Talk:Bend, Not Break

Contesting deletion

I'm removing the deletion notices, with the most recent one being a somewhat malformed version of the speedy template for spam. This is not spam, nor is there a question of the book's notability. It's received several reviews as well as several dozen articles where people discuss whether or not the claims are truthful or not. If anyone wants to pursue further deletion then that's fine, but it should be through AfD. I think it would be relatively pointless, as I've already sourced it enough to pass WP:NBOOK beyond a reasonable doubt.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

This article started off as a WP:POVFORK of Ping Fu (More accurately, it was an WP:attack. See [1] ). My understanding of policy is that it should have been made a redirect to the existing Ping Fu article.

Now, after your edits, it's a lot better, but it still has accuracy, WP:verify and WP:POV problems that are going to take a lot of work to clean up. Even if cleaned up, this article will be a WP:REDUNDANTFORK, since the book it covers is a memoir of the life of Ping Fu.

The Ping Fu page was just protected yesterday, because of some very persistent WP:Advocacy WP:SPA editors. By saving this page from deletion, you've inadvertently frustrated the purpose of protection. Plus, not only does this article not fall under any of the categories of WP:REDUNDANTFORK#Acceptable_types_of_forking, you've bypassed the consensus process on forking.

My suggestion is that this page be made a redirect, to Ping Fu#Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds VanHarrisArt (talk) 10:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I think it's perfectly reasonable to rescue an article from the deletion process, nor is there anything that states that an attack page has to remain an attack page. If something looks like it'd pass one or more notability guidelines, there's nothing that states that you can't fix the errors with the article. Since the book has received multiple reviews from RS, passes the qualifications of WP:NBOOK. If you want to pursue deletion, take it up at AfD. I don't see any glaring neutrality errors and I tried very hard to include both sides in the controversy and reception section. The thing is, until the controversy came out, this book received overwhelmingly positive reception. Does it deserve it? Dunno. The arguments against the book are fairly persuasive, as are the arguments on behalf of the author, but then the reason for this article isn't to make a choice as to which side is right or wrong. The reason is to put out more information about the book and keep the main article from turning into one overly long section about one book.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I was also largely unaware of the conversation going on in the talk page for Ping Fu, but the fact remains that I feel that this book has received enough coverage independently of its author to where it merits an article. That the book is a memoir does not mean that it should be redirected to the author's page. That's a faulty and rather limited perspective, as biographies and memoirs of notable persons can and often do become notable outside of their focal subjects. The biography for Steve Jobs (Steve Jobs (book)) is a great example of a biography that is notable independently of its subject. Notability isn't inherited, but redirecting isn't always the best solution in cases like this. If it was just the controversy I'd probably agree, but it received a lot of review coverage prior to the controversy. As far as attack concerns go, we can't delete things just because they're a vandalism magnet. If you want me to put this up for AfD, then I'll do so but I don't think this merits a deletion or a redirect. I'd recommend taking it there before it's deleted or redirected. I just think that by redirecting everything to the author's page we're limiting the amount of information that is currently out there. I understand that you want to keep people from attacking her via Wikipedia, but be careful that in your zeal to protect the entries that you aren't limiting the flow of information. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• I'd also like to know what you think isn't neutral. We have to include both sides without openly disparaging either. Actually you know what? Rather than drag this out, I'll go ahead and nominate this for AfD on your behalf. We could sit here for a few days and argue back and forth or we could run this through the AfD process and get an official decision. If they choose to redirect then I won't argue, but I think it's notable. Either way, an official consensus will give closure on a topic where AfD seems like the inevitable conclusion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to give a little background on the neutrality issue. The essential charge that is being leveled against Ping Fu by the participants in the Human flesh search engine, the "controversy", is that she intentionally fabricated the stories in Bend Not Break.

I will not go into the bases of this charge, but those who are involved in the campaign are essentially looking for any evidence they can use to support that claim. One common practice is to find some seed of information, and use it to construct a plausible scenario, based on their own prejudices and experiences. Another practice is to look to secondary sources, misinterpret them, then make a claim based on that interepretation.

