Talk:Bend, Not Break

Contesting deletion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tokyogirl79, in the interests of mutual understanding:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Re:VanHarrisArt: Here's my response:

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

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

I am a Third Opinion Wikipedian. Your Third Opinion request has been removed because there are multiple editors involved in this discussion and Third Opinions are for disputes involving two editors (thus the name). If you still feel that you need dispute resolution, consider the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard or, to attract more general editors to the discussion, a Request for Comments. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Section break for discussion

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

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

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

• I'm glad that you want to keep the article now, but please give us alternatives as to what to write. It's incredibly frustrating that you keep saying "this isn't right, this isn't neutral, the bullies are going to twist it all around because you wrote this", but you don't actually give us any alternatives. Part of Wikipedia is being bold and offering suggestions as to how to alternatively phrase things. From my viewpoint you're pretty much just coming on here and disparaging the article and my edits, but not really offering any good alternatives other than what you personally want to have written. I've offered a few alternatives here and there, but you haven't really done anything (from my viewpoint, mind you) than continue saying "this isn't good enough, the entire article needs to be re-written". Part of a good back and forth is giving alternative phrasings and fixing some of the incorrect parts that aren't as contentious rather than just continuing to say that nothing on the page is good enough. I asked if you wanted to fix the synopsis section and you haven't. You just said that you were waiting to see if I'd do it. Hon, I'm not the only person on Wikipedia. Your suggestions are specifically about the controversy section for the most part, but they're so vague that I don't know what exactly you're complaining about in specific or how I'm supposed to read your mind to know what specific version will meet your exact standards. I'm bringing this up to dispute resolution before officially going to the admin board. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've opened up a dispute resolution request, so hopefully we'll get more people coming in. (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Bend.2C_Not_Break)Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Please, No Edit Warring

User:Romantic Realist: If you disagree with someone reverting one of your edits, don't just put it back. Come here to the talk page, to discuss it, and come to a consensus. There is a bright line 3-revert rule WP:3RR, that, if you violate, you will get blocked. VanHarrisArt (talk) 10:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Along those lines, I have requested a semi-protect for this article. Safiel (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, article is now semi-protected until April 7, 2013. Safiel (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79, I realized that the above article is under constant bombardment and could not stay for long. So it's not practical to forward information from there. So I have to post the reference material for your disposal: Infobox book | name = A Drifting Bottle | author = Ping Fu | title_orig = 漂流瓶 | subject = Memoir | genre = Non-fiction | publisher = 湖北少年儿童出版社 | pub_date = 1996 | isbn = ISBN 978-7535315441

Book image of selected pages: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-vy9JQtiyiKU/UTA76zrKVZI/AAAAAAAAAII/Dkm9D2Cyi1s/s1600/bothcover.png, http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dZhlM25jtfE/USw-4oMh-VI/AAAAAAAAAG0/9qgLkp7F8EI/s1600/Page6_7.png, http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-scdx4M9GXOY/USw94zC9GjI/AAAAAAAAAGs/R3jp96OKB-o/s1600/page15.png,

Book reading notes (in English): http://www.amazon.com/What-know-reading-Chinese-memoir/forum/Fx1M49LYP8YZYQ4/Tx330XAUEWWJ85E/1/ref=cm_cd_fp_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&asin=1591845521, http://www.debunkingbendnotbreak.com/2013/02/fu-pings-original-story.html Richewald (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• The thing about this book is that I can't seem to find a lot of coverage of it in reliable sources. The book by large went under the radar until this point, so any notability it might have stems more from the reactions from Bend, Not Break. It exists, but existing is not notability. The other thing to be cautious of is how it's mentioned in relation to BNB. We can't use the debunking website because it's not really a reliable source, nor is the Amazon forum link. They basically boil down to original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. I'm trying to think of a diplomatic way to say this, but basically we have to use caution in trying to figure out why the two books are different. There are a lot of reasons that they could be different and until we have theories in places that are seen as more reliable, they shouldn't be added- especially when it could easily be seen as a smear campaign. Even when they're posted in RS, they have to be very carefully stated in order to avoid an appearance of bias because ultimately they're only theories. At this point I don't really see where it merits its own entry or anything other than a brief mention on Fu's entry.Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• There is a reference from google books The Drifting Bottle, it is based on the entry from National Library of China sinolib But i agree with Tokyogirl79, these only proved the book's existence. but existence doesn't equal to notability. Parisapril (talk) 08:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79 and Parisapril, Good to know your opinions, and thanks for your efforts. Wikipedia should stay in a neutral position, which I agree 100%. What I think possible is just to have an entry to acknowledge this book's existence.

Ideally, it's best placed under Ping Fu, in parallel of Bend Not Break. However, some people are seeing this as a threat to Ping's credibility, and fought hard to exclude this book. Is that fair to these two books written by the same author? I don't think Wikipedia would say it is. Richewald (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

First off, this discussion has no business on this page, because it has nothing to do with this article. Second, if we can actually verify in a reliable source that this book was written by this Ping Fu, then, yes, we should include information about it on Ping Fu. Of course, we should not include any of the blogs, etc., that are lobbing criticism, given that they are not WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

For your consideration

why does this article use the term "child soldier"? i don't recall that claim being made, much less verified anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.147.103 (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• For once, I agree with an IP about something Ping Fu related. Even if she did explicitly describe herself as such, it's hardly an NPOV point and probably should go. Lukeno94 (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree, and yet another editor just tagged it as 'dubious,' so I've removed that bit. First Light (talk) 22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, we should note that this article falls under the policy of Biographies of Living Persons just as much as the Ping Fu biography article does, since nearly everything here relates to a living person. WP:BLP includes:
      • "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." First Light (talk) 03:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Adrian Zackheim's last name is misspelled. Should be ZACKHEIM instead of Zackhein.

Agent, Editor, and Publishing Deal Information

The information looks legit and neutral for this page, should it be added?

Oct 31, 2011, [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 Niki Papadopoulos. Fu is the president and CEO of Geomagic,...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.

References

• 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.

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) 21:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

• I Just finished reading this talk page, Tokyogirl79 made a very good point earlier on the role editor/publisher plays in a book's formation: "I've linked to Fu's article where she refutes the claims, as well as her saying that none of the inconsistencies were intentional and that her editors/publisher encouraged some of the changes. This I can believe, as I've seen authors get pressured into doing worse by their agents and publishers." Given the scale of the controversy this book has caused, it seems reasonable to include these information on this page.Pimpilala (talk) 21:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

not unless a reliable third party source covers it. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. So Publishers Weekly is not considered a 3rd party? Is it because it is a trade magazine, even though neither PF nor Penguin owns it?Pimpilala (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Fu is not a third party to her claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Requesting help at Harold Evans

I removed an BLP violating edit about Ping Fu at Harold Evans that was posted by User: Romantic Realist, an editor who has already been warned for WP:Edit Warring, and whose disruptive editing has caused this page to be semi-protected. My edit was reverted by an IP, which I subsequently reverted. I fully expect this to turn into an Edit War, with IP or WP:SPA editors ignoring warnings until the page must be semi-protected. I'm at 2 reverts for today, and I'd appreciate it if editors who are familiar with the situation would watchlist Harold Evans. Thanks VanHarrisArt (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

If it continues, you should post something at the BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I'll be offline for awhile. First Light (talk) 04:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right, the passage doesn't seem to fit Harold Evans page well, at least not at this stage. But it does fit in this page. I quoted the original work from Harold Evans published on the Daily Beast, and i also referenced William P. Lee, who is an Asian American author of The Eighth Promise. Do you see any issue with the wording? Maybe i should shorten the quote from Harold Evans?Parisapril (talk) 08:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

• • You characterized Harold Evans as defending Ping Fu and the book, while he was actually condemning the attack. They're two different things. Also, Red Room is not a reliable source, and the fact that you've just made an article for William Poy Lee doesn't make him a reliable source either. Further, the response of some people to a remark by Harold Evans doesn't seem to be relevant here. And let's just cut to the chase, shall we? You've posted at least one attack article against Ping Fu that has been deleted, and you've been warned, rather diplomatically (by WP administrators), about your disruptive editing. It this point, it's difficult to assume that your intentions are good. VanHarrisArt (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

What I put in originally presented both sides of view, what VanHarrisArt just did was to pick and chose, removing information that's not pro-Ping Fu. And categorize any information not pro-Ping Fu as "attack". That's called censorship. To avoid useless edit warring, I've reverted my original text until we can sort this out on this talk page.

