suzhou post is inflammatory and contentious, so it deserves a bit of scrutiny. The statement on Suzhou University's web site Is not necessarily a reliable source for the fact that Suzhou University issued a statement on its website. Let me give an example to illustrate: If there is a statement on the Amazon website that Amazon issued a statement, we can't take it at face value. Amazon allows third-parties to post to its web site. To validate the statement, we need to take two steps: First, verify that it is indeed the Amazon website, through DNS records (which are generally authoritative), then look at the context. Is it in the place where Amazon usually makes such statements? Is it attributed? In this case, the website appears to be legitimate, but nothing else provides any confidence that this is indeed an official statement of the university. There is no attribution, In this case, the URL is of little or no value, I can see no internal links to the article, and the article's title ("Harvest in Post_doctoral Mobile Research Centers Authorization") hints that it may have been posted not by the University administration, but by someone in the Post Doctoral Mobile Research Center. That would strongly hint that this statement is NOT what is is purported to be, and is not a reliable source. So, bottom line, this article does not self-authenticate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• That's ridiculous. I just did a search. The article is linked to in the university's news page. http://www.suda.edu.cn/html/catalog/news_17.shtml Majiaerhao (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Nevertheless, because of the past fraud in this matter, and and the continuing cyber bullying campaign, it's a nonstarter until it can be authenticated as being the official statement of the university. Even then, it's still going to be BLP. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The statement has been reported by ifeng, a news website headquartered in Hong Kong, , Is that reliable ? if not , I think CNN and BBC is not reliable either.--凡其_Fanchy 19:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• ifeng simply cut and pasted it. There was no editorial oversight. That makes ifeng's coverage no more reliable than the statement on the Suzhou website. What's your goal here? Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or promote a point of view? If you're here in good faith, you can wait for a legitimate news outlet to authenticate the Suzhou posting as being official. I suspect, given the fingerprints that Lan Lan Wang has left all over this, that the outcome is going to be the same as the fraudulent letter that she and the Amazon cyberbullies were pushing around a couple of months ago. (The one with no attribution, no indication of source, that essentially said all the same things that this posting has parroted.) But, even if you can authenticate it, you're going to have WP:BLP, WP:REDFLAG, WP:UNDUE and WP:LIBEL problems. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

REDACTED BLP VIOLATION LarryTr7 (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• REDACTED BLP VIOLATION LarryTr7 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please don't continue to make libelous posts here. You've been warned in the past, and the next step is to escalate this to the administrators, to have you blocked.Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• The SU statement is on the “major news” section of Suzhou University's official website. It is legit unless it can be proven otherwise. The onus is on fearofreprisal if he thinks the statement is fraudulent.
• As I stated, I don't think BLP gives an article subject immunity from unfavorable content. Majiaerhao (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94, while we disagree on whether to include one part of SU's statement, for the time being, I will add back the other parts you do not object to. At the same time, I will read up on the dispute resolution/arbitration process.
• I'm also open to suggestions on how to accommodate Fearofreprisal's concerns. Majiaerhao (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The onus is on the person adding the material. My suggestion is that you post a draft of what you want to add to the article here, so it can be discussed before being added to the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm happy with what Majiaerhao added. As I said before, my only concern was the UNDUE comment about the imprisonment, which failed BLP and RS and a few other things to boot. It is phrased correctly, and gives a good summary of what the university said, without making too outrageous of a statement. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not happy with what Majiaerhao added. Let's take a look at it:
  "However, Suzhou University issued a statement on its website claiming that Ping Fu withdrew from the university on March 16, 1982, without graduating; that the school archive does not contain any thesis of hers; and that generally students majoring in Chinese literature would do research on literature or linguistics, rather than sociology."
  The word "however" implies that the statement somehow contradicts what Ping Fu wrote in her book. It does not. Bend, Not Break specifically relates that she left the school without graduating (p. 258). As to not finding her thesis: the article didn't say that she submitted her thesis. It says that she submitted her research. And, the statement about research subjects uses the weasel word "generally." This does not actually reflect what the reference says. But, even if it did, it would not be dispositive. Unless the university can actually provide a reliable source or authoritative statement that shows what Ping Fu's thesis subject was, the statement fails BLP and RS.
  Beyond these problems, we still have the problem of authentication. The Suzhou statement has no attribution that would provide a way to authenticate it. On reflection, the HTML title tag that shows that the statement was published by the Post Doctoral Mobile Research Center, instead of an authorized spokesperson for the University is a serious flaw. If push comes to shove, we can go to Amazon.com, where the people participating in the cyber-bullying campaign have published quite a lot of interesting stuff that casts even more doubt on the authenticity of the statement.
  On balance, I can't agree with using this statement as a source. Since thee are other relaible sources that provide largely the same information, we don't need it. My position is that it's out, for failing WP:RS and WP:BLP. If you want it in, go to WP:RSN
  As for Majiaerhao's edit of the article: While I can speculate about why he/she might have distorted the content of the Suzhou statement, given his/her past history of POV editing, I'll save the aggravation, and just fix the edit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• I've added back content to the article that generally mirrors what Majiaerhao had previously added. This includes an explicit statement that Ping Fu left school without graduating, and a cite that supports that she submitted her research, not her completed thesis. I was easily able to use existing citations for both.
  Just so we don't end up nickel and diming on this, let's parse the Suzhou statement, to cover everything:
  * Demerits: immaterial, WP:UNDUE
  * English classes: immaterial, WP:UNDUE. She never said she didn't take English, and there's no other reference to her class schedule in the article.
  * Arrests: Unsupportable and unprovable statement. WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL
  * Birth Control: Unsupportable, unprovable, and contradicted by many reliable source. WP:BLP, WP:LIBEL
  If there's anything I missed, I'm sure you'll let me know. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• History of POV edits? I recall the last time we had chatted, you were complaining of me not doing anything except having discussions on the talk page.
• As to the claim that the Ping Fu did not submit her thesis. The book specifically claims that Ping Fu “completed her thesis in the spring of 1982... someone in my department sent a copy of my thesis to the Chinese press”. Majiaerhao (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• How about not introducing intentional errors into the article, just to prove a WP:point? The reference to "thesis" in the book was an error that was corrected months ago. You're part of the big "truth seekers" group, so you ought to know this. Yet, you changed the article from "research" to "thesis," apparently ignoring the content of the cite I'd referenced, and certainly not using an appropriate WP:template message to request a better cite. To help you out, I've added another cite that post-dates the book, and discusses "research" and not "thesis." Just curious, were you going to come back later and say "Oh look... Suzhou says it can't find her thesis, she must have lied?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Majiaerhao -- I unreverted your revert. You said in your edit summary "There is no reliable source claiming Ping Fu only submitted her research." Unless you have omnicience of all citations on the subject, you're likely to be wrong. I've added a better source template, and will add another cite when I have the time. Please don't play the edit war game anymore. At this point, I'm tired of having to jump in here to fix your disruptive edits. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I have to say I'm tired of your obstructionism. No, the thesis claim is not an “error” that was fixed a long time ago. Ping Fu wrote in her book that she completed her thesis and that her thesis was passed to a newspaper editor. That's the most detailed accounting of her story. I have yet to see a more complete narrative of her story elsewhere since her book was published.

• Ah, forget this. I don't have enough time for this bickering. I have wasted enough time on this stupid thing already. I hate writing anyway. I surrender. You have won. And the unvarnished truth shines on the hills of Misplaced Pages. Majiaerhao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• Fearofreprisal, there does come a stage when you have to admit something needs adding in, with regards to the University's statement. I haven't read Ping Fu's book, so my comments aren't going to be 100% accurate, but it would be perfectly valid to reinstate Majiaerhao's edit, but with a note in brackets about the fact that she didn't claim to have graduated with a degree. The birth control and arrests bits don't need to be in the article, but the university's statement, even if it is partially incorrect, belongs in the article (it is, after all, relevant, and as I just stated, you could very easily include a note about the bits that don't contradict what Fu said) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 07:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• I honestly don't know how to answer you without sounding negative... because this Suzhou statement is a loser from so many perspectives:

1. It's primary source, unverifiable, original research, and makes exceptional claims.
2. It adds nothing to the article. There's nothing usable in it that isn't already in an existing citation.
3. We don't even know if it is the "official statement" from Suzhou, or something posted without authorization from the University administration.
4. Taken as a whole, it's libelous.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I am convinced that Fearofreprisal is a sockpuppet. Not just here, but everywhere that the name is used. It is not a real identity. It is being used in a cruel cyberbullying campaign against people who question Ping Fu. Do not expect the person using this sock to have any human decency, or to listen to reason. As for the statements made here by Fearofreprisal: They are baseless conjecture, intended only to defend Ping Fu. They are just one of a litany of baseless claims that Fearofreprisal has been spreading around the web. Wwwdotwww (talk) 04:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I an not sure if I can be helpful here, but it occurs to me that the university is not exactly independent of the subject, and that might have some bearing on how this source is treated. I am not necessarily saying that it can't be used, but it does seem like something that we should tread carefully around.Keihatsu 23:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Everything Fearofreprisal says is basically a label to inputs she doesn't like. This is not beneficial to any discussion at all. I strongly recommend a review of her status.