As an example, Ping Fu wrote in her book of being attacked and gang raped at a young age. The critics (I'll use this term, for lack of a better one to describe the people who are participating in this action) say that this is not possible. That she must be lying about it. They've even gone so far as wanting her to prove it, by showing her scars (Though they've even dismissed that as being sufficient proof.) There is a long thread on it here. I'm, frankly, horrified by it.

Look at the current article as another example. The Synopsis says: "The book narrates the life of Ping Fu, a computer scientist and former child soldier from China. Fu spent her early years caring for her younger sister after her parents were taken away for re-education through labor, as well as working in factories and spending time in the military. After the end of the Cultural Revolution, Fu attended Suzhou Teacher's College, where she's later deported to the United States for the contents of her thesis." This probably seems like a reasonable couple of sentences. But it's substantially wrong, on a number of points. Fu never claimed, in her book or elsewhere, that she was a child soldier, that she spent time in the military, or that she was deported to the United States. These claims derive either from misunderstandings on the part of those who wrote about her, or distortions by the critics.

To understand why this is important, you have to look at these things in a historical context. For example, Ping Fu did write that she worked in factories. But she was NOT a factory worker. To have a job as a factory worker was a great honor, and a difficult thing to achieve. What is actually the case is that during the cultural revolution, Mao ordered that children be educated by factory workers, farmers, and soldiers. So, Ping Fu worked, unpaid, in factories, and on farms, and trained with the military, in lieu of attending formal classes in a school. You might think these subtle distinctions to be trivial -- yet, her critics have made them the heart of their campaign. If a Chinese reader infers from a poorly phrased statement that she had a job in a factory, or was in the military, they would quickly dismiss, as a fabrication, her claim that she came from a "black background" and was oppressed in the cultural revolution.

This is the essence of the controversy: Half truths and misrepresentations about what Ping Fu has said or written that sound perfectly fine to westerners, but which sound completely implausible to Chinese. The issue, from a WP perspective, is that a page that looks perfectly innocuous to most people, may be constructed in such a way that it can be used by critics to launch attacks against Ping Fu. (Literally 4 of these pages have been speedy deleted on WP in just the last 2 days.)

Your characterization of the controversy on this page is misleading. It says "Bend, Not Break has received criticism over some of its content, with some critics questioning the validity and truthfulness of some passages..." In fact, most critics have admitted that they did not actually read the book (and hence, can't criticize it.) It is actually Ping Fu who the critics have focused on, claiming that she is a liar, who fabricated not just the book, but the stories about her life.