1. Harold Evans is white knighting for Ping Fu on Daily Beast, just like VanHarrisArt is white knighting for Ping Fu on Wikipedia. The more you try to cover that fact up, the more anger it triggers, and it doesn't help anyone.
2. Lots of the emotion was built up in the Asian American community because articles such as Harold Evans's, which is not being fair to the other side. So what Evans said in his article and why it angers the Asian American community is relevant to the book controversy.
3. The Eighth Promise was created in 2007, definitely not by me. and I only referenced The Eighth Promise in my talk comment, and no where mentioned it in my text added to the page itself. I did create William P. Lee page because I noticed it was missing. Isn't that why we are here in wikipedia? filling in information? Why does VanHarrisArt look down on that? Is VanHarrisArt going to try to shut down William P. Lee too? I have lots of respect for Mr. Lee after I did my research. Someone who gave up lucrative law practice to work on China and Tibet problem definitely deserve a wikipedia page in my book. Parisapril (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Parisapril, some of your comments toward VanHarrisArt are personal attacks—please comment on the edits and not the editor. The same goes for your comments about other living people. Wikipedia isn't an Amazon message board or a comments area of an online article or blog. We take personal attacks, along with our policy on Biographies of Living Persons, quite seriously. Sourcing and WP:NPOV standards are much higher for such articles, because they are too often used by individuals trying to right great wrongs, exact personal punishment, and continue online vendettas. Take your campaign somewhere else. Note that I'm not taking any side here except for Wikipedia's. I've defended the articles of subjects here who personally I had no fondness towards. I will defend Wikipedia against people using it to further their own campaigns against people. First Light (talk) 22:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ensnared in the Trap of Memory - Explanation for inconsistencies and contradictions in Bend, Not Break: A Life in Two Worlds

[2] February 20, 2013, Ensnared in the Trap of Memory, By DIDI KIRSTEN TATLOW Ms. Ping Fu has since said that the quartering by horse was an “emotional memory,” something Ms. McCarthy explored. There may be more admissions to come. “If I have made any factual errors, I’d be more than happy to correct them in the next printing,” Ping Fu said. Perhaps what’s needed to calm the storm is for Penguin, her publisher, to appoint a fact-checker. [Romantic Realist]§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 10:45, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up lead

I cleaned up introductory paragraphs in the lead. If any of the "commenters from both China and America" who are here would like to suggest better or more accurate wording, step forward.

• Before you get too excited about my removing the "virulent attack" sentence, or the "quartering by horse" sentence, here's my rationale: Neither subject was properly developed or put in context in the lead. If they belong in the article, it's probably in the body, in the reception section.
• Regards the virulent attack: I think the more complete quotation would better address the effect on the book (not just on Ping Fu): "[T]he Geomagic CEO and her book have become the targets of a virulent attack by China’s Internet vigilantes, who have slammed her account of the country’s Mao-era troubles and lampooned the book on Amazon with a flood of one-star reviews." But, in any case I think it needs a bit of context.
• Regards the quartering by horse: The Telegraph cite in the article referring to Fang Zhouzi doesn't actually support what the article says. The cite says that Fu made the quartering by horse claim in an interview -- it doesn't say whether she made it in the book too. And it doesn't say whether Fang was refuting a claim that Ping Fu made in an interview, or in the book. So, for this to stay in the article, it needs to be tied to the book with a WP:RS. Anyone got a RS citation that actually ties Fang's criticism to the book? (The SCMP article ties his criticism to a 2010 NPR interview, so that's no help.) VanHarrisArt (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Mary McCarthy’s “Memories of a Catholic Girl” as an example on how to resolve factual controversies surrounding Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break

Mary McCarthy’s “Memories of a Catholic Girl” as an example on how to resolve factual controversies surrounding Ping Fu’s Bend, Not Break

“Memories of a Catholic Girl” entry in Wikipedia is a good example of why “Bend, Not Break” is distinguishable from “Ping Fu”, who deserves her own existence. Bend, Not Break is an inanimate book. Ping Fu is a living person.

The factual compromise taken in “Memories of a Catholic Girl” is also a good model on how to resolve the factual controversies surrounding “Bend, Not Break”. In her interview with Didi Kirsten Tatlow, Ping Fu said, she said. “I just don’t want to hurt innocent people.” In an e-mail to Ms. Tatlow, Ping Fu admitted she made mistakes about a magazine she said she helped edit, called Wugou, or “No Hook,” produced in 1979 by students at her college, then called the Jiangsu Teacher’s College (later it changed its name to Suzhou University, she said.) It was not that magazine but another one, This Generation, that was taken to a meeting in Beijing of student magazine writers from around the country, she wrote in the e-mail. “A good case that shows everyone’s memory can be wrong,” she wrote. Ping. Fu has since said that the quartering by horse was an “emotional memory,” something Ms. McCarthy explored. There may be more admissions to come. “If I have made any factual errors, I’d be more than happy to correct them in the next printing,” Ping Fu said.

“I remember we heard a nightingale together, on the boulevard near the Sacred Heart convent. But there are no nightingales in North America.” So wrote Mary McCarthy in “Memories of a Catholic Girlhood,” challenging the reliability of memory.

In the book McCarthy writes details at the end of each chapter that other family members claim do not correspond with their memory of events. She also writes where she embellished the material as well and told the story out of sequence. This is a good approach that can be taken by Ping Fu in the next (paperback) edition of Bend, Not Break. Pending the release of the Paperback edition, Bend, Not Break’s Wikipedia should have a section using Mary McCarthy’s approach for dealing with “nightingale moments” (comparable to Ping Fu’s “emotional memory”)

[Romantic Realist – HELLO, PLEASE, HELP me with Wikipedia coding.][When PING FU said HELLO, PLEASE, HELP, it worked for her. So, seriously, Hello, Please, Help me with Wikipedia coding. I am not a Coder.]§ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romantic Realist (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• How is any of this relevant whatosever to Wikipedia? Lukeno94 (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

• Romantic Realist is referring to, and quoting, a NYT article by Tatlow about Ping Fu, and the attack on her. I'm not sure what his intention is... I think he wants to make the case that Ping Fu intentionally embellished or fabricated the stories in the book. VanHarrisArt (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the 1996 book "A drifting bottle".

As has been mentioned by some, a 1996 book, "Drift bottle" by an author named Ping Fu (傅蘋) has surfaced amid the controversy regarding the book "Bend, Not Break". As stated by Qwyrxian, if it can be verified that this book is really written by the same Ping Fu, the author of "Bend, not break", then it is relevant to this page and should be mentioned. Now my question is what constitute proof that the author of this earlier book is really the Ping Fu. This book is published and accessible to general public in China. Some notable Chinese blogger has verified that multiple family photos from Ping Fu herself and family are present in the book. For me this proves, at the very least, the book is about the life of the same Ping Fu. Of course there is still the very unlikely scenario that some impostor wrote the book in Ping Fu's name, but even if that is the case, this book is still relevant to this article.

Therefor, I call for inclusion of information about this book in the article. I really see no reason for exclusion at this point.--Funmath (talk) 00:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You first need to show that mainstream Reliable Sources have covered that book, stated that it is the same Ping Fu, with that title, and also demonstrates that this is relevant enough to pass WP:DUE. After all the lies, dishonesty, sockpuppets, personal attacks, etc., I would also insist on mainstream reliable English language sources that are covering this other book (note: amazon forums, personal blogs and websites, are not "reliable sources"). Also see WP:BLP, which insists that any material on living persons must be especially "high-quality sources." First Light (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

First Light, if you are going to rely solely on mainstream western media on fact checking, that's not inline with the spirit of open information, and should I say, discriminating. Just imagine what you will think if Chinese government says "I insist on only allowing voice from mainstream reliable Chinese media". We are getting into self censorship without even realizing it, and that's a slippery road. The bottom line is that the book "Drift bottle" was published by a reliable Chinese publisher, and it's content shouldn't be hard to verify even for a English speaking wikipedian who does his or her due diligence (and enlist the help from a Chinese friend perhaps). The book is already public information, it's up to one's own effort to retrieve it. Fact checking is important, but excluding publication from well established publisher seems to have gone too far. We shouldn't punish ourselves for the misbehavior of some irresponsible individual by restricting our ability to obtain information. Funmath (talk) 04:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Utter rubbish. I'm sick to death of people screaming "censorship". This is a WP:BLP, which means all information, particularly on such a figure of controversy, has to be verifiable from WP:RS, which blogs are NOT - anyone can write whatever they want in a blog, regardless of how "notable" the blogger is. I've never seen any coverage of this book in reliable sources ANYWHERE, let alone evidence it is written by the same Ping Fu. Please read Wikipedia guidelines before making comments like this. Lukeno94 (talk) 10:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Lukeno94, I think you are missing the mark here. "Drifting bottle" is a published book, not a blog. It is available at Redacted for DMCA Violation. This book is about the author's life in US as a Chinese immigrant, and it contains photos of the author and her family members. Thus, from the content of the book, one can easily verifies it's authorship. For a book in English, do you require a mainstream media to tell you what is its contents and authorship? Is it that before a mainstream media report on its content, Wikipedia cannot have a article about the book? If for a book in English we don't have such requirement, why should we have it for a book in Chinese? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funmath (talk • contribs) 12:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Funmath (talk) 12:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not missing the point. No one has presented credible evidence this book was written by the Ping Fu that is the subject of the Wiki article. Bloggers evidence is not valid/reliable, thus we can't use it. And, yes, a book written in English must've received coverage in reliable sources to have an article - that's the entire point of Wiki guidelines, which I suggest you read (WP:RS, WP:GNG, WP:NBOOK). Lukeno94 (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• A published book is considered "source" by itself. The content of the book is supposed to be accessible to the public. As I stated, the book contains photos of the author. I don't know what doubt can be left with this. Do we still need a mainstream media to tell us the authorship of this book when it tells it by itself?Funmath (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• A published book is a source of itself, yes, but the fact of the matter is neither myself, nor any of the established editors whom are watching over these articles, have seen any proof this book exists and was written by this Ping Fu. As this Ping Fu is attracting a lot of criticism (I'm not here to debate whether she deserves it or not), we need to see good evidence that the book was written by her, else there is no point having it here. The fact that I've seen this book float up with at least two different publish dates (1996 and 2005 springs to mind), and several different names, does not convince me to its genuineness. Nor does one of the anti-Fu bloggers commenting on it. No one is insisting on Western media, but we are insisting on mainstream media(and if it is Chinese, it can't have links to the government, or the hate campaigners, else it's not a WP:RS in this instance due to bias and a COI). Lukeno94 (talk) 16:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• Lukeno94: For the purposes of this conversation only, I have personal knowledge, directly from Ping Fu, that she is the author of this book. Still, that's not WP:RS. There is one way to get an RS, though: if WP:SPA editors keep posting a link to download the book, the author might end up filing a DMCA takedown notice with the Wikimedia foundation. I've redacted the link above, and suggest it be oversighted. VanHarrisArt (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• VanHarrisArt, the link I provided wasn't a "downloadable link" of the book, it is the search result from the National Library of China online catalog. I don't know why you reported it is as a DMCA violation and had it removed. Also, I don't know why it is required to have a downloadable link of the book to make it a WP:RS. There are many books used as WP:RS without a downloadable link. 76.185.109.24 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• You're splitting hairs. The link includes a button to have an electronic copy of the book emailed to you. VanHarrisArt (talk) 00:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

First let me clarify that I am the same person as funmath. I registered this account that I'm using right now several years ago but lost track of it later. I am very lucky to be able to recover it today and thus I will abandon the account funmath. I hope this will also assure people that I am not a WP:SPA. Earlier I posted a link which is the search result from National Library of China catalog for the book "A Drifting bottle -- Journals of my life in the United States(漂流瓶 -- 旅美散记)". VanHarrisArt said the link contains a button for downloading the book. I have looked into that. I believe the button leads to a generic form for a service similar to "interlibrary loan". It is not free download of the book, but you are asked to specify a maximum amount that you want to pay for transferring the document, and your degree of urgency. Actually, since the form is generic, it is not clear whether the library will deliver the book via email at all. It is also not likely that the National Library of China would conduct such blatant violation of copyrights by providing free download of a book. Otherwise it wouldn't be simply the matter of removing the link from wikipedia talk page, but hefty lawsuit for the library. If VanHarrisArt knows better and can prove this DMCA vialation, please give more detail.

I'm sorry I didn't use the full name of the book in my previous posts, and the translation I furnish here may not be 100% accurate since I am not an expert in translation. Lukeno94, the reason that "several names" appeared for this book was perhaps due to translation. I also don't think conflicting information regarding publication date should be reason for dismissal of the evidence, otherwise all it takes to discredit a source is to have some irresponsible individuals post inaccurate information about that source. Taskshand (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like I said, the link includes a button to have an electronic copy of the book emailed to you. It does require a handling charge. VanHarrisArt (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• VanHarrisArt, did you receive a copy of the book via email through the link I provided earlier? Or you just assumed it's a DMCA violation by the look of it? I believe that form is just a generic form for document transfer services like "interlibrary loan". This kind of services are quite common in libraries in the US, and are by no main violation of copyrights. Please respect other people's posting and only claim DMCA violation if you have more than just a guess. Taskshand (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Do you have a copy of this book? VanHarrisArt (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

External Link to Wikipedia entry for Bend, Not Break

Debunking Bend, Not Break, Redacted Hate Site Link

Debunking Bend, Not Break should be added as an External Link to Wikipedia entry for Bend, Not Break. Official Website is a self-serving, promotional marketing tool used by Ping Fu. Visitors to Wikipedia entry should have access to information so that they can conduct additional research.

Lukeno94 deleted DEBUNKING BEND, NOT BREAK from EXTERNAL LINKS section in WIKIPEDIA entry for BEND, NOT BREAK. Exercising my Free Speech rights, I reversed Lukeno94’s deletion.

Please explain what is YOUR definition of UNNECCESSARY. Applying YOUR own definition, please explain why the OFFICIAL SITE is not UNNECCESARY. Moreover, please explain why the self-serving, promotional materials in PING FU’s Wikipedia entry are not UNNECCESSARY. The same definition, and the same standards for inclusion or exclusion from Wikipedia, should apply consistently in a neutral, objective manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.93.161.172 (talk) 14:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:ELNO, particularly #11. Others also apply, but any opinion site, hate site, non-reliable source advocacy site, etc. falls far short of meeting the requirements for external links. There are Wikipedia's policies, not Lukeno94, mine, or any individual's rules. First Light (talk) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• First Light is spot on - I didn't have time to provide a link to policy at that point. Also, please ensure you only edit from your account, Romantic Realist, and not from your IP. It's not my definition, it's the standard policy here. Lukeno94 (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I do not believe it is WP:outing to say that Romantic Realist has posted many messages around the web (and possibly here too) pointing out that he's a member of the California Bar Association. A lawyer. As such, he surely understands that the WP terms of use take precedence over his "Free Speech rights." While I'm all for civility, providing detailed explanations and wikilinks to a person who is being intentionally obtuse, and is openly practicing W:Advocacy, seems like an exercise in futility. I redacted the link to the site, per WP:BLPEL. VanHarrisArt (talk) 18:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

News articles in Chinese from reputable news media for inclusion in Wikipedia entry for Bend, Not Break, in Reference section

News articles in Chinese from reputable news media for inclusion in Wikipedia entry for Bend, Not Break, in Reference section

VAN HARRIS ART’S COMMENT: 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) 15:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

One more, the official response from her university

http://news.sohu.com/20130612/n378638974.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.212.169 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

• sohu is not a reliable source. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
  • http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1260947/chinese-college-threatens-libel-suit-against-us-author-ping-fu FrankDev (talk) 12:14, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing issue

Consumer reaction has varied, with the book's Amazon rating decreasing dramatically after controversy over the book's content gained media attention.[11]

I don't see how this statement is supported by the source given. Is it meant to be supported by citation 12 instead? Please review or I will remove it. Viriditas (talk) 08:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)