Is it a violation of Misplaced Pages policy to edit one's own WP:BLP? LarryTr7 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Expect more vandalism and disruptive editing

A couple of posts regarding Ping Fu have been made on the Soochow University (Suzhou) website. These posts are not WP:RS, and appear to be the work of the same cyber-bullies who have been waging a Human flesh search engine campaign against Ping Fu for several months (my characterization is supported by multiple reliable sources.)

As a result of these posts, we can expect to see more vandalism and disruptive editing here for awhile. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Well, LarryTr7 has been blocked for a month for sockpuppetry, so that's two accounts out of the way for now. I requested indefinite semi protection at WP:RFPP; guess we'll have to wait and see if it is granted or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

• Hard evidence has come out from NSF documentation, clearly showing that wrong has been done related to this unearned BA degree from Soochow University. If the subject did not do anything wrong, this evidence will never exist and thus will never be found. Cheers! LarryTr7 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper reports about Suzhou University statements and potential legal actions

by SCMP in Hong Kong.--凡其_Fanchy 07:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• The Soochow University incident involves a threat of litigation, and the person driving the issue is Chen Jinhua, the Soochow University Party Committee Propaganda Minister. Given that background, this incident is WP:REDFLAG. So, before starting an edit war, possibly it might make sense to talk here about what you're trying to accomplish? Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:23, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. China Daily isn't controlled by CPC, People's Daily is.
2. South China Morning Post is a private media, ever controlled by News Corporation.
3. To be neutral, it is very appropriate to mention CPC's opinion.
4. You should notice Fu's claim is WP:SELFPUB .

--凡其_Fanchy 09:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not talking about the newspapers reporting on Soochow--I'm talking about Soochow itself. The source of the material you posted was the Soochow University Party Committee Propaganda Minister. As the material is contentious, and likely to be challenged, and there is pending litigation, and Soochow is likely to be a biased source, you're going to need some more high-quality sources. So far, China Daily and South China Morning Post have merely parroted Soochow.
• So, asking again: what are you trying to accomplish? Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• I see you've just reverted again, crossing the bright line WP:3RR, so I think we'll just call this an edit war, and move it up to the administrators.Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You ask me for high-quality sources ? that is interesting. Forbes vs South China Morning Post , who is high-quality ?--凡其_Fanchy 09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• Forbes has parroted Ping Fu--凡其_Fanchy 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You're going way off-subject here. If you want to suggest that Forbes is not a a reliable source, you should to it at WP:RSN.
• Your edit to the article says "Fu's alma mater, Soochow University, has posted two official statements on its website since June 11, 2013, saying that some anecdotes in Fu's memoir were "falsehoods" and they have damaged the university's reputation. On the second statement, Soochow University said if Ping Fu fails to apologize, it would file libel lawsuits both in China and the United States against her." This is just a generic complaint, and a threat. It doesn't belong in a WP:BLP. The fact that a couple of newspapers reported the threat doesn't make it any more appropriate to post here. It appears that you're trying to push a WP:POV. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• You first go away off-subject. I don't want to talk about the quality of these media. --凡其_Fanchy 11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• The "early life and education" are all written according to Ping's claim. They should be written according to both Soochow University and Ping Fu. --凡其_Fanchy 11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It's funny to see that Fearofreprisal has learned how to do human-flesh search, but not proud of this technique when mentioning Ping Fu's critics. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of POV and Current templates

1. Template:POV requires that the editor who adds the tag first discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, and should add this tag only as a last resort. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor. Since this was a Drive-by tagging, with no discussion, I'm removing it.
2. Template:current is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic. It is misused in this case, and I am removing it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

How to include Soochow University incident?

Soochow University, which Ping Fu attended (but did not graduate from) has made four posts on their website, and hosted a press briefing, where Chen Jinhu, the Soochow University Party Committee Propaganda Minister, accused Ping Fu of academic fraud, for claiming to have degrees from both Soochow and Nanjing University. Much of the coverage of this event has been in Chinese language media and social media. There has not yet been much English language media coverage, but I'd expect to see some in the near future. The notability of the incident is probably such that it needs to be included in the Ping Fu page, so the real question is how.

Soochow University itself is a primary source, and is of questionable reliability. The Chinese Communist Party is about as reliable a source as you'd expect. Soochow University has also threatened legal action against Ping Fu, further eroding their credibility. It also raises a WP:redflag, requiring multiple high quality sources.

While I think it makes sense to include this incident in the page, I think it's important to characterize it accurately. It's less about Ping Fu, and more about Soochow University. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fearofreprisal, as there have been a couple of news articles about this now, it seems likely that a small addition to the article would meet with consensus. To get started on finding wording that everyone is happy with, I have a suggestion for a brief addition to the Memoir section:

In June 2013, Soochow University, Fu's alma mater, issued two statements, first on June 11 and the second on June 14, claiming that information in Fu's memoir about her time at the university is inaccurate. In its second statement, the university invited Fu to join in a public discussion to confirm the details and stated that if she did not respond and also offer an apology to the university, it would file libel lawsuits against her in the United States and China.

References

1. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/02/04/ping-fu-defends-bend-not-break-memoir-against-online-chinese-attack.html
2. Rick Smith (January 2006). "American Dreams Do Come True". Raleigh Metro Magazine. Retrieved 14 February 2013.
3. Fu (2012, p. 13) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFFu2012 (help)
4. Lauren K. Ohnesorge (3 January 2013). "Geomagic's Ping Fu sells her company to S.C. partner". Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
5. Matthew Hall (19 March 2013). "Bending with the winds of 3D change". The Age. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
6. ^ Wu Nan (14 June 2013). "Chinese college threatens libel suit against US author Ping Fu". South China Morning Post. Retrieved 1 July 2013.
7. "Soochow University responds to Fu Ping's claims". China Daily. 13 June 2013. Retrieved 1 July 2013.

Do you think that something like this would work? FYI: to anyone reading this who has not seen my previous posts on this page, my suggestions on this article are on behalf of 3D Systems, Ping Fu's employer. Due to this conflict of interest I will not make any edits to this article myself. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 22:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Those things were just published. There's no rush to add everything as it develops, right? I say let's see if other news sources report on that story and if they are reliable sources. We're talking about her memories from her childhood or early years in the University, right? Anyone here remember everything perfectly? Is it newsworthy that a University claims someone misremembered from a third of a Century ago? Is there a way to write that into the Wiki article in a professional Wiki manner? Is there a rush? I wouldn't want a Wiki page to become another lawfare forum. Let's wait and see what else develops, if it was accurately reported, and whether its even newsworthy in the first place given we're talking about memories from 30 years ago. Perhaps it would be best placed on the University's page, not on this page. I say let's wait and see. --198.228.201.143 (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

No rush at all, just offering a suggestion for editors to consider if there is consensus at some point to make an addition. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Rhiannon's suggestion is very good. Don't know why 198.228.201.143 is so afraid of above information. However, more damaging evidence is available now, which is found from government record. No matter how much time waiting here, this new evidence is strong enough to end her game. This article will become worthless and forgotten. LarryTr7 (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

New York Times

The article by Joe Nocera of the New York Times is actually more researched than most other articles on the subject that I've seen. The New York Times is probably the gold-standard for op-ed articles, and Joe Nocera is a notable journalist in his own right. There are no problems with verifiability or reliability here.

I'd recommend including the citation in this way: "...leading both Harold Evans of The Daily Beast and Joe Nocera of the New York Times to conclude that Ping Fu is the subject of a online attack." Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's solely my fault - I misread the edit as suggesting it was a criticism piece, which it obviously isn't. I've apologized to the person who made the edit, and reinstated the edit. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• This clearly shows political preference by above editors: If you read Adam Minter of Bloomberg's response to Joe Nocera, you can tell the latter knows almost nothing about China today.

By the way, I don't know whether you would take records from National Science Foundation (NSF) as golden evidence. If you do, you would agree that contents in the resume of Ping Fu submitted to NSF be allowed in this article, wouldn't you? LarryTr7 (talk) 07:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Evans was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Katie Baker (4 February 2013). "Ping Fu Defends 'Bend, Not Break' Memoir Against Online Chinese Attack". The Daily Beast. Retrieved 14 February 2013.
3. JOE NOCERA (28 June 2013). "Cultural Revolution Vigilantes". New York Times. Retrieved 29 June 2013.

• Biography articles of living people
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class AfC articles
• AfC submissions by date/September 2012
• Accepted AfC submissions
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Low-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class China-related articles
• High-importance China-related articles
• C-Class China-related articles of High-importance
• WikiProject China articles
• C-Class Computing articles
• High-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• C-Class Women scientists articles
• Mid-importance Women scientists articles
• WikiProject Women scientists articles
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests
• Misplaced Pages edit requests possibly using incorrect templates