If you want to keep this page, it needs to focus only on the book. Given the critics' conflation of Ping Fu and Bend Not Break, I think it's going to be difficult. VanHarrisArt (talk) 12:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• The thing about criticism is that people don't have to have read the book in its entirety to criticize it or be called a "critic". That's the way of the literary world and much of the world in general, like it or not. If I'd said "reviewers" then that'd be different, but again- the people don't have to have read the entire book to criticize certain passages. As far as the content concerning Fu, that needs to be included in this article to make it fully fleshed out. I have to say, you seem awfully bent on having a very specific outlook on this entire scenario and you're twisting a lot of words around to mean very specific things, such as the word "critics". A lot of your suggestions seem a little WP:POINT-y and come across as sort of pro-Ping Fu and anti-critics. Trying to cherry-pick phrases to suit your needs rather than using the colloquial terms is just as much of a bias and misrepresentation as if I were to have written the article to be anti-Ping Fu. If you can point out which critics haven't read the book and say as such in their articles, I'm more than happy to specify that some of the critics haven't read the book and call some of them out specifically. The only thing is that it must be a critic from a reliable source and the critic must be posting a review or a lengthy article that is specifically criticizing Ping Fu rather than just reporting on what is going on. Again, the term "critic" doesn't automatically mean "reviewer". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Also, as far as some of the stuff goes, I've linked to Fu's article where she refutes the claims, as well as her saying that none of the inconsistencies were intentional and that her editors/publisher encouraged some of the changes. This I can believe, as I've seen authors get pressured into doing worse by their agents and publishers. If you want to elaborate on some of these in the article then that's probably a good idea, but the thing is that we can't make this pro-Ping. Do I believe that she had some awful, hideous things done to her by the Chinese government? Yes. Do I believe that her accusers are awful people for hounding her to the extent they have? Yes. Do I think that her publisher deliberately manipulated the text to sensationalize material to better appeal to the Western readership and that Ping Fu is probably following along because the alternative is that her publisher will throw her to the hounds? Oh heck yeah. Publishers are cold and vicious. But should I be selectively choosy in how I write the article so that it ever so subtly comes across as pro-Ping Fu, eliminating all other mention of her except for things that focus only on the book (which would, by the way, only leave the positive reviews)? No. That's not how Wikipedia works. We have to be neutral, even when the other side of things include things that I personally find repugnant and horrifying. I'd love to write the article to reflect exactly how I feel about the Chinese government and Internet bullying as a whole, but Wikipedia articles are not soapboxes and I shouldn't write articles to mirror how I personally feel about the subject matter. Manipulating the entry to ever so slightly point in one direction is just as bad as outright vandalizing, if not more so because it'll fly under the radar for longer than outright writing "the Chinese government is evil and they should feel bad" in the article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I guess basically what I'm trying to say is that we're not here to defend Ping Fu. We're here to report on things in a neutral manner and editing the page to minimize her attacks is not helping Wikipedia out any. That's not the purpose of this site at all. We're not a soapbox. As someone who has seen a lot of people get attacked on the Internet, I'll just say this: we could remove all mentions of Ping Fu on this website or scrub everything to make her seem like an angel, but that won't stop the bullies. That actually makes it worse when you come down to it because it makes it seem like we're trying to protect her and people will try even harder to turn this into an attack page because they view it as an "us versus them" sort of scenario. It's admirable that you want to protect her, but this is not the forum to do so. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally when I read this article I have to give Kudos to Tokyogirl, this is a well written and carefully neutral accounting (completely superior to the two I nominated for deletion). I do not see any attacks one way or the other, I see a presenting of well sourced facts. We don't make these up as this would violate WP:OR and WP:SYN so if we have independent sources from the subject it will be included. I'd encourage Van Harris Art to show sources that are saying that the critics didn't actually read it or some of the other claims they are making. That would be important and central to this article nad current discussion, right now IMHO the objections being made seem to be "because I don't like it" in essence. The first thing that should be shown for any changes at this point should be sourcing to show the claims being made, right now the sourcing is in favor of Tokyogirls current version. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I am concerned about your imputation of motives, not just to me, but to others as well. You have no basis to characterize the motives or intents of myself, Ping Fu, her accusers, her publisher, her agent, or anyone else involved in this situation.

Let's start with assuming good intentions on my part. I *am* working to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. It is not I who has engaged in vandalism, edit warring, advocacy, and violations of BLP. You will find no hint in my comments or edits that I believe, or don't believe, Ping Fu. To the extent that I characterize those people who are involved in a well-documented cyber-bullying campaign against her (what shall I call them?), it is only to the extent of their actions, or their own statements.

Hell in a Bucket - The sources that are saying the "critics" didn't read the book are primary: the critics themselves. Though I have literally hundreds of citations to this, I don't include them in the article, because it would be WP:OR

As for the current state of the article -- The Synopsis is uncited, unverifiable, and inaccurate. About half the rest of the article is either technically inaccurate or misleading, or subtly POV. I suppose, if the powers that be decide to keep this page, we can go through line by line and deal with these things. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, in the interests of mutual understanding:

You wrote "VanHarrisArt is quibbling over terms such as "critic", saying that this insinuates that all of the critics are reviewers and that not all of the critics read the book in its entirety." No, that's not what I said. Go back, and read carefully. I said "The critics (I'll use this term, for lack of a better one to describe the people who are participating in this action)..." In every instance where I used the word "critic" (except for when I was quoting your use of the word), it was in the sense of "one of the people who are participating in this action," i.e., the cyber-bullying campaign.

You wrote "I basically said that you don't have to have read the entire book to have criticisms over it and that this is pretty much splitting hairs." I did not suggest that someone must read the whole book to criticize it. But they should probably read at least those portions they do criticize. In the vast majority of the cases, the people involved in the cyber-bullying campaign have admitted in writing that they've not read the book at all, and have relied on secondary sources, or on sources that have nothing to do with the book. I can provide on the order of 600 citations, with links, that show criticisms not of the book, but of Ping Fu. I don't think you want to spend all the time to go through those citations, but if you do, let me know.

