Talk:Adrian Zenz/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

AP article on sterilizations

@Bdell555: Literally none of the 7 mentions of Zenz in the Associated Press article attribute anything about the sterilizations being forced to Zenz. It only refers to him when discussing data on birth rates and the Chinese birth control / sterilization campaign. All mentions about them being forced were either stated in AP’s own voice or attributed to women who spoke out against it. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim Wikipedia is making here concerns what Zenz has published, not what AP says. The AP article links to what he published and the title of what he published is "Sterilizations, IUDs, and Mandatory Birth Control: The CCP’s Campaign to Suppress Uyghur Birthrates in Xinjiang". What you call "stated in AP's own voice" I call drawn from the source they linked to. Zumret Dawut appears first in Zenz' work such that distinguishing "attributed to women who spoke out" from what Zenz published is artificial. At issue here is the substance of the matter and that's what did Zenz publish. Wikipedia's job here is simply to link through AP to Zenz instead of linking directly because going through AP legitimatizes the decision to link. If you compare what Zenz published to what AP published they are quite similar when it comes to key takeaways and the version you reverted is the more accurate reflection. The financing and cash incentives, which is all we've got under your version, is but one small piece.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The claim is cited to a source (AP in this case) which doesn’t directly support it. The cited source only directly supports what Zenz's research showed about birth rate data and the government's funding for their birth control/sterilization program. The cited source does not directly support the claim that Zenz's research shows that it was forced.

If you have another source or quote that directly supports the claim that Zenz's research also showed that it was forced, then you need to cite it. Otherwise it’s a failure of WP:BURDEN. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Concur with the assessment that Zenz does not support that any sterilization was forced. Another problem emblematic of the AP source is the claim that the Kazakh woman Omirzakh was threatened with detention, but the document addressed to her reads at the end: "对未在规定的期限内足额缴纳应当缴纳的社会抚养费的，乡计生办将报送扎库齐牛录乡党委、政府，由乡党委、乡人民政府报请上级部门进行处理" (If the subject does not pay the societal child-raising fee within the statutory time limit, the township's birth planning office will send a report to the Zhakuqiniulu Township CCP Committee and Government, who will report to superior administrative divisions to deal with). Hardly a corroboration of official "threats of detention". CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 06:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Well Zenz's report does discuss the sterilizations being forced, if that’s what you mean by him "support"-ing the claim. However, he does so in reference to previous claims first reported elsewhere and does not show it himself. The cited AP article also does not claim that Zenz showed that they were forced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

"Zenz's report does discuss the sterilizations being forced" and Wikipedia should accordingly reflect that. Note that sourcing policy calls for sourcing "for any material challenged or likely to be challenged" which means the point of it is to answer challenge. But here you don't challenge the substance of the matter (what Zenz has published), just the formalism of what/how to cite. If we change the cite to Zenz directly, that just invites the more substantive challenge that the source isn't reliable. Why gum with this up by changing the language to that we seem to agree isn't as representative of Zenz' work?--Brian Dell (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The wording that I changed had said that Zenz published research showing that China has used forced birth control, which is false. His research didn’t show that China used forced birth control. His research showed the decline in birth rate data and the funding of the birth control program on birth rates. He mentions that other people said that the birth control was forced. This is a basic issue of to whom one attributes demonstration of fact. It’s not just formalism.

It would be like saying that Einstein published research showing that an object either remains at rest or moves at a constant velocity because he mentioned Newton’s work in his paper on special relativity. A person who has discussed previous work has not shown the previous results, they just mention it. Neither Zenz's publication nor independent RSes claim that his research shows that the birth control is forced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

False? What's unearthing docs that show births deemed excessive will be “dealt with through coercive measures” if not forced birth control? Do you believe that orders that "all [women] that meet IUD placement conditions and are without contraindications must have them placed immediately" suggest the women can simply decline? As I noted above, Zumrat Dawut's story of being threatened with internment if she were not sterilized was told by Zenz before AP told it.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Zenz literally cites Dawut's story to "Washington Post, November 17, 2019", he didn't uncover the story himself. Again, neither Zenz nor the cited AP / SBS articles attribute the showing of fact of sterilizations to be forced to Zenz. The closest to this that Zenz claims in his own report is "Government documents bluntly mandate that birth control violations are punishable by extrajudicial internment in “training” camps" in the "Summary of Major Findings". We can add that, but this isn't the same as his research showing that sterilizations were forced. Is adding okay with you? It's more specific on how Zenz's research relates to the sterilizations being forced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I provided specific quotes of Zenz' work that I believe show that a statement that Zenz has "published research showing that China has used forced birth control" is true (and more representative of what he was looking to expose than just financial matters) but you didn't address those quotes. Fair enough point about Dawut but can you say the same about, for example, the document stating ""all [women] that meet IUD placement conditions and are without contraindications must have them placed immediately"? If Zenz' research didn't reveal that then whose research did?--Brian Dell (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

That’s your own interpretation of what he showed and not something written in his own summary of findings nor something written by secondary RSes. We have to use and what secondary sources say he showed and at most what what Zenz says he showed (which is what the introduction and "Summary of findings" sections do), otherwise it’s WP:OR. The part of the article that currently says makes birth control violations punishable by internment in the Xinjiang re-education camps is exactly what Zenz says he does in "Summary of findings", is not just about financial matters, and also makes it explicitly clear how the mandatory birth control for people who exceed the two child policy is forced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

It's a true or false matter not an interpretation: either Zenz should be considered the researcher on those points I called attention to or someone else should be. What's an interpretation is what secondary RSs see as significant in Zenz' work. On that point, I think the AP piece indicates the totality of Zenz' work significant as there is, unusually, a link in the body to Zenz' paper. Consider, again, the title of Zenz' paper which is more relevant here than all the details in the summary of findings. There's a much higher danger of WP:OR when trying to build a big picture out of source snippets than the other way around (drawing on sources in a way that supports an accurate, comprehensive big picture), indeed, that's why I object to the Antichrist thing: sure, "Antichrist" can be cited, but what's the context? Here, I think you are reading the AP piece too closely. Our job as editors is, in my view, to try and get what Wikipedia should say right first based on what we know on the broader theme and purpose level instead of incidentally having Wikipedia's voice potentially distorted by demands for more literal or direct citing. Again, my main issue is trying to reduce Zenz to just having something to say about the financing in Xinjiang.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Bdell555: please don’t edit war, would MarkH21’s edit plus an extra sentence, something like "Which the AP connected to a forced sterilization campaign,” work for you? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not also include Zenz's publication for the Jamestown Foundation which discusses forced sterilization at length? See here. Harland1 (^t/_c) 01:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If I’m not mistaken, doesn’t Zenz mention other media reports about the sterilizations being forced? His research itself didn’t show that they were forced; it discussed what other people have reported previously. His research revealed the birth rate data and sterilization program data. There’s a distinction there regarding the wording "show".

You also can’t just cite things through another source. WP:BURDEN is pretty clear where it requires inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It's based not on hard evidence but really literally hearsay and speculations put on public doc. Even if it was true, there is no hard proof of it and in contrary, I remember reading somewhere that unlike hans ethnics. The minority groups in china can legally have as many children as they want unlike the majority ethnic group. Tho not entirely sure as i only read it from one source so far. Will look into it. https://www.commondreams.org/views/2008/04/14/hypocrisy-and-danger-anti-china-demonstrations but it doesn't make a lot of sense to have these laws if they really wanted to reduce the minority population. Being a dictatorship, they can too easily choose different laws. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)— MangoTareeface9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It is in no way based on hearsay. The report cites both government documents and publicly available data.Harland1 (^t/_c) 02:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to the "forced part". I doubt that china gov docs and public internet would say that. Many governments spend money for contraception/abortion clinics. It doesn't necessarily make it forced. In addition, many christian evangalists tend to consider abortion as blashemy and Adrian is obviously one of those pro-life guys who thinks abortion should be banned.MangoTareeface9 (talk) 07:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is in the public interest that Zenz's beliefs on these matters are made known, as they represent an obvious conflict of interest which ought to reflect on the theological and ideological motivations behind his research. The mainstream media are weaponizing Zenz as a "world leading expert" on Xinjiang and deliberately omitting any scope on his career background. This also illustrates how the Uyghur issue is being massively politicized against China. These are his own published works, he does not regret, dispute, challenge or deny them. It is in the public interest to know. 86.6.171.132 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@MangoTareeface9: read this [1] if you doubt the forced nature... It was published yesterday by The Diplomat (a WP:RS). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

@horse eye jack..dude, I already said that china allows all women to have 2 kids just like they do with chinese hans for decades. That doesn't seem like discrimination and unless you have hard evidence that china is sterilising women purely for being minorities. Then kindly don't constantly ping me or bring me into this anymore.

One issue with this "talk page" is partisan politics and am tired of spending literally many weeks arguing over whether to include Adrian's indisputable public views on laws that protect homosexuslity. And why I stopped coming here. Adrisn zenz is a right wing evangalist whose claims he himself admits are speculative and has no hard evidence beyond verbal interviews. To prove a point, I have seen right wing hawks attack china on debt trap diplomacy and taken at face value and be promoted globally in mamy mainstram US media despite neutral studies later contradict them as outright false. https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/china-s-debt-trap-diplomacy-is-little-more-than-a-fantasy-32418

Adrian zenz is honestly the same issue where we all know his work is based on speculations, lack of real proof and a biased source yet promoted alot by media. However lets not pretend that there are a handful of editors who are fixated on china and constantly fighting anyone who tries to add in sources https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/china-rejects-accusation-it-sterilising-uighur-women that highlights his bigoted background amd questionable methodology. 

It's just going to be argued non-stop and you simply gave me another verbal witness account. Remember tianammen square case study. There were plenty of student leaders like chai ling and Wu’er Kaixi who literally lied yet were promoted at face value by mainstewm media as if they were facts. Source to back that - https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2008/07/21/commentary/birth-of-a-massacre-myth/

How mamy articles from maimstream media that stated they lied despite wikileaks proved that? Zero - that proves REAL WESTERN MEDIA BIAS.

And the so called 10,000 death count..the actual methodology was based on classic hearsay yet western media has a bias to not at all mention the methodology.. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2019/06/06/commentary/world-commentary/tiananmen-narrative-true/#.XPoIZR6uaDY

My point is that unless you got hard evidence. You cannot outright say that Qelbinur Sedik verbal account is to be taken at face value. Also she doesn't clarify on why those women are being sterilised. Is it because of being muslim or bevause they had more than 2 kids? Regardless her verbal account cannot equate to hard proof and it would be irresponsible for wikilpedia to present pure verbal accounts as if they are indisputed fact. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@MangoTareeface9: You said it wasnt forced and it was all a figment of Zenz's evangelical imagination. You were wrong. We don't need things to be undisputed facts, if we did we couldn't cover the holocaust at all becasue holocaust deniers exist. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Also FYI you just used two opinion pieces and an unreliable source to back up your argument, did you not notice the "opinion" and "commentary" tags on the Japan Times articles? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth..show me where I ever said that? I even started an entire chapter on this saying that china for many decades has been doing one child policy on chinese hans (now lifted to 2) and there is no real proof of discrimination on minorities. And

I see many hawkish articles recently on china like bloomberg spy chip story or pompeo's accusations of debt trap diplomacy theory, which have no real evidence and false. Yet promoted by media despite being false storied.

My point is purely verbal accounts cannot be accepted as being the facts. They may be true but they can also be lies. Recently I read Wang Liqiang's verbal accounts being promoted despite lack of hard proof. He claims to be a spy and wants asylym in australia. It was all VERBAL ACCOUNTS But western media promoted it on tv and newspapers non stop and when the aus inteligence agency concluded that wang was not likely to be who he claims to be. The media dropped his story withput trying to correct it. https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2019/12/05/wang-d05.html

That shows why verbal accounts shouldn't be taken at face value just because western mainstream media promotes it. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 17:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

And fyi - I was pointing out that western media is not neutral and has a history of promoting verbal accounts that were later shown to be false. And my "opinion pieces" to back my statement, came from reputed scholars who have sufficently given their sources to back their articles. Such as declassified us embassy cables, etc https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2004/09/15/commentary/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-myth/

Alternatively visit chai ling's or Wang Liqiang's wikipedia article and you should find the sources that show that their verbal accounts, despite being promoted on western media excessively, were later proved outright false. Don't say my sources are weak as they are not.MangoTareeface9 (talk) 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"there is no real proof of discrimination on minorities." Lol! Thats no more true for America than for China, if you're denying that there is discrimination against ethnic, religious, cultural, and sexual minorities in China I dont know how to help you. That is an opinion article from the Japan Times, it is a very weak source as are your other ones. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

There is not a single country free of racism but I was referring to actual gov backed sterilisation that targets minorities. Don't twist my words just to create a childish argument. It's no secret that america is politicising the accusations despite there is still no hard proof. Only verbal accounts in your diplomat article..

And I'm not interested in a petty debate however you are now just deliberately lying to say my sources are weak. Do not gaslight me again. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2011/07/01/commentary/black-info-and-media-gullibility-creation-of-the-tiananmen-myth/ all my sources are clearly reporting well researched and verifable facts, and not purely subjective opinions but literally even using declassified us embassy cables, wikileaks, published western papers, the colombia journalism review , spanish tv crew footage and verified witnesses to back their points. They are 2 aussie scholars - with one of them - Gregory Clark, vice president of Akita International University and former China desk officer for Australia’s Foreign Service. And the other being Ramesh Thakur, a professor emeritus at the Crawford School of Public Policy, the Australian National University. The latter also mentioned "Nayirah testimonial", which only futher backs my relevant point of the danger of promoting verbal witness accounts in a loose biased manner and present them as if they are the indisputable hard facts. https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/06/opinion/remember-nayirah-witness-for-kuwait.html

MangoTareeface9 (talk) 18:01, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

FAZ article clarification

Can someone explain what this sentence from the article means?

The article stated that Zenz had analyzed job postings for security personnel in Tibet, compared them with data on self-immolation by Tibetans, and then used that data to draw his conclusions about the Chinese government's policies of repression.

What conclusions did Zenz draw and how did he draw them? And what was unconventional about his method? Currently, this paragraph is simply confusing. I'd do it myself but I don't have access to the FAZ article--if someone wants to post an ungated copy of the article that would also be great. Thanks! 2601:18A:C680:1EB0:C5EE:2949:2F06:8F3D (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

For copyright reasons, editors cannot post the entire article (or long passages). However, the relevant quote for that particular sentence seems to be (with English translation from ProQuest):

Zum Beispiel analysierte er Stellenausschreibungen für Sicherheitspersonal in Tibet, verglich sie mit Daten zu Selbstverbrennungen von Tibetern und zog daraus Schlüsse über die Repressionspolitik der chinesischen Regierung.
[For example, he analyzed job postings for security personnel in Tibet, compared them with data on self-immolation by Tibetans, and drew conclusions about the Chinese government's policies of repression.]

The above quote was given as an example for unconventional, which the article uses in its own voice:

Er hatte kaum Veröffentlichungen vorzuweisen, unterrichtete an einer randseitigen evangelikalen Bildungsstätte, und seine unkonventionellen Forschungsmethoