Talk:Ping Fu

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

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

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to put all in the infobox, so it seems better to simply have those included in their own section) and to correct some outdated information, for example Ping Fu sold Geomagic, so it's not correct to list them as her employer.

If you are interested, please review what I have prepared here and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. If you agree that these revisions are an improvement, and feel comfortable doing so, please add the new markup into the article. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


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

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


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


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


 * The following four sources, currently sources 26, 27, 28 and 29 in the article, mention that Ping Fu is the company's Vice President and/or Chief Strategy Officer:
 * Triangle Business Journal
 * The Age
 * 3D Systems press release
 * The Wall Street Journal


 * If you are looking for an official bio on the company's website, I'm afraid one doesn't exist yet. I appreciate both of you looking at this. What do the two of you think about replacing what is currently in the article with what I've prepared here? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 16:13, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Rhiannon, what do you mean you are "working on behalf of the company" but can not get an official answer from the company about the subject's job title? It's too hard to understand. Sorry.
 * In your reference from 3D Systems, the description of Ms. Fu's title is: "...Ping Fu, Chief Strategy Officer for 3D Systems", there is no title of 'Vice President'. Even your reference casts more doubt to your claim. It's better to remove it. LarryTr7 (talk) 04:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Larry Trump: You're a sockpuppet. You've been banned before for your actions regarding this article. You've been making defamatory posts about Ping Fu all over the web for over 5 months. You have no credibility. Why are you wasting our time with baseless claims? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately (for you), all my writings are backed with clear references. However hard you tried to cover up, the truth is being revealed. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * Also, it's been awhile and there haven't been any further comments on my suggested wording for the introduction and updates to the infobox since Luke commented back at the beginning of June. If the above look ok to everyone, would someone mind moving them into the article? Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Rhiannon, you got it clarified. LarryTr7 (talk) 07:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ Edit request completed. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much, FreeRangeFrog. Everything looks great! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 21:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

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

As a result of these posts, we can expect to see more vandalism and disruptive editing here for awhile. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, LarryTr7 has been blocked for a month for sockpuppetry, so that's two accounts out of the way for now. I requested indefinite semi protection at WP:RFPP; guess we'll have to wait and see if it is granted or not. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 13:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hard evidence has come out from NSF documentation, clearly showing that wrong has been done related to this unearned BA degree from Soochow University. If the subject did not do anything wrong, this evidence will never exist and thus will never be found. Cheers! LarryTr7 (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Newspaper reports about Suzhou University statements and potential legal actions
by SCMP in Hong Kong.-- 凡其 Fanchy  07:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


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


 * China Daily isn't controlled by CPC, People's Daily is.
 * South China Morning Post is a private media, ever controlled by News Corporation.
 * To be neutral, it is very appropriate to mention CPC's opinion.
 * You should notice Fu's claim is WP:SELFPUB.
 * -- 凡其 Fanchy  09:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the newspapers reporting on Soochow--I'm talking about Soochow itself. The source of the material you posted was the Soochow University Party Committee Propaganda Minister. As the material is contentious, and likely to be challenged, and there is pending litigation, and Soochow is likely to be a biased source, you're going to need some more high-quality sources. So far, China Daily and South China Morning Post have merely parroted Soochow.
 * So, asking again: what are you trying to accomplish? Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I see you've just reverted again, crossing the bright line WP:3RR, so I think we'll just call this an edit war, and move it up to the administrators.Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You ask me for high-quality sources ? that is interesting. Forbes vs South China Morning Post, who is high-quality ?-- 凡其 Fanchy  09:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Forbes has parroted Ping Fu-- 凡其 Fanchy  09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're going way off-subject here. If you want to suggest that Forbes is not a a reliable source, you should to it at WP:RSN.
 * Your edit to the article says "Fu's alma mater, Soochow University, has posted two official statements on its website since June 11, 2013, saying that some anecdotes in Fu's memoir were "falsehoods" and they have damaged the university's reputation. On the second statement, Soochow University said if Ping Fu fails to apologize, it would file libel lawsuits both in China and the United States against her." This is just a generic complaint, and a threat. It doesn't belong in a WP:BLP. The fact that a couple of newspapers reported the threat doesn't make it any more appropriate to post here. It appears that you're trying to push a WP:POV.  Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You first go away off-subject. I don't want to talk about the quality of these media. -- 凡其 Fanchy  11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The "early life and education" are all written according to Ping's claim. They should be written according to both Soochow University and Ping Fu. -- 凡其 Fanchy  11:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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.


 * 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 &middot; 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 &middot; COI) 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Rhiannon's suggestion is very good. Don't know why 198.228.201.143 is so afraid of above information. However, more damaging evidence is available now, which is found from government record. No matter how much time waiting here, this new evidence is strong enough to end her game. This article will become worthless and forgotten. LarryTr7 (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

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

I'd recommend including the citation in this way: "...leading both Harold Evans of The Daily Beast and Joe Nocera of the New York Times to conclude that Ping Fu is the subject of a online attack. " Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's solely my fault - I misread the edit as suggesting it was a criticism piece, which it obviously isn't. I've apologized to the person who made the edit, and reinstated the edit. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:57, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This clearly shows political preference by above editors: If you read Adam Minter of Bloomberg's response to Joe Nocera, you can tell the latter knows almost nothing about China today.

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