Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ping Fu

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 16912 Rhiannon (talk | contribs) at 00:31, 24 July 2013 (→Updating infobox and introduction: Adding new ref into infobox markup). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:31, 24 July 2013 by 16912 Rhiannon (talk | contribs) (→Updating infobox and introduction: Adding new ref into infobox markup)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ping Fu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
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.
WikiProject iconArticles for creation
WikiProject iconThis 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
Note icon
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.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis 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
Taskforce icon
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.
WikiProject iconChina High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconComputing High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
HighThis 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.
WikiProject iconWomen's History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis 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.
WikiProject iconWomen scientists Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ping Fu article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)

Sockpuppets

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

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)

  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

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)

  • 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)

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:

  • 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 !)
  • “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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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:

Introduction Ping Fu (born 1958) is a Chinese-American entrepreneur. She is the co-founder of 3D software development company Geomagic, and was its is chief executive officer until February 2013 when the company was acquired by 3D Systems Inc. As of February 2013, she is the vice president and chief strategy officer at 3D Systems. Fu grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution and moved to the United States in 1984. She co-founded Geomagic in 1997 with her then-husband Herbert Edelsbrunner, and has been recognized for her achievements with the company through a number of awards, including being named Inc. magazine's 2005 "Entrepreneur of the Year". In 2013, she published her memoir, Bend, Not Break, co-authored with MeiMei Fox. Markup '''Ping Fu''' (born 1958) is a ] entrepreneur. She is the co-founder of ] development company ], and was its is chief executive officer until February 2013 when the company was acquired by ] {{As of|2013|02}}, she is the vice president and chief strategy officer at 3D Systems. Fu grew up in China during the ] and moved to the United States in 1984. She co-founded Geomagic in 1997 with her then-husband ], and has been recognized for her achievements with the company through a number of awards, including being named '']'' magazine's 2005 "Entrepreneur of the Year". In 2013, she published her memoir, ''Bend, Not Break'', co-authored with MeiMei Fox.

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.

Infobox
Ping Fu
Born1958 (age 66–67)
Nanjing, China
CitizenshipAmerican
EducationUniversity of California, San Diego, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Alma materUniversity of California, San Diego
Occupation(s)Vice president and chief strategy officer, 3D Systems
Employer3D Systems
Notable workBend, Not Break: A Life In Two Worlds
Board member ofLong Now Foundation
National Advisory Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship
Markup {{user page}} {{Infobox person | honorific_prefix = | name = Ping Fu | honorific_suffix = | native_name = | native_name_lang = | image = | image_size = | alt = | caption = | birth_name = | birth_date = {{Birth year and age|1958}}<ref>{{harvtxt|Fu|2012|p=13}}</ref> | birth_place = ], ] | residence = ] | nationality = | other_names = | ethnicity = Chinese | citizenship = American | education = ], ] | alma_mater = ] | occupation = Vice president and chief strategy officer, 3D Systems<ref name=Ohnesorge>{{cite news |title=Geomagic's Ping Fu sells her company to S.C. partner |author=Lauren K. Ohnesorge |url=http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2013/01/geomagics-ping-fu-sells-her-company.html |work=] |date=3 January 2013 |accessdate=19 March 2013}}</ref><ref name=Hall>{{cite news |title=Bending with the winds of 3D change |author=Matthew Hall |url=http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/business-it/bending-with-the-winds-of-3d-change-20130318-2gb2f.html |work=] |date=19 March 2013 |accessdate=19 March 2013}}</ref><ref name=3DSystemsPreso>{{cite web |url=http://www.3dsystems.com/files/downloads/3DS-June-2013-Investor-Day.pdf |title=Manufacturing the Future: Investor Day Presentation |date=June 2013 |work=3dsystems.com |publisher=3D Systems |format=PDF |accessdate=23 July 2013}}</ref> | years_active = | employer = 3D Systems | organization = | agent = | known_for = | notable_works = '']'' | style = | influences = | influenced = | home_town = | salary = | net_worth = <!-- Net worth should be supported with a citation from a reliable source --> | boards = Long Now Foundation<br /> National Advisory Council for Innovation and Entrepreneurship<br /> | spouse = | partner = | parents = | relatives = | awards = | box_width = }}

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)

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)

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:
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)

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)

The English version of their official statement is here: .

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)


  • 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)

  • 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'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)

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. Rick Smith (January 2006). "American Dreams Do Come True". Raleigh Metro Magazine. Retrieved 14 February 2013.
  2. Fu (2012, p. 13) harvtxt error: no target: CITEREFFu2012 (help)
  3. Lauren K. Ohnesorge (3 January 2013). "Geomagic's Ping Fu sells her company to S.C. partner". Triangle Business Journal. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
  4. Matthew Hall (19 March 2013). "Bending with the winds of 3D change". The Age. Retrieved 19 March 2013.
  5. "Manufacturing the Future: Investor Day Presentation" (PDF). 3dsystems.com. 3D Systems. June 2013. Retrieved 23 July 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)

  • 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)

  • Here's an idea: if you've just returned from being blocked from editing for a month, don't come back and start making accusations about other editors. About your evidence: You can look up the guidelines for WP:evidence just like anyone else. What claim is this resume supposed to support? Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:12, 19 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.
Categories: