欢迎! 登陆 注册


Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4558 查看)

February 10, 2013 06:14PM
【Note: The PDF file is more reader-friendly. Click the title to open it.】

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature
──An Open Letter to Nature (Part XIII)

Xin Ge, Ph. D.

Columbia, SC, USA

So far, in this serial open letter, I have told the stories about Fang’s vicious attacks on Dr. Wu Bolin (Part I and Part V), Drs. Liu Huajie and Wu Guosheng (Part V), Dr. Mae-Wan Ho (Part VI), Drs. Chang Zhijie and Fu Xinyuan (Part XII); his fraudulent fights against Prof. Liu Bing (Part VII), Mr. Ke Zhiyang (Part VI), Dr. Qiu Xiaoqing (Part IX), and Dr. Wei Yuquan (Part XI), against the environmentalists (Part VIII), and against traditional Chinese medicine (Part IV). I have also exposed his wicked tricks of “news laundering” (Part VIII) and self-promotion (Part V); his secret relation with bogus medicines (Part IV) and Hanxin scandal (Part X), and his effort on covering up the scandal by attacking Mr. Zuo Zhijian and 21st Century Business Herald (Part X). Not only those. Fang’s ulterior ties to some of the most fraudulent people in China’s science and intellectual communities, a fake U. S. Ph. D. Yuan Yue (Part II), a fake “HHMI investigator” He Shigang (Part IX), a self-admitted plagiarizer Zhang Boting (Part VIII), a “gigantic cheater in 1,000 Talents Plan” Pan Haidong (Part II)), a sino-American double agent Rao Yi (Part II)), a pseudoscientist He Zuoxiu (Part II)), have also been revealed.

However, if you think that these are all the dirty secrets Fang has, and all the hateful things he has done, you would be completely wrong. These dirty secrets and hateful things are barely the tip of Fang’s evilness. In this part, we’ll take a look at this villain from a totally different angle: How would this “fraud buster” behave when his own frauds are busted?

A Thief Couple

Fang Zhouzi and his wife Liu Juhua

Since Fang won his lawsuit against Shanghai Federation of Social Sciences, the owner of Exploration and Free Views, in 2004[1]; and Chinese government’s support to him, through its propaganda machines, became increasingly strong and obvious[2], almost none of China’s media dared to publish negative reports on him. The thing changed dramatically after Fang was hammered in Beijing in 2010, not only because his history of framing Dr. Xiao Chuanguo became well-known[3]; but also because his history of plagiarism was dug up. In less than three months, from mid-October to the end of 2010, at least ten plagiarism cases committed by Fang were identified[4]. In early December, 2010, a website, China Academic Integrity Review (AIR-China), was set up “to safeguard Chinese scholars’ human dignity, academic reputation, and legal rights from harassment, intimidation, threats, and terror” by Fang and his gangsters[5]. Since then, Fang’s evilness, in every aspect, has been documented and exposed on the internet. On Jan. 1, 2011, AIR-China made its first guilty verdict on Fang’s plagiarism[6]. It would make four more such verdicts in a period of a little more than three months[7]. With the help of print news media, by the end of March, 2011, the fact that “Fang is a habitual stealer” had been known to most Chinese internet users[8].

The funny thing is, facing mountainous accusations of plagiarism, Fang has never, ever, defended himself by direct refutation. As a matter of fact, even his retaliatory and slandering remarks on his accusers sounded pale and feeble. What he did was to “challenge official support of traditional Chinese medicine” to divert people’s attention to his scandals. However, fraud fighter Fang’s cowardice suddenly disappeared in the end of April, 2011, when his wife’s plagiarism became national news.

On April 27, 2011, Legal Weekly reported, based on the studies conducted mainly by members of AIR-China, that Fang’s wife, Liu Juhua, committed plagiarism in her Master’s degree thesis in 2002, in which, more than 90% of the thesis was directly copied from others sources, and about one half of these copied text was without any attributions[9].

A comparison between Liu Juhua’s thesis and its sources
The paragraphs in the left column are from Liu’s thesis, the ones in the right are supposedly Liu’s sources. The same color indicates the wordings are identical or nearly identical. Please note that no attributions were given to any of these sources by Liu Juhua. For a complete comparison, please see note[9].

Initially, Fang seemed trying to separate himself from his infamous wife, saying “my wife wasn’t my wife when she was writing her thesis, she and I had no relationship. Otherwise, I would have checked her thesis with the strictest international standard.”[10] However, right after Liu Juhua wrote the notorious and combative response, No Shame At All[11], Fang began fighting back like a mad dog.

In fact, Fang soon found that Liu’s scandal was a perfect opportunity for him to show the world that the ruthless, merciless, cold-blooded fraud fighter does have his humane side, i.e. he dares to fight for his wife, no matter how fraudulent she had been. Also, Fang soon realized that Liu’s scandal was a godsend gift to him to distract the attention on his own scandals. Therefore, Fang tried, on purpose, to hype the news, constantly crying “my enemies couldn’t defeat me, so they tried to kidnap my wife,” or something like that[12].

On the other hand, as we already knew, Fang’s rise to power and influence in Chinese society in larger part has been the result of Liu’s manipulation. Also, Fang had been living in Liu’s dormitory since they got married. That’s why Fang accused his accusers that they wanted to destroy his livelihood rather than hurt his reputation by exposing Liu’s plagiarism[13], because the scandal would cost not only Liu’s Master’s degree, but also her job in Xinhua News Agency, which could lead to Fang’s homelessness.

As a result of above considerations, Fang launched an all-out, high-profile retaliatory campaign: flatly denying Liu’s plagiarism; presumptuously threatening Liu’s alma mater as well as Chinese society that if Liu was punished, he would make many other people pay; violently attack the people involved in the exposure of the scandal, from the whistleblowers to news reporters, even the onlookers. Now, let’s take a look at what Fang has been doing.

A Life-saving Straw

Liu’s scandal was first exposed on the internet on March 1, 2011. The complete data was posted online on April 25, 2011[14]. However, neither Liu nor Fang responded directly to the allegations before Legal Weekly’s report on April 27, which clearly indicates that they were attempting to adopt “the last strategy of all the imposters when their frauds are brought to light,” play dumb, remain silent, and pretend nothing has happened. However, the report by Legal Weekly made the strategy not only useless, but backfiring: keeping remaining silent would mean to the society they were admitting guilty. So, after the publication of Legal Weekly’s report, Fang immediately responded with the following post, which he would repost at least 7 more times:

“Guo Guosong, the executive chief editor of Legal Weekly, uses public power to revenge personal enemy, targeting at my wife with Fang expert Yi Ming’s black materials to cook up ‘A Comprehensive Investigation on the Alleged Plagiarism Committed by Fang Zhouzi’s Wife,’ his next step might be an investigation on Fang Zhouzi’s ancestors in 18 generations. Beating up an old human rights activist, bullying a whistleblower’s wife, that’s the heroic behavior of the executive chief editor of Legal Weekly. According to Yi Ming’s study, the left (my wife’s Master’s thesis) plagiarized the right.”[15]

Admitted, Fang did pick up an error in “Yi Ming’s study.” Unfortunately, it was the only one in the 74-pages document[9]. The funny thing is, that only error turned out to be one of the most damaging evidences against Fang and Liu: it was discovered by a person two days ago, April 25, on Dr. Liao Junlin’s blog, but it was corrected by another person in about one hour── Liu’s sentence was almost completely plagiarized from another source[16]. In other words, when Fang showed his evidence to the world on April 27, 2011, that his wife was framed by “Yi Ming’s study,” he already knew that his evidence had been falsified. But he used it anyway to discredit the whistleblowers, because that was the only straw he could find. As a matter of fact, intentionally using false evidence has been Fang’s primary trick to fool Chinese people, as well as British people.

Selective Blindness: The sequence of actions
On April 25, 2011, at 12:05, Dr. Liao Junlin posted the The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis on his blog (A). At 13:03, an anonymous person left a message, pointing out an error in the document (cool smiley. At 14:16, another anonymous person corrected the error, giving a correct source (C), which had a perfect match to Liu’s sentence (see the golden box in C). Two days later, on April 27, 2011, at 15:45, Fang ignored the entire document (A) which has more than 140 undisputable evidences, ignored the corrected error (C), but selectively picked the original error (cool smiley, and posted it on his blog to demonstrate his wife was wronged.
(Liu’s sentence in the question was: “In 1995, Bertelsmann AG founded Shanghai Bertelsmann Culture Industry Co., Ltd., and its subsidiary Bertelsmann Book Club has now become China's largest book club.” Liu only inserted “Bertelsmann AG” (the characters in black in the inset of C) in the original sentence, which was published online on Oct. 24, 2001, seven months before Liu’s thesis was finished.)

In fact, even Fang’s followers didn’t believe that Fang’s straw, even if it had been a straw, could save Fang’s life. On May 2, 2011, one of Fang’s followers, BerkeleyWolf, posted the link to the webpage of The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis on the forum of the New Threads, and wrote:

“Old Fang, put your hand on your heart, do you really think that Liu Juhua’s thesis is not plagiarism?”

Fang reposted the erroneous image and replied:

“Give you a Yi Ming’s comparison. Don’t use a psychopath’s nonsense to question me.”


“The page you posted is really not [plagiarism]. But please explain page 49.”


“This one page is enough to demonstrate his craziness, why do I need to look at other pages? If I want to find the problems in my wife’s thesis, I can do it myself. Why do I need to follow a psychopath?”[17]

Yes, Fang can use a single unexplainable phenomenon as an evidence to convict a scientist for fraud (such as what he did to Dr. Wei Yuquan), and he can also use a single little mistake to invalidate mountains of solid evidence so he could exonerate his wife. In fact, solitary evidences and isolated examples are the most powerful weapons Fang has been using to fool Chinese people, as well as British people.

The Magical Notes

Fang’s second defense for Liu’s plagiarism was: she used notes in her thesis. In response to a post from one of his followers, saying that Liu’s thesis contained many notes, Fang wrote:

“In fact, they [the accusers] found the original articles according to the notes [in my wife’s thesis]. However, Legal Weekly said: ‘One of the major functions of the notes was to hide plagiarism.’ So, if you put notes, they are the evidence of plagiarism.”[18]

Less than one hour later, Fang commented again:

“Adding notes without using his/her own language to paraphrase is a common problem among Chinese students, which is caused by the lack of education and training in academic norms. In recent years, I have been stressing this point, reiterating it when giving seminars to students. However, I have never laid too much blame on student’s degree theses for it. Otherwise, almost every degree thesis could be considered plagiarism.”[19]

So, according to Fang, Liu’s problem was not stealing other people’s wordings, sentences, ideas, rather, her problem was merely that she didn’t do the citations right. The fact is, Ms. Liu’s thesis has 159 paragraphs, and among them, 148 contain copied sentences. And Liu only used 81 notes, which appeared in 70 paragraphs, to acknowledge her sources. In other words, there are 78 paragraphs in Liu’s thesis, nearly one half of the entire document, containing copied sentences without any attribution. And Fang selectively ignore the fact.

On the other hand, the conclusion that “one of the major functions of the notes was to hide plagiarism” was drawn from many evidences: most of Liu’s notes were not associated with quotation marks, and most of them are located at the ends of paragraphs. Since many paragraphs contain copied sentences from multiple sources, thus it is logical to say that Liu used one noted source to conceal other plagiarisms[20].

In fact, Fang has been repeatedly accusing other people of plagiarism even though the accused had used notes to acknowledge their sources. For example, in an article, published in 2002 on the New Threads, attacking Dr. Wang Mingming, a professor at Peking University, Fang wrote:

“Yes, if you acknowledged the sources, it indicates that you didn’t plagiarize the content. However, if you didn’t paraphrase, then it still constitutes plagiarizing wordings. You should either use your own language to rewrite, or use quotation marks to indicate they are direct quotations (which cannot be used excessively.)”[21]

In 2003, in an article attacking academician Wu Rukang, Fang wrote:

“If you noted the sources of your data, but you didn’t use your own language to do the proper rewriting, paraphrasing, or didn’t use quotation marks to quote the words you copied directly, then it is the same as plagiarism.”[22]

In 2005, Fang commented on the plagiarism allegation against Zhou Yezhong, a professor at Wuhan University:

“Even if the sources were acknowledged, such verbatim copying or copying with little modification still should be considered plagiarism.”[23]

In 2008, Fang accused Professor Sun Liping at Tsinghua University of plagiarizing him:

“Such a large quantity of direct copying, even if you had cited the source, it still should be considered plagiarism.”[24]

The fact is, Liu rarely used quotation marks in her thesis when “quoting” other people, and she almost never paraphrasing what she cited. So why doesn’t Liu’s action constitute, or should not be considered, plagiarism? Of course, the answer is simple: because Liu Juhua is Fang Zhouzi’s wife.

The funniest thing is, in 2004, Fang wrote an article, Only a Mentally Retarded Advocates Plagiarism Like That, criticizing the viewpoint that plagiarism committed by high school students was “caused by the lack of education and training in academic norms:”

“Lack of education and misunderstanding can be used as a reason for sympathizing with plagiarists, but they cannot be used as an excuse for the plagiarism actions. A crime committed by a legal illiterate is still a crime, criminal law still applies. Furthermore, the misunderstanding about plagiarism is normally limited to not knowing how to cite individual sentences. Even an elementary school student knows it is wrong to copy other people’s entire articles.”[25]

It seems that the Mentally Accelerated Fang in 2004 had already prepared to slap the Mentally Retarded Fang in 2011 in his face.

In 2003, Fang claimed:

“Every plagiarizer knows that I abhor fraud, I am merciless to those who committed fraud.”[26]

Of course Fang does not hate every plagiarizer, especially when that thief happens to be his wife, or himself.

In 2007, Fang expounded the harm of academic misconduct:

“Academic misconduct violates academic norms, results in unfair competition in research resources and academic status. If a person can make academic achievements, gain academic reputation, occupy higher academic position by plagiarizing, fabricating, or exaggerating, then honest people will not be able to compete with fakers.”[27]

Obviously Fang knows exactly the advantage of committing fraud. By stealing other people’s works, his wife graduated from a prestigious graduate school, received an acclaimed degree, got hired by one of the top employers in China, and obtained state-subsidized housing. Without cheating, she would have none of those, and she, as well as Fang, would have been nobodies.

Shameless and Ruthless Retaliations

Even though Fang used every trick he could think of to defend for his wife’s plagiarism, the evidence against his wife was too compelling to be dismissed──even Fang’s hardcore followers dared not to deny the fact. So the more Fang talked, the more people doubted about his honesty. As mentioned above, Liu’s case had triple impacts on Fang, so Fang had to win the battle. How? By retaliation.

Less than 4 minutes after posting his wife’s No Shame At All on his blog, Fang announced that he had just convicted a plagiarizer:

“Since Caixin’s reporter Zhao Hejuan gloated over my wife’s Master’s thesis ‘suspected of plagiarism,’ I will make an exception for not busting Master’s theses. Zhao’s Master’s thesis has 68 notes, 66 of them are the citations of classical Chinese (mainly Collected Works of Zhang Zai), and no citations at all on previous studies. If Zhao Hejuan didn’t pioneer Zhang Zai Studies by herself, then [her thesis] is 100% plagiarism, which can be concluded without the standard set by Yi Ming and Legal Weekly.”[28]

Yes, without any evidence, purely based on “reasoning,” Fang could convict, with 100% confidence, a plagiarizer. So, why did Fang pick on Ms. Zhao? Because she had commented on Legal Weekly’s report by saying:

“Ah, even the chairman of Liu Juhua’s Master’s thesis defense committee came out and spoke?”[29]

About 9 hours after convicting Ms. Zhao Hejuan, Fang issued another warrant:

“I was not interested in unpublished Master’s degree theses, especially those in humanities. In the past few years, I have been stressing that students should be treated leniently. However, I am now very interested in the degree theses of those journalists who are making a fuss over my wife’s suspected plagiarism in her Master’s thesis. Soliciting the theses of Sun Haifeng, vice chairman in the department of Communication Studies at Shenzhen University; Li Meng, rumor spreading reporter of Democracy and Legal System magazine; and Zhang Xilei, the chief reporter of Zhengzhou Evening News.”[30]

The fact is, Fang not only has busted master’s degree students, he also has busted undergraduate students, high school students, even middle school student. For example, in 2004, Fang and his gangsters attacked an undergraduate student, Mr. Zhu Han, of Nanjing University, accusing him of nepotism, because he published 6 SCI papers with his father, a professor at Beijing Normal University. According to Fang, the only reason Mr. Zhu Han’s name was on these papers was because his father wanted to promote his son[31]. Fang even set up a special collection, named “Nanjing University Zhu Han Incidence,” in his “Put On Record” on his New Threads. On August 28, 2010, one day before being hammered in Beijing, Fang fiercely attacked a high school student on his microblog, accusing him of plagiarism, “not only without talent, without knowledge, but also without virtue.”[32]. Just a few months before the outbreak of Liu Juhua scandal, Fang wrote an article attacking an American college student, Ms. Ye Fei, accusing her of cheating Chinese people in the name of American President[33]. The funniest thing was, on May 1, 2011, three days after Fang reiterated his “[master’s degree] students should be treated leniently,” Fang attacked a middle school student on his microblog[34]. So, Fang has been lying, constantly, about everything.

Fang’s Law: From an old man to a young girl, from a nonagenarian to a teenager, any person can be attacked by Fang, but Fang and his wife cannot be criticized by anybody
From left to right: Academician Shen Panwen, born in 1916, was scolded by Fang as an “old fool” in 2009[35]; Ms. Ye Fei, a 23 years old student at Syracuse University, was accused by Fang of bragging and cheating Chinese in 2010; Mr. Sun Jiancai, borne in 1991, the winner of 2010 Fudan University Liberal Arts Cup Grand Prix in Humanities, was accused by Fang of plagiarism in 2010; Huang Yibo, a middle school student, was accused of cheating by Fang in 2011.

The question is, what did the three people Fang named in his post do which forced Fang to break his own leniency rule? The answer is, what reporter Li Meng did was, after reposting the title and link of the news about Liu Juhua’s scandal, he made the following comment:

“Fang claims that he is a person suffering from ‘mysophobia,’ then how could he tolerate such an unclean person and sleep with her? Is it possible that he himself is not so clean? He has to give us an explanation.”[36]

One day later, on Fang’s quibbling that a master’s degree student needs not to write a thesis, and when his wife wrote her thesis, the academic standard was very vague, Li Meng commented:

“It’s lucky that his wife didn’t study for a doctoral degree. Otherwise, even a doctor needs not to write a dissertation, or if she wrote, there won’t be plagiarism. Didn’t Fang Zhouzi bust frauds ten years ago? What vague, only when your wife was involved, it became vague.”[37]

The reason reporter Zhang Xilei was chased by Fang was because he made two comments. The first one was, when reposting the news of Liu’s plagiarism, he wrote:

“Does the opportunity for Fang Zhouzi to place righteousness before family come?”[38]

The second one, commenting on Liu’s No Shame At All:

“I bet Liu Juhua didn’t think she would get her fame in this way.”[39]

Fortunately, neither Mr. Li Meng nor Mr. Zhang Xilei has a degree higher than a bachelor’s, so they don’t have degree theses[40]. Otherwise, they would have been for sure convicted by Fang as plagiarizers, just like Ms. Zhao Hejuan had been. (The story about Sun Haifeng will be told in next part of this letter.)

Fang’s Law: If you criticize me or my wife, I will hunt you down
After making some comments on Liu Juhua scandal, the above three journalists were chased by Fang. From left: Li Meng of Democracy and Legal System magazine; Zhao Hejuan of Caixin magazine; and Zhang Xilei, of Zhengzhou Evening News.

Of course the people Fang hated the most were those who blew the whistles, and the journalists who actually reported the scandal. This is how Fang instigated his followers to attack the journalists:

“Check Legal Weekly reporter Song Xuepeng and Li Xiuqing’s degree theses. It seems that Guo Guosong hasn’t written a thesis.”[41]

This is how Fang tried to have Guo Guosong, the executive chief editor of Legal Weekly, fired:

“I have exposed frauds for eleven years, dealt with more than a thousand cases, none of them was motivated by personal reason. Now, for my wife’s honor, I revenge my personal feud in the name of public interest. I swear if Guo Guosong still stays with Legal Weekly from now on, I’ll investigate Legal Daily’s leaders. If Guo Guosong goes to other medium, I’ll investigate the leaders of that medium. If any media leader thinks Guo Guosong is a qualified journalist, and himself is clean whole his life, then he can hire him.”[42]

This is how Fang threatened the family members of the whistleblowers and the reporters:

“Guo Guosong, Ge Xin (Yi Ming), Liao Junlin (Xun Zheng), Song Xuepeng, Li Xiuqing, these people either don’t have families, or they don’t love their families, or they believe other people won’t be like themselves without a moral bottom line, therefore they don’t worry about other people’s retaliation against their families. ”[43]

This is how Fang threatened Chinese society:

“If my wife gets into trouble with her Master’s degree diploma, then I will devote the rest of my life to the task of cleaning China’s Master’s and Doctor’s degree diplomas, starting from the people who are involved in this case.”[44]

This is how Fang threatened Chinese society 8 months after the outbreak of the scandal:

“I don’t fight pigs, I kill them. Those pigs who are still trying to push my wife with their snouts after I issued a stern warning deserve even more being killed. Even though it will cost my whole life to kill these pigs, even though my whole body will be spattered in their blood. ”[45]

Is this thug the one Nature truly wants to promote? Why?


[1] In early 2003, journal Exploration and Free Views published 3 serial articles criticizing Fang Zhouzi. Fang sued Shanghai Federation of Social Sciences, the sponsor of the journal, in late August or early September of that year. He lost in the primary court, but the appellate court ordered the defendant to apologize to Fang for using improper words in the articles. For detail about the case, see Yi Ming. The Wild Crane Case. (亦明:《 打架斗士方舟子之野鹤篇》).

[2] Before October, 2004, Fang was mainly active on the internet, especially on his New Threads. Since then, Fang was promoted by China’s leading media such as CCTV and Xinhua News Agency, and at one point he had four columns in Chinese newspapers or magazine simultaneously. For detailed analysis of Fang’s background, see Yi Ming. The Termination of the Evil Alliance between Fang Zhouzi and China Youth Daily, Part III. The Secretive Master: Propaganda Department of the CPC Central Committee. (亦明:《方舟子与〈中国青年报〉邪恶同盟的终结•背后的主子:中宣部》).

[3] On Sept, 21, 2010, the day Dr. Xiao Chuanguo was arrested by Chinese authority, I posted my book, The Feud between Drs. Fang Zhouzi and Xiao Chuanguo (《方舟子陷害肖传国始末》), online. Based upon this book, the website of Guang Ming Daily, the largest newspaper in China for intellectuals, made a webpage, the title was: Reflections on Fang and Xiao’s Ten Year Bloody Hatred. (《方肖十年血仇反思录》).

[4] Yi Ming. The Database of Dr. Fang's Plagiarism.

[5] China Academic Integrity Review. About Us.

[6] China Academic Integrity Review. The Verdict No. 1.

[7] China Academic Integrity Review. The Collection of the Verdicts.

[8] Before 2010, Fang had been known to some Chinese people as a plagiarizer since 2001. On October 18, 2010, I formally reported to Michigan State University that Fang plagiarized one of his professors while he was a graduate student of MSU in 1995. On Feb. 25, 2011, Shenzhen Economic Daily reported another Fang’s plagiarism case, this time, a stealing committed in 2002 against Harvard Professor Stephen Jay Gould and Canadian mathematician Alexander Keewatin Dewdney. (Zheng Jianyang. Famous Fraud Fighter Fang Zhouzi Was Exposed Stealing Others’ Works. 郑健阳:《“打假”名人方舟子被曝剽窃他人著作》). This was the first time a print medium reported such a new on Fang. On March 30, 2011, Legal Weekly used four full pages to publish A Comprehensive Investigation on the Alleged Plagiarism Committed by Fang Zhouzi. (《方舟子涉嫌抄袭总调查》). These reports were widely transmitted in China’s internet portals.

[9] Yi Ming, et al. The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis. (First posted online on April 25, 2011. 《中国社会科学院研究生院刘菊花硕士学位论文涉嫌抄袭资料大全》). The document has since been revised and translated into English: The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis). An image version of the document is here: 《刘菊花抄袭对比图片》.The news was reported by Legal Weekly on April 27, 2011. (Song Xuepeng. Fang Zhouzi’s Backyard On Fire: Wife’s Master’s Thesis Suspected of Plagiarism. 宋学鹏:《方舟子后院起火:妻子硕士论文涉嫌抄袭》, 2011年4月27日《法治周末》). Two days later, China Daily, China’s largest English newspaper, reported the news. (Wang Jingqiong. Science Cop's Wife Called Plagiarizer. China Daily, April 29, 2011.)

[10] Fang’s original Chinese: “我妻子写学位论文时还不是我的妻子,跟我更没关系,不然我就用最严格的国际标准帮她把把关。” (See: 2011-4-27 20:23).

[11] Liu Juhua’s No Shame At All was published on both New Threads (XYS20110428, 《问心无愧》) and Fang’s blog at sina.com (《问心无愧》) under the name of “Fang Zhouzi’s wife” (“方舟子妻”). In the article, Liu said she didn’t realize she was committing plagiarism when she wrote her thesis (“当时也没觉得自己是抄袭”), which of course was a lie. On July 18, 2001, 10 months before she finished her thesis, Liu published a review on her future husband’s book, Ulcer: Facing China’s Academic Corruption, in Worker’s Daily. (《读〈溃疡——直面中国学术腐败〉》). In the article, she laughed at her teachers’ plagiarism: “Students, the purest population, know very well the secret of their teachers’ publications, scissors plus glue.” (“‘剪刀加浆糊’是学生们———一个最纯洁的群体———熟知的老师出书秘诀”). In No Shame At All, Liu also called Legal Weekly a “Smearing Fang newspaper” (“方黑报纸《法治周末》”), the whistleblowers lowly dogs (“骨头已经抛给你们了,方学家和方黑们,去挖吧——谨以此表达我深深的怜悯之情”). Even professor Chen Lidan, the chairman of her Master’s thesis defense committee, who reported the case to the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, was mocked. (“那些‘不抄’的老师别再对自己的那么多学生深表不满,还要在9年之后把其中的一个举报一下。”). Liu’s article received many bad comments, even the readers of the New Threads expressed their dismay, disdain, and disappointment. (See: “totally disappointed by the new post ‘问心无愧’,” “的确不应该有任何高调回应,” “文人至少知道羞耻。还《问心无愧》呢!”) Also see: 《刘菊花确实是问心无愧》, 《解读方舟子妻刘菊花泼文问心无愧》.

[12] Fang’s original Chinese: “玩打不过人家就绑架别人妻子要挟的下三滥了?” (See: 2011-5-3 15:04). “打人打不过就去攻击别人的妻子、朋友,……” (See: 2011-5-30 13:58).

[13] Fang’s original Chinese: “他们是到处告状的,告到社科院,告到新华社,目的就是想让我妻子得到惩罚,给我的生活带来麻烦。” (Forum of the New Threads, May 3, 2011.)

[14] For details about the process of compilation and publication of the document, please see the preface of The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis.

[15] Fang’s original Chinese: “《法治周 末》执行总编郭国松公报私仇,又把气出在我妻子身上,用‘方学家’亦明的黑材料搞‘方舟子妻子涉嫌抄袭总调查’,接下去可能要搞方舟子祖宗18代调查。殴 打维权老人,欺负揭假人妻子,这就是《法治周末》执行总编的英雄行为。据亦明的调查,左边的(我妻子的硕士论文)据说抄了右边的。” (See: 2011-4-27 15:45. Fang reposted the post at 2011-4-27 16:21, 2011-4-27 18:52, 2011-4-27 19:46, 2011-4-27 19:59, 2011-4-27 20:23, 2011-4-28 20:42, 2011-12-27 19:56.)

[16] At 13:03 on April 25, 2011, an anonymous person left a comment (the 5th comment) on Dr. Liao Junlin (Xun Zheng)’s post, The Most Notorious Plagiarism in History: Chinese Academy of Social Sciences Liu Juhua’s Master’s Thesis. (寻正:《史上最恶劣的剽窃——中国社会科学院刘菊花的硕士论文》), in which the error was pointed out. At14:16, another anonymous person responded to the 5th comment by giving the source which matched Liu’s sentence perfectly (the 9th comment).

[17] The original Chinese of the exchange:

BerkeleyWolf: “老方,你摸摸自己的心,你真的不觉的刘菊花的论文有抄袭么?
Fang: “给你看一个亦明比对的满眼的红字。别拿精神病患者的胡言乱语来问我
BerkeleyWolf: “你贴的这页的确不是抄袭,但是请你解释一下49页。
Fang: “这一页已足以证明其疯狂,我又何必要再去看其他?要找我妻子论文的问题我自己会找,用得着跟在一个精神病患者的后面?

[18] Fang’s original Chinese: “实际上他们是根据标注找来原文比对的。但《法治周末》说了:‘注释的主要功能之一就是用来掩盖抄袭痕迹。’注了更是抄。”(See: 2011-4-27 18:52).

[19] Fang’s original Chinese: “加注释但没有用自己语言做转述,这是中国学生的通病,是因为缺乏学术规范教育和训练,近年来我一直在强调这一点,给学生做讲座时反复提到,但从没有因此去苛责学生的学位论文,否则中国几乎所有学位论文都可以说有抄袭。” (See: 2011-4-27 19:46).

[20] Please see the preface of The Complete Analysis and Comparison of the Plagiarism in Liu Juhua’s Master’s Degree Thesis for detailed analyses.

[21] Fang’s original Chinese: “没错,注明出处,只能说没有剽窃内容,不做改写,仍然还是剽窃文字:要么用自己的语言改写,要么用引号表示是直接引用(引用也不能过多)。” Fang Zhouzi. It Is Even Easier Now to Be a Professor at PKU. XYS20020118. (方舟子:《现在的北大教授更不难当》, XYS20020118).

[22] Fang’s original Chinese: “即使注明了资料出处,而没有对引用资料的部分用自己的语言做恰当的改写、复述,对照抄部分没有用引号括起来表明是引言,那么同样构成抄袭。” Fang Zhouzi. An Academician also Acted Like Wang Mingming. XYS20030921. (方舟子:《科学院院士也当“王铭铭”》, XYS20030921).

[23] Fang’s original Chinese: “即使注明了出处,但是原文照抄或仅有少许改动,同样是剽窃。” Fang Zhouzi. Comment on “Who Should Be Responsible for Constitutional Scholar’s Plagiarism?” XYS20051130. (《谁该为宪法学家“剽窃”负责?》, XYS20051130).

[24] Fang’s original Chinese: “如此大面积的照抄照搬,即使注明了出处也有剽窃之嫌。” Fang Zhouzi. The Plagiarism Committed by Professor Sun Liping at Tsinghua University. XYS20080219. (方舟子:《清华大学教授孙立平之剽窃》, XYS20080219).

[25] Fang’s original Chinese: “教育不够、认识有误可以成为同情抄袭者的一个理由,却不是为抄袭行为开脱的借口。‘法盲’犯罪同样是犯罪,并不就使刑法失效。何况,人们在抄袭问题上的错误认识,往往仅限于不知道对个别语句的引用也应该注明,至于不该全文照抄别人的文章,连小学生也知其非。” Fang Zhouzi. Only a Mentally Retarded Person Advocates Plagiarism Like That. (方舟子:《如此鼓吹抄袭才叫弱智》, XYS20040629).

[26] Fang’s original Chinese: “剽窃者都是知道我痛恨造假、对造假者毫不留情的。” Fang Zhouzi. I Become a Victim of Repeated Plagiarism. XYS20030822. (方舟子:《一再剽窃到了我的头上》, XYS20030822).

[27] Fang’s original Chinese: “学术不端行为违反学术规范,在科研资源、学术地位方面造成不正当竞争。如果靠剽窃、捏造数据、捏造学术履历就能制造出学术成果、获得学术声誉、占据比较高的学术地位,那么脚踏实地认认真真搞科研的人,是竞争不过造假者的。” Fang Zhouzi. How to Avoid Misconduct. XYS20070214. (方舟子:《如何避免学术不端行为》, XYS20070214).

[28] Fang’s original Chinese: “既然财新记者赵何娟对我妻子硕士论文‘涉嫌抄袭’幸灾乐祸,我就对硕士论文破例‘洁癖’一回。赵的硕士论文共 68条注释,66条都是古文引文出处(主要是张载文集),对前人有关研究没有任何引用。如果赵何娟不是以一人之力开创了张载研究,就是百分之百的剽窃,不必用到亦明、法治周末的鉴定标准即可判定”. (See: 2011-4-28 07:58).

[29] Zhao’s original Chinese: “啊,刘菊花当年硕士论文答辩委员会主席都出来说话了啊?” (See: 2011-4-27 14:43).

[30] Fang’s original Chinese: “本来我对查没有发表的硕士学位论文、特别是文科论文毫无兴趣,几年来我一直在强调,对学生要宽容。但是我现在对查那些鼓噪我妻子硕士论文“涉嫌抄袭”的媒体人的学位论文很有兴趣。征求深圳大学新闻系副主任孙海峰、民主与法制造谣记者李蒙和郑州晚报首席记者张锡磊的论文。” (See: 2011-4-28 17:08).

[31] Fang’s original Chinese: “中国科技界子承父业的多得是,但是像朱氏父子这样从儿子还是个本科生时就肆无忌惮地加以提携的,还是闻所未闻的。如果其他教授、研究员知道了内幕,也如法炮制提携自己的子女,岂不又是一种学术腐败,其他学子只能怪自己没有一个教授老爹。” (《发表8篇SCI论文 美众多名校争录南大学子朱涵(附方舟子、雨凡、XJ评论)》, XYS20040304). Fang established the fold of “Nanjing University Zhu Han’s Incidence” ( “南京大学朱涵事件”) on March 31, 2004.

[32] Fang’s original Chinese: “‘国学天才’的《祭──纪念国父逝世八十五周年》则是剽窃自秦孝仪《蒋公纪念歌》……不仅无才无学,还无德。” (See: 2010-8-28 04:08). Note: Fang attacked the student, Mr. Sun Jiancai, in at least 3 more posts in less than one hour: 2010-8-28 04:17, 2010-8-28 04:23, 2010-8-28 04:55.

[33] Fang’s original Chinese: “以‘总统’的名义吓唬人,” “在互联网的时代想要继续利用国内外信息的不对称糊弄国人,已经越来越难了,却总还时不时地有人要冒险一试,我们仍需时刻警惕。” Fang Zhouzi. Bluffing in the Name of American President. Xinhua Daily Telegraph, Dec. 17, 2010. (方舟子:《以“总统”的名义吓唬人》,2010年12月17日《新华每日电讯》).

[34] Fang commented on a piece of news that the chief captain of Chinese Young Pioneers Wuhan Corps, Huang Yibo, has five bars in his badge: “According to Chinese Young Pioneers Prospectus, Chinese Young Pioneers only has Brigade, Squadron, and Squad. It seems this Wuhan Corps is an illegal organization.” (“根据《中国少年先锋队章程》,少先队只设大、中、小队三级组织。看来这个武汉总队是非法组织。”) (See: 2011-5-1 11:44).

[35] Fang’s original Chinese: “这个老院士是不是老糊涂了?” (Forum of the New Threads, March 4, 2009). The news was reported by China Youth Daily on July 30, 2009. Fang wrote an article, Reply to “the Oldest Blogger” Academician Shen Panwen, to respond (《答“最高龄博主”申泮文院士》), continued to accusing Shen of “pretending to understand” (“不懂装懂”).

[36] Li Meng’s original Chinese: “【法治周末:@方舟子妻子被曝硕士论文涉嫌抄袭】[t.cn]方舟子自称是‘一个对真相有洁癖的人’,难道他的枕边人如此不‘洁’,他还能忍受?还是他自己其实也没有多干净?总得给大家一个说法吧?” (See: 2011-4-27 19:16).

[37] Li Meng’s original Chinese:“幸亏他老婆没读到博士,否则博士也没必要写论文了,写了论文也不算抄袭。十年前难道方舟子没有打假吗?什么‘模糊’,到你老婆这里就可以模糊。” (See: 2011-4-28 11:24).

[38] Zhang Xilei’s original Chinese: “方舟子大义灭亲的机会来了?” (See: 2011-4-28 16:06).

[39] Zhang Xilei’s original Chinese: “刘菊花想不到会以这种方式出名吧”. (See: 2011-4-28 16:14).

[40] Li Meng said he doesn’t have a master’s degree. (See: 2011-4-28 20:58). Zhang Xilei’s CV indicates that his highest degree is BA. (See:《郑州晚报》独家责任资深记者:张锡磊).

[41] Fang’s original Chinese: “再查查《法治周末》记者宋学鹏、李秀卿的学位论文。郭国松好像没写过学位论文。” (See: 2011-4-27 12:06).

[42] Fang’s original Chinese: “我揭露造假11年,经手一千余起案件,没有一起出于私心。现在为妻子名誉,就私报公仇一回,在这里撂一句狠话:如果以后郭国松还留在《法治周末》,我就追究法制日报社的领导。如果郭国松去了别的媒体,我就追究那家媒体的领导。哪位媒体领导认为郭国松是合格媒体人且自己一生清白,大可收留他。” (See: 2011-4-2808:57).

[43] Fang’s original Chinese: “郭国松、葛莘(亦明)、廖俊林(寻正)、宋学鹏、李秀卿这些人要么没有家人,要么不爱家人,要么相信别人不会像他们那样没有道德底线,所以不担心别人以其人之道还治其身。” (See: 2011-4-29 17:40).

[44] Fang’s original Chinese: “如果我妻子的硕士文凭因此出事,我就把下半生贡献给为中国清理硕士、博士文凭,从相关人员开始清理。” (See: 2011-4-29 16:45).

[45] Fang’s original Chinese: “我不和猪打架,我杀猪。在我发出严厉警告后,还想拱我妻子、砸我妻子饭碗的猪更该杀,即使花一生的时间杀,即使被血溅一身。” (See: 2011-12-29 18:13).

被编辑3次。最后被亦明编辑于08/05/2013 07:16AM。
打开 | 下载 - Shamelessness shouldn\'t be anyone\'s Nature XIII.pdf (977.6 KB)
主题 发布者 已发表

Shamelessness Shouldn’t Be Anyone’s Nature ──An Open Letter to Nature (Part I) (6552 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 08:46AM

Part II: Shameless “standing-up” (3951 查看) 附件

亦明 November 09, 2012 12:05PM

Part III: Shameless make-up (4370 查看) 附件

亦明 November 11, 2012 10:06PM

Part IV: Fact distortion and mess-up (3518 查看) 附件

亦明 November 13, 2012 11:57PM

Part V: Shameless, fraudulent, and malicious fighter (5095 查看) 附件

亦明 November 18, 2012 12:10PM

Part VI: A fake scientist’s fight against science (4174 查看) 附件

亦明 November 23, 2012 06:28AM

Part VII: A fraudulent fighter’s fight for fraud (4002 查看) 附件

亦明 November 28, 2012 09:46AM

Part VIII: A fighting dog for commercial and political forces (3486 查看) 附件

亦明 December 03, 2012 05:21PM

Part IX: An evil villain's fight for his career (3956 查看) 附件

亦明 December 09, 2012 05:36PM

Part X: A congenital liar has Nature as his amplifier (3467 查看) 附件

亦明 December 16, 2012 11:51AM

Part XI: Fang’s Law (4825 查看) 附件

亦明 January 29, 2013 12:16AM

Part XII: Fang’s Law-II (4700 查看) 附件

亦明 February 04, 2013 10:40AM

Part XIII: A Thief Couple (4558 查看) 附件

亦明 February 10, 2013 06:14PM

Part XIV: A 24K Pure Evil (4544 查看) 附件

亦明 February 17, 2013 07:28PM

Part XV: An Unprecedented Professional Literary Thief (4623 查看) 附件

亦明 February 24, 2013 08:00PM

Part XVI: The Science Case (2718 查看) 附件

亦明 March 03, 2013 07:31PM

Part XVII: The Nature-Science Case (3196 查看) 附件

亦明 March 10, 2013 06:41PM

Part XVIII: The Harvard Case (I) (3194 查看) 附件

亦明 March 17, 2013 06:36PM

Part XIX: The Harvard Case (II) (4344 查看) 附件

亦明 March 24, 2013 02:40PM

Part XX: The Longevity Case (6934 查看) 附件

亦明 March 31, 2013 03:55PM

Part XXI: The Naked Mole-Rat Case (10793 查看) 附件

亦明 April 07, 2013 06:05PM



2250s.com does not represent or guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, or reliability of any of communications posted by users.

This forum powered by Phorum.