Jump to content

Talk:Ping Fu/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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 Wikipedia'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)

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:

  • 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)
  • “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 [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. Wikipedia 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. [NCWIT,Chubbybrain,IACNC]
--No. [Duke University]
--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)

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. [4] --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: [Suzhou University].

  • It will be interesting to see how one can argue against an official statement. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Go read [[WP:BLP]. 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 Wikipedia.
  • 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, [5] , 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)

  • 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 Wikipedia. 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 talk 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 Wikipedia policy to edit one's own WP:BLP? LarryTr7 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ping_Fu/Archive_2&oldid=1142328077"