Talk:Ping Fu/Archive 1

Amazon "Attack"
Ping Fu is currently subject to an attack, at [ http://www.amazon.com/Bend-Not-Break-Life-Worlds/forum/Fx1M49LYP8YZYQ4/-/1?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1591845521 ]. Daily Beast characterizes it as an "online Chinese attack," saying that it "bears elements of the type of Internet bullying—known by the ominous phrase “human flesh search”—that is increasingly common among Chinese bloggers."

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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

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


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


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

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

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


 * We have ways. You may find out soon. Yworo (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yworo, why don't you keep your name as VanHarrisArt? Just want to fool others to believe you have supporter(s)? By the way, your account at Amazon is being investigated for threatening others in public domain. Keep on the 'good' work and nail yourself down. LarryTr7 (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)


 * You're sweet, Larry. Wanna dance? Yworo (talk) 00:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a board of supervisor for Wikipedia, I'd recommend a thorough investigation of Yworo, aka VanHarrisArt. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LarryTr7 - You can raise this issue with the administrators at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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


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


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


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


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

BLP violations
I'm at my third revert in 24 hours on this page, and don't want to violate WP:3RR, and end up in an edit war. Next POV or OR post, I'll escalate it to the WP:BLP/Noticeboard. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I've posted a note at the BLP noticeboard about this article. The stream of brand new single purpose account(s) seems to be a longer term trend, so this should get more experienced editors watching the article. First Light (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit War
Lots of excitement in the last few hours. User:Physeng was blocked for edit warring. The External Links section has been killed, and needs to be rebuilt properly. So, the page is being watched. And there is work to do to get this cleaned up. VanHarrisArt (talk) 04:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That External Links section was bloated beyond repair, in my opinion (see WP:EL). Kudos to the admin who deleted it. It would be better to rebuild through discussion, though none of those links were essential according to WP:EL. First Light (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * based on the sock puppet attacks I have requested page protection. note that the attacks are also being carried on through the new article creation process something else to keep an eye out for. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  04:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it's time for protection. It looks like the online campaign against Ping Fu is still going on, based on the continued stream of negative reviews at Amazon. First Light (talk) 04:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that User talk:Wiki_Truth_Finder007 has been warned 3 times, and has ignored the warnings. (He/she just did it again!)
 * While, in most cases, I'm willing to assume good faith, this case is a bit special. Wiki_Truth_Finder is a WP:SPA created exactly for the purpose it's being used for - to post defamatory content about Ping Fu. WP:3RR is a bright-line rule: Wiki_Truth_Finder should be blocked, irrespective of whether the page is protected.
 * On a related note, there is strong evidence that User talk:LarryTr7 is a Sockpuppet (Internet) -- not under the typical WP:meatpuppet definition, but rather under the more serious Internet definition -- and is here, not to build an encylopedia, but rather as part of a coordinated cyber-bullying campaign. The persona associated with the account uses a Facebook account that appears to have been created as a false identity a few months back, and which has been used only to post negative comments on Ping Fu around the web (over 400 in the last month.) Yes, I'm familiar with the seriousness of a bad-faith accusation. I wouldn't do it without strong evidence. If I've overstepped, please let me know. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you've acted in exactly the right manner. Personally, the name "Wiki_Truth_Finder" should immediately ring alarm bells - users like that often push fringe theories, or hateful content. Luke no 94  (talk) 10:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
 * The above AfD was closed procedurally. Safiel (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * The page as it stands appear to be a joke, and is a shame to wikipedia's reputation. Until the dust settles, the page should not have a place in wikipedia, it only serves as a bait to all kinds of detractors.--Annchomski (talk) 13:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wrong on the lack of interest count, wrong on the person who created the page, wrong on your interpretation of policy. Want to make any more incorrect statements for any experienced editor to refute? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 14:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Discussion

 * While WP:POVFORKs are not acceptable, spinning out content into child articles when there is sufficient content about the more specific topic is what we want to happen to grow the encyclopedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  07:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not really a content fork, is it? It's notable on its own, so... this needs its own article. Luke no 94  (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It makes sense to have a separate article for Bend, Not Break, using the WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article template. My concern is that the demarcation between the two articles will be hard to maintain. It will become a content fork. VanHarrisArt (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose Merge This is a hard one and both sides make good arguments. However, as I looked at this again this morning, reviewed Google results and looked at the arguments made in the brief "AfD", on the other talk page and here, I have come to the conclusion that both articles should be kept separately. Both articles unmistakeable and robustly satisfy all relevant notability guidelines with no question whatsoever. And the article on the book can exist without constituting a POVFORK. Of course, it is a very rightful concern that the other article will be used for POV, editors simply need to refer to Wikipedia policies for dealing with that. Safiel (talk) 14:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I support above suggestion, to merge Bend Not Break into Ping Fu. This is consistent to removal of articles about this author's other memoir. In addition, Ping Fu's first memoir in Chinese, 漂流瓶, should be included into this page for Ping Fu. This will make description of the person, not the book, complete. By the way, this article is not about promotion of a specific book to boost its sale, is it?? Richewald (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, mr SPA. Luke no 94  (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This BEND, NOT BREAK entry is about a book – its content, its reviews, controversy over factual allegations in this book[BLP content redacted], reaction from the Asian American community as a result of the use of the term “Hermaphrodite” by Sir Harold Evans in defense of Bend, Not Break. This entry is not about its author and co-author.  Therefore, this BEND, NOT BREAK entry should stand on its own, separate and apart from PING FU entry in Wikipedia.  Detailed discussions in PING FU’s Wikipedia entry on the controversy surrounding this book should be deleted, and merged into this Wikipedia entry for BEND, NOT BREAK.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Bend, Not Break should be separate, under WP:WikiProject Books. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merge Parts of the Ping Fu article should be migrated to Bend, Not Break if they are solely supported by the memoir. Majiaerhao (talk) 00:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Suggestion to add contents about Ping Fu's first memoir, 漂流瓶
Since Ping's new (and second) memoir is extensively described in this article, it's totally unbalanced to exclude her first memoir, 漂流瓶, ISBN 7535315445, 9787535315441. Richewald (talk) 21:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No. I've seen no evidence this memoir actually exists, or that it was actually written by Ping Fu. SPAs promoting the Anti-Fu campaign are the ONLY time it's ever come up. Considering you've had the article you're pushing deleted at least twice, you're clearly not in a zone to propose this. Luke no 94  (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's been deleted 4 times in the last 3 days, but who's counting? The book does exist, and was written (in Chinese) by Ping Fu. But to even consider including citations to the book here, we need to look at WP:NOENG. For verifiability, we would need an English translation - and, judging from the contentiousness of the situation, it would need to be from a reliable source. VanHarrisArt (talk) 23:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The book does exist, just the Wikipedia article about it was vandalized, four times in a row! Why is somebody so afraid of it? LarryTr7 (talk) 05:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article was not vandalized; it was nominated for deletion and deleted. If anyone wishes to improve or discuss it, the current incarnation is at 漂流瓶- A Memoir in Chinese‎. However, please note that simple existence is not sufficient for an article to exist: it would need to be established that the book is notable. Given that I can't find a single discussion about it in English, nor a single library holding it anywhere in the world, I doubt it's notable, but that can be dealt with on that page. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not likely that any discussion of the book will pass WP:Verify, because of WP:NOENG and no WP:RS. There is no electronic version of the book. It is paper only. There is no English translation, and there won't be one, because of copyright. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Update: I found verifiable citations. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Qwyrxian: This book of 漂流瓶 by Ping Fu can be found. See search result at National Library of China: (http://find.nlc.gov.cn/search/showDocDetails?docId=8553630059355238704&dataSource=ucs01&query=%E6%BC%82%E6%B5%81%E7%93%B6%2F%E6%97%85%E7%BE%8E) 高阶陶瓷 (talk) 08:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, that book exists, but is there any proof it isn't just a fake, made by Fu's detractors? And if the book IS legit, why have I seen publishing dates of 1996 and 2005 on different things different people have provided? Hmm. Luke no 94  (talk) 09:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Proving that the book exists is not the same as proving that this person wrote it. We need some sort of reliable source. A library catalog is pretty borderline, but if an independent, reliable editor (i.e., not one of the dozens of SPAs who've sprung up on this article recently) can verify that the page clearly indicates that that book was written by this author, we could include a sentence here stating that. Of course, we would not include any commentary about it, unless that commentary appears in RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

About this book being written by this Ping Fu, here is her own saying as confirmation: At 27:00 of this recording, http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/2013/jan/14/bend-not-break-china-america/. It was her interview by Leonard Lopate of WYNC on 1/14/2013. Richewald (talk) 08:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Following VanHarrisArt's argument, I'd recommend removal of Bend Not Break from this article about Ping fu. Otherwise, this article will have to include all her papers written in English. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ping Fu has authored or co-authored about 40 academic papers too, but just because someone writes something, doesn't mean it belongs here. The book you're trying to get included here doesn't have an English translation. VanHarrisArt (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Not all of her papers, only those that have been given coverage by reliable, neutral, third-party sources. Such as Bend, Not Break. First Light (talk) 22:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The severe controversy on Bend Not Break has greatly lowered its quality as a reliable or neutral source. Obviously it should not be regarded as a third party source, either. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I would like to argue the importance of including Ping Fu's Chinese memoir in this page. If Ping Fu herself passed the threshold of noteworthiness to merit a wikipedia entry, so should the major works of her life. A memoir is by no means a small undertaking, and ignoring it is cherry picking at best for the purpose of narrating her life. To argue that the book was published by a Chinese publisher does not make it any less important, given the fact that there are far fewer publishing houses in China than in US, and a publisher with a readership of 1.3 billion cannot be ignored. To argue that book was written in Chinese and hence should not be in an English wikipedia page is also a bad argument. With that logic, all major publications by Einstein also should not be qualified in Wikipedia because they were written in German. Using Language as an excuse is simply separating the world rather than bring people together. I don't think this is wikipedia policy, but I have not checked. There should be plenty of Chinese speaking editors on Wikipedia, please consult them when deciding on the fairness of any translations. A final note, you might have noticed that only Ping Fu "supporters" are against including this work into her wikipedia entry. Is there anything they want to hide?Annchomski (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, I'm neither a supporter nor a low-life hater of Fu, I'm a supporter of Wiki guidelines being followed. Luke no 94  (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Calling Ping Fu critics LOW LIFE HATERS OF FU has revealed your political position on this matter and hence discredited your claims as a neutral observer who's only interested in policing wikipedia guidelines. Not a very smart move. Annchomski (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not calling her critics "low life haters". I'm calling the people whom persist on spamming defamatory things about Fu "low life haters" - there is a difference, you know. I have no political position on anything, other than wishing politicians would actually do things of use. Likewise, I wish the stream of Fu-hating SPAs that this article attracts would find something better to do than spread their bile about a living human being (and no, I'm not saying you're a Fu hater, but as far as I can see so far, you are an SPA). A bunch of people smearing someone, who hasn't actually hurt anyone, like this, is about as sad as it gets. Luke no 94  (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Luke: You are actually making it sounds worse. Let me give you an example. Sir Harold Evans, an adamant Ping Fu supporter, is the one who called a mother of two and a Chinese American "hermaphrodite". If such public speech is not "spamming defamatory", anything said by anyone online can never be qualified as defamatory, but constitutionally protected free speech. If you are a fair minded person, you should take note of that. Unless it is the first time you use internet, you should notice how people talk in discussion forums, and you should not always read politeness. Like it o not, this is one of the things you must deal with on a free internet. Using the fact that some people made rude remarks as an excuse to make similar rude remarks is not a way to prove you are better, especially on Wikipedia which is not a discussion forum. Annchomski (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ann Chomski is a fake identity used by a member of the Rénròu Sōusuǒ targeting Ping Fu. The account is also associated with a person using the name "Yang." VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * VanHarrisArt is a fake identity used by a member of Ping Fu gang targeting Ping Fu Critics. The account is associated with a person using the name Van Harris. Is this something that is even relavent to my point? To be honest with you, I have no interest in further criticizing Ping Fu. All the major facts are now clear and she has admitted she was wrong. The only thing left for her to do is to take responsibility. I have been fair all the way through on the discussions. You on the other hand have been biased, and you can't deny that. FYI, |Rénròu Sōusuǒ] is a verb, not a noun. It simply means search online for information in a collective manner, there is nothing negative about that. In China, criminals and corrupted government officials are exposed using it. In a country where power is controlled by a few, Rénròu Sōusuǒ is the best thing that from the internet that gives people power. We should have it here in America too in case freedom of speech and freedom of information is threatened by the corporate media.  Annchomski (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Since I posted my comments this afternoon, I am already subject to ad hominem attacks from a mysterious group of users as seen above. Even though I don't know who they actually are, their motives are very obvious. Wikipedia is a place where people look for good information rather than point of views. Ping Fu's Chinese memoir is by all means good information about the subject of this page, and should be included. We should be careful not to do a comparison or using one book to criticize the other. All people want to know are 1. There is another book about Ping Fu, written by herself rather than a ghost writer; 2. The synopsis of the book. That's all that is needed in the wikipedia page, no more, no less. Annchomski (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speculate all you want about VanHarrisArt, I don't know who their main account is, nor do I give a crap. My contributions are available for all to see, and I've got a range of contributions to almost every type of article you can think of. You, on the other hand, have solely edited to do with Ping Fu. Trying to school me on "internet lessons" is quite laughable, to be frank, I'm well aware of how people use the internet. I haven't personally attacked you, in fact I've been very careful not to. Also, at the risk of sounding like a crank, free speech is a myth - there isn't a place in the world where you can say anything that you want to, without consequences, and that includes America. If you've got nothing positive to contribute to an article, which you apparently don't, then why are you here? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * VanHarrisArt here and VanHarris at Amazon has been a great defender of Ping Fu. However, both accounts ceased their action from 3/24/2013. VanHarris deleted hundreds of its comments at Amazon over night. This tells how suspicious they are. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't, and besides, the irony/hypocrisy of a sockpuppeter who has nothing better to do than slander a living person saying that is unbelieveable. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of Tension and Proposal for Change

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


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


 * In light of the observations above, and with due respect to WP:BLP, I propose all parts relying solely on Ping Fu's memoir to be deleted from the Ping Fu article. Majiaerhao (talk) 06:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Including info from an autobiography is not self-promotion. This article itself is not an autobiography, because it wasn't (I assume) written by Ping Fu. What a subject says about themselves is perfectly acceptable for inclusion. Should conflicting sources become available, then we could include those as well, assuming issues like WP:DUE, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are handled. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the confusion. I quote WP:AUTO only to point out material taken from a memoir is subject to wikipedian scrutiny. As for self-promotion, I mention it only because the coauthor of Ping Fu's memoir is the one who created this article. Majiaerhao (talk) 07:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:INDEPENDENT. “A primary third-party source is one that originates written information and is independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter. This is contrasted with a primary first-party source, which originates written information but has a vested interest in the subject of a written topic, e.g., an autobiography or a politician's speech about their own campaign goals.” Majiaerhao (talk) 07:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to update the article with constructive edits to "neutralize" it. Just make sure your contributions are WP:verifiable, from WP:reliable sources. If you're uncertain, you can check here, or go to the WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard By the way, if you delete large chunks of the article, a bot will show up and quickly restore them. Trust me, it's not worth the trouble.]] VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you missed my point. Please read WP:INDEPENDENT. Majiaerhao (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And I quote WP:PRIMARY. “Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided.” Majiaerhao (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Fearofreprisal did do some “constructive edits” earlier. But that's the wrong approach! We cannot conduct original research to decide on our own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I copy here Fearofreprisal's comment from an earlier section. Fearofreprisal: “Looking at the Life and Career section, the first two paragraphs dealing with her early life seem uncontroversial, and correlate with what was known to be happening in China at the time. I have removed the controversial material from the third paragraph, but I think we still need any good secondary source citations that are available.” Majiaerhao (talk) 10:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is original research. You cannot decide on your own which part of the text from the memoir seems controversial and which part seems not. The problem here is the lack of third-party reliable sources for the personal experiences described in Ping Fu's memoir. Events based purely on her memoir should not be in a wikipedia article in the first place. Majiaerhao (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Majiaerhao: Do NOT put a comment right in the middle of one of my existing comments. It splits it up, and makes it unreadable. I have moved the offending comment down here, to the bottom.
 * Here's a diff of the edit you were criticizing 04:21, 11 February 2013. All the changes were based on, and cited to, the book. As far as my characterization of "controversial": What I meant was "made up by people who haven't read the book, and who can cite no reliable sources." VanHarrisArt (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Your comment? You are Fearofreprisal??? Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I duly apologize if you felt my reply split up your comment. I simply meant to place my reply closer to the sentence in question. Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The diff. It proves my point. This wikipedia article is about Ping Fu. It is not about what's in the book Bend Not Break. The previous version, which you say was "made up by people who haven't read the book, and who can cite no reliable sources.” cites the 2005 inc.com report. You don't get to choose which of these two sources to be controversial or non-controversial. Majiaerhao (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


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

Redacted BLP material. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * LarryTr7: It is a violation of the WP:BLPTALK policy to post Contentious material here about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices. VanHarrisArt (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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