You wrote "He's also saying that the criticism is solely on Ping Fu and not on the book, when that's not really the case here." Actually, that is the case with the vast majority of what are purportedly negative reviews. Need I point out that I can prove it?

You wrote: "That's essentially asking me to remove all mention of the book except for the reviews." No, I didn't ask or imply that you do that. Include any mention of the book that meets Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I'm going through this exercise is because I feel that you misunderstood me. I'm trying my best to be precise in what I'm saying... if I'm not accomplishing that, please let me know. VanHarrisArt (talk) 18:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice job! Tokyogirl79, are you interested in creating a similar article for Ping Fu's other memoir? ISBN 7535315445 / 9787535315441 Kellytriangle (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• If reliable sources can be found for it, then yes. Otherwise it would only be mentioned in Fu's article.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I have prepared the page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%BC%82%E6%B5%81%E7%93%B6-_A_Memoir_in_Chinese, please take a look. Thanks :) Richewald (talk) 03:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Re:VanHarrisArt: Here's my response:

1. First off, while there are some people commenting on the book that haven't read even a sentence, there are also people who have read the book and commented on it from what I can see. If you want to add in a sentence that says that some of the critics have admitted not reading the book, we can do that. We just have to make sure to report on that with a reliable source. Posting something that redirects back to a comment in a thread on a skeevy website is not really enough. The biggest issue with things of this nature is that you have to show this with reliable sources. Find me even one brief mention in a reliable source and I'll add it. Heck, I'd even take a HuffPo article. As far as the term "critic" goes, that's probably the best way to phrase this. Would you be happier with the term "detractors"? I've changed the term, but I think that this is really a "potAto versus potatO" sort of thing.
2. The reason I say that you're essentially demanding to have this reduced to nothing but the reviews is that you're saying that the article has to remove all of the other criticism. The thing about this scenario is that while they are aiming at her, the entire reason that they're targeting her is because of this book. If the book didn't exist then they wouldn't have targeted her. That's why it's entirely appropriate for the controversy over the book to be included here. To remove the criticism would mean that we have to remove almost all other mention in the article, reducing it to a synopsis section and the review section which would be filled with glowing reviews from Western sources.
3. I'm still concerned over your motivation here. Most of your arguments stem from you wanting to keep all of the information in one tiny section and to keep it to very strict content. It's almost censorship in my opinion. I'm not saying that you are trying to apply some broad brush to everything and to make Fu appear like some Innocent Ingrid, but I don't like that your main argument is "but this will just spur on her haters and it could turn into an attack page". The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to protect people. The purpose is to spread information. Part of that process means that pages like this exist. I myself see the page as neutral. Heck, I'll just outright say it: I think that you're trying to re-write the article for the book and the section in Fu's article to suit your own personal agenda. It's noble that you want to defend Fu against some pretty nasty people, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. We're not a place for you to White Knight. Your arguments all pretty much stem from things that aren't really things you should be bringing into an article. I'm not trying to be nasty, it's just that like HiaHB said, your arguments stem from "I don't like it" and "but it'll bring trolls". The article is neutral and it has every reason to exist on here.

I'm bringing this up on the third opinion board to get some more people in on this. If all else fails, I'll bring it up at the admin board, although I don't think it's quite at that level yet.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Section break for discussion

I'm making a section break to make the conversation easier to follow, but I'd like to emphasize that I still hold the viewpoints above. So far there have been concerns of neutrality, yet no alternatives or suggestions have been given other than to redirect to Fu's article and to a very specific version of the section. There have been other concerns voiced, but again- no alternatives or work has actually been done to the article. This isn't very productive, to say the least. Any other statements I have on my talk page. I just don't think it's appropriate to redirect to a section in Fu's article out of fear of what other people might do, as the controversy stems from the book and claims made in it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Just an administrative note: redirection/merging is not a way to fix the neutrality problem (if there is one). If the book is notable (which it really seems to be, given the extensive coverage), then the article here should be kept, and we should ensure that both this and the author's bio are neutral. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Keep - If this article is maintained subject to WP:WikiProject_Books/Non-fiction_article template, I think it's possible to keep it from being a WP:ContentFork from Ping Fu. The article still needs work, though. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)