 * I have serious NPOV and OR concern here. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should make sweeping judgements on the memoir backlash. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This article shouldn't be turned into a platform for vigilante attacks against Ping Fu. Neither should it be a platform for vigilante defense. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Our coverage needs to reflect mainstream coverage by neutral reliable sources. Most articles that I'm seeing give coverage to three main areas, some more than others—but taken in total these are given fairly equal overall coverage: initial positive reviews; concerns about the accuracy of a few things in the book, along with PIng Fu's response; the massive online attacks and their origin. I think that the summary of the book in this article needs to briefly summarize each of those main points. The main book article should go into more depth, according to WP:Summary style. First Light (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the summary approach, but we need to get the summary right. Here are my concerns.
 * I'm worried about historical revisionisms such as suggesting the controversy as having been created by the online response, rather than the other way around.
 * I disagree with the seemingly dismissive characterization of the doubts cast over Ping Fu's stories, as just about “a few things”. Here is how two Guardian reports describe these doubts:
 * Feb 4, “a series of inconsistencies and improbabilities in interviews she has given”
 * Feb 4, “sceptics, including Fang Zhouzi, an influential blogger who scrutinises Chinese academia, say much of Fu's story does not ring true.”
 * Feb 13, “fresh contradictions emerge and experts cast doubt on key elements of her story”
 * Feb 13, “Closer examination of her book and interviews reveal numerous conflicting claims and experts told the Guardian several parts of her story were implausible.”
 * I also disagree with the sweeping characterization of the online responses as nationalistic. Notably, the New York Times, Guardian and the initial Forbes reports have all refrained from doing so. Majiaerhao (talk) 19:40, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


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


 * I didn't write that sentence about Fang Zhouzi. It was Tania Branigan, the China correspondent of Guardian, and Ed Pilkington, the chief reporter for Guardian US, who wrote it. Last I checked, I didn't point a gun at them to force them to write something good about Fang Zhouzi, so that I can throw it at you on wikipedia.
 * The thing is, I didn't even quote that sentence from the Guardian to talk up Fang Zhouzi. (Personally, I admire his efforts at exposing academic fraud, but don't agree with everything he does or says). I quoted that sentence only to show that, as I stated, it's inaccurate to say, as you did, that people were having concerns about just “a few things”. To minimize the doubts people had is an act of historical revisionism.
 * You are proving my NPOV and OR points.
 * It's at least debatable if we don't want the Bend Not Break controversy to be included on the Ping Fu article for BLP reasons. If we include the controversy, we have to get things right. We can't let our personal feelings dictate which reportings get reflected on the Ping Fu article.
 * As to my point about “sweeping characterization”.
 * Again, we can't let our personal feelings cloud our judgement.
 * Here is how the New York Times have treated the critics.
 * “her critics, many of them fellow Chinese Americans”
 * “Details like that have produced a storm of opposition from some Chinese, especially in the United States, who accuse Ms. Fu of lying.
 * The Cultural Revolution was bad for many, they agree, but it’s important to be accurate. Ms. Fu’s story simply isn’t.”
 * Lastly, let me quote from the wikipedia rule book WP:SYN, part of WP:OR, “Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”. This rule applies no matter where you stand on the Bend Not Break controversy. Majiaerhao (talk) 13:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not original research to cover a subject the way that reliable sources cover it. We are not reaching any conclusion that reliable sources have not already reached and conveyed. We are only reporting what they say, and with the balance that the mainstream is giving them. First Light (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

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

History of Bend, Not Break, prior to its publication (Life Is a Mountain Range)
HISTORY OF BEND, NOT BREAK, PRIOR TO ITS PUBLICATION

Portfolio Buys Chinese Entrepreneur’s Tale

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

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

By: Romantic Realist [Please help with Wikipedia coding] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 20:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. I see nothing in this clip that you've provided that adds significant value to the article. See WP:UNDUE. If another editor believes that it's significant, it's their call. VanHarrisArt (talk) 20:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons. See WP:BLPNAME. I have redacted their names.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Romantic Realist][Please help with Wikipedia coding]Romantic Realist (talk) 22:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)§


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

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


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


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


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


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

VanHarris, please explain to Yworo how the NPR site was 'hacked'. Thanks. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 * VanHarris never made that claim, furthermore, WHY are you trying to restart a discussion that finished weeks ago? Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 09:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Now it says "whose biological parents were sent to exile in a remote area" again. Very interesting watching the Chinese Ministry of Truth in action. Clearly her parents were killed and they don't want that said. Yworo (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Get some screenshots so we can use them as basis for exclusion. If that's really happening then by definition it ceases to be a reliable source. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll decline on that and just wait. NPR is still a reliable source, even if they are being hacked right now, they will soon repel the hackers at which point we can rely on the stable content of the article. Yworo (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Occam's Razor. You're probably experiencing a caching artifact from the use of Akamai. VanHarrisArt (talk) 01:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Doubt it. If NPR were changing it, they'd add an errata stating that they had changed it. Neither version has such an errata. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You're drawing conclusions with no basis. NPR doesn't add errata to articles. They have a separate corrections page. I notice that corrections sometimes take several days to appear on that page. Incidentally, even more likely than Akamai cache latency problems are human causes: overlapping edits by two people. The least likely possibility is Chinese hacking. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It's been in the news, what can I say. They do it. Personally, I find yet another apparent Single Purpose Account that appears to be arguing with these other folks over on the Amazon.com forums almost as difficult to take seriously as the other SPAs. Yworo (talk) 02:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Chinese hacking has been in the news. And it is real. But correlation is not causation, and it's a contentious subject. As for my SPA: I ran it by the audit committee soon after I created it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That may be, but off-wiki argumentation at Amazon.com shows a, shall we say, perhaps too much interest in the subject. Yworo (talk) 02:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's not go there, Yworo. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Nowhere further to go. Yworo (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Source conflicts. What to do?

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


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


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


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


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


 * You're right. There are discrepancies between different sources. Let's call Jimmy Wales right now, and tell him we have to close down Wikipedia, because we're unable to perfectly reconcile our sources. I mean, I bet they've never had to deal with this situation in the past. Or, is it possible that this isn't really a problem? (I'd check on Boxun, but right now, according to Google, it's hosting malware, so I don't think we want to do anything with it at the moment.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 15:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, we don't have to close down wikipedia. You are not the boss of wikipedia, even though you seem to enjoy behaving like one. (There are “chinks” in your shining armor, shall we say?) All we need to do is simply removing material that is contested, given the discrepancies we see, and given Ping's acknowledgements of inaccuracies. I am not prejudging why there are these inaccuracies. We can add things back if reliable sources sort everything out in the end. What we shouldn't do is POV synthesis of sources, seemingly in an effort to discredit all who doubts Ping Fu's story as irrational.
 * That comment about boxun is so disingenuous. You yourself added the boxun citation to the Ping Fu article! Majiaerhao (talk)
 * Here is what you wrote when you cited the boxun article. “She has provided evidence supporting the stories in her book to media outlets.[21]”. Majiaerhao (talk) 22:25, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous. Of course things change over time... that's why there are discrepancies... Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 19:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is quite arrogant of you. In her book, she tells the feel good story of getting her passport from a sympathetic pregnant policewoman, in 1982. Now she tells Boxun that she got her passport through a personal connection to Deng Xiaoping, in 1983. They can't both be true. Consider this scenario. Julian Assange writes a book about getting the wiki cables from a sympathetic soldier. When challenged on the veracity of his claims, he turns around and says he actually got the cables through a personal connection with Obama. Majiaerhao (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Majiaerhao: Please review WP:Civility. It is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct. Calling another editor "arrogant" is not a particularly good way of endearing people to you. Regarding the passport discrepancy you raised: There is no mention of how she got her passport on the Article page, so your point is moot. But, even if it did matter, you've posted contentious remarks without providing reliable sources, in violation of WP:BLP.  Further, you're manufacturing the discrepancy that so concerns you through WP:SYNTHESIS, and what seems like intentional misinterpretation of sources. Why not just stop for a moment, and tell us what you'd like to accomplish?  What's your end-game here? VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Majiaerhao: This talk page is kind of like a "forum." Please don't go back to your earlier posts here and substantially change them, as you've done here. It destroys the context of the replies. Also, if you're going to use a Chinese language article as a source for a bunch of detailed information, where a Google translation isn't sufficient (as in this case), it's going to need a reliable translation. It probably needs to be done by someone who hasn't been pushing an agenda, and who is not a WP:SPA. You might check at Translators_available to see if you can find someone willing to do it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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

Considering that Ping Fu hired Marc Andreessen, was his direct supervisor when he worked on Mosaic, and, at a minumum, contributed to its conceptual design, it seems reasonable to say that she was a WWW pioneer. VanHarrisArt (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * to get from any (and even all) of the sources you have provided to "WWW pioneer" requires huge leaps of WP:OR. see also WP:PEACOCK - any such descriptor would need to be attributed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  12:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The term "pioneer" is not puffery - it's merely descriptive: It plainly summarizes verifiable information. The Seattle Times citation alone is sufficient to show that Ping Fu was among a small group of people at NSCA who together first conceived of, and took steps to develop, what became the modern web browser. No original research required. If you prefer not to use the term "pioneer," we can use a much longer and completely verifiable and notable description. Or, if you like, we can get a WP:THIRD opinion. Whichever way you prefer.  VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Speculation is not proof. Stick with Wiki laws. Kellytriangle (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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

If I don't see reasonable objections to this motion, I will put prod tag on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annchomski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * PROD is for uncontroversial deletions. How the hell do you think this is such? As I said with regards to your attempt to blend this in the "Bend, Not Break" comments: you clearly have a totally incorrect interpretation of policy, you are wrong on it being based completely on the memoir, wrong about it being poorly sourced (34 sources is poor?). Deleting an article for being controversial is not a remotely valid thing to do. Please read Wiki guidelines properly before making any more frivolous comments. Or better yet, find something more constructive to do generally, Mr. SPA. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 16:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it ironic that a detractor would say that the page is bait for detractors. Annchomski might have a bit of a challenge putting a "prod tag on the article" considering that the page is protected, and his account can't edit it. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I can safely ignore you two for your "opinion". If there are no rational objections, deletion of the page is uncontroversial. Thank you for your attention. I am waiting for objections from sane human beings. --Annchomski (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's the process for WP:prod: To nominate an article, place the Proposed deletion tag on the page. This lists the article in Category:Proposed deletion. If anybody objects to the deletion (by removing the tag), the proposal is aborted and may not be re-proposed. Knock yourself out. VanHarrisArt (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * You can't "safely ignore me for my opinion", as I'm a more experienced editor than you, and I'm not an SPA. Also, please refrain from personal attacks, or you may be blocked from editing. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

21 • ^ "美国杰出华人企业家傅蘋遭遇方舟子的跨境毁誉战" (in Chinese). Boxun.com. Retrieved 2013-03-01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 05:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Given that the citation you mention is merely about Ping Fu having given supporting information to media outlets, we could find a different citation. Which one would you like to use? This seems so important to you that I'd hate to choose one you don't like. VanHarrisArt (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Help to review new draft version
Hi, I've opened up a discussion at Talk:WikiProject Biography about a new draft for this article, which I've written on behalf of Geomagic (the company founded by Ping Fu). The draft aims to address some issues in the current article around sourcing and inclusion of facts that have been disputed or don't have citations. I've also added more detail about Ping's career and written up the list of awards into prose. I'd like to ask editors here to review the draft and offer their constructive feedback. Please come join the discussion if you're interested. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a quick update here: after review by a few editors, User:Majiaerhao has moved the Early life and education and Memoir sections from my draft into this article. I'd like to again invite editors from this page to review the draft (see also the discussion on the Talk page) and see if the other sections can be of any use, particularly the Career and Awards and recognition sections from my draft. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 22:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * A request for any editors watching this page: the Memoir section contains an error that was added after it was moved into the article and I wonder if someone could fix this. The description of the memory relating to a teacher being pulled apart by horses is now incorrect, as the wording originally said in my draft, Fu related this story in an NPR interview - it was not included in her memoir. There is also now a typo in this section: the sentence "She acknowledged that there were some inaccuracies in the book" should end with a period, not a comma. Finally, I think that the detail about this may now be too much but I leave that to others to decide. Thanks, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk &middot; COI) 23:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ♦Quartering by horse is in the memoir. The memoir goes, “, and another quartered by four horsemen on the soccer field.” Those without the book can do a google books search. Majiaerhao (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I checked the citations, and corrected the text to reflect what they actually support. I don't think it makes a big difference in the substance of the article -- just makes it a bit more accurate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ♦I reverted your changes before seeing your comment here. Anyway, I think my changes are more accurate.
 * ♦Branigan
 * ♦"'When I was young, these are the stories being told to us and in my nightmares they come back again and again. That time was so traumatic. I was taken away from my parents,' she said.”
 * ♦“But she now accepts that her imagination may have played tricks. 'Somehow in my mind I always thought I saw it, but now I'm not sure my memory served me right. I probably saw it in a movie or something, and I acknowledge that's a problem.'”


 * ♦Sherwell
 * ♦“Miss Fu now says that she believes that as a young child, she had confused tales told to her of barbarity in old China with the brutality she witnessed and experienced after the Cultural Revolution was unleashed by Mao's Red Guards in 1966.” Majiaerhao (talk) 09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Unlike you, I do read the talk page before doing reversions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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 [Added by Romantic Realist][Please help with Wikipedia coding]


 * Do you have a reliable secondary source for that? First Light (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Please go read WP:BLPPRIMARY. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

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


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


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

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 Sockpuppet investigations/Richewald for the confirmation. First Light (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Really not surprised by this. Luke no 94  (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Shocking. § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I was actually kinda surprised. Isn't the whole point of the human flesh thing that you get meatpuppets rather than socks?  At any rate I feel dumb that I didn't file a SPI quite a while back.  a13ean (talk) 02:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably, but evidently, some of the people who decide to participate in such a vile thing aren't the brightest knives in the draw. I find it suspicious that almost every single one claims to be a Chinese person living in the States... Luke no 94  (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. Luke no 94  (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 croak 18:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Read the content in those two reference sites, if you are brave enough to face the truth. LarryTr7 (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Correction: This article overstated Geomagic's revenue for 2005. The source of the figure cited above, $30 million, was a member of the company's board of directors who was offering an opinion of Geomagic's long-term potential. Geomagic has declined to give an accurate revenue figure for 2005, but has acknowledged that it was significantly lower than the figure cited above. Also, the space shuttle that was evaluated using technology from Geomagic was the Discovery, not the space shuttle Challenger, as stated above. And lastly, the undergraduate degree Ping Fu earned in China was in literature, not English as a second language." (http://eye-on-china.livejournal.com/8107.html) LarryTr7 (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * http://business.highbeam.com/498/article-1G1-208504642/corrections
 * http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060301/views-mail.html LarryTr7 (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Since the article does not quote the 30 million figure and Inc did not retract the award, it's correct as is. Is their a specific edit you're suggesting? NE Ent 22:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
 * A reference to the correction by Inc. Magazine for her Entrepreneur of the Year award would be fair. (http://www.inc.com/magazine/20060301/views-mail.html) This source should be considered reliable. LarryTr7 (talk) 08:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I would agree that the figure stated was rather higher than in reality. However, we have no reliable source for the actual value, and you stating that the award was dubious is WP:OR. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 08:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The current reference to the award, http://www.metronc.com/article/?id=995, doesn't mention the incorrect 30 million figure so I don't see a reasonable place to insert a reference to the correction. NE Ent 09:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This award was from Inc. Magazine, not Metro Magazine (metronc.com). Please use correct reference. Readers shall be informed of such critical truth associated with the award. You should not pretend that it doesn't exist. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The reference we are currently using for the Inc award is . It is not a matter of whether a fact is true, it is whether it is sufficiently critical to be included in the article. On Wikipedia that's decided by consensus. NE Ent 00:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your argument is inconsistent. Why did you try to confuse reader with the Metro Magazine reference? LarryTr7 (talk) 21:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Confusion about Identification of 2012 Outstanding American by Choice Recipient, Ping Fu
According to USCIS official website, '2012 Outstanding American by Choice' recipient, Ms. Ping Fu "arrived in the United States in 1983 as a 23-year-old student". (http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=651214f929685310VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD&vgnextchannel=34165c2af1f9e010VgnVCM1000000ecd190aRCRD) As a 23-year-old in 1983, this recipient must be born in 1959 or 1960. However, this does not agree with information of Ping Fu of this article, who was born in 1958. In addition, Ping Fu of this article arrived in US in January 1984. Both times are different from the USCIS record. Contradicting information shall not be included in this Wikipedia article. LarryTr7 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Give it a bloody rest, will you? The article reflects the source, that's the way Wikipedia works. See WP:TRUTH. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 06:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Both USCIS and BnB are cited in this article. Do you sincerely think it OK to have different birthday for the same person, subject of this article? Although you like to keep the contradiction, general readers do not. Misleading information is not acceptable. Wikipedia 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. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:35, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

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


 * What's happening here is that LarryTr7, a known sockpuppet, is being used to post WP:OR material that violates WP:BLP here on the talk page. The person using this sockpuppet has created attack pages on WP in the past, and is now trying to turn this talk page into an attack page. They're not interested in a conversation or a dialog. It is a waste of time to engage this person (or persons.) They're interested only in posting negative comments about Ping Fu - as they have done in over 100 posts on many other websites. At this point, I think it makes sense to simply redact all the LarryTr7 posts here that violate BLP.  Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the ones that violate BLP have been redacted. Unfortunately, the latest ones do not; they may be non-neutral and/or frivolous, but they don't violate BLP. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 07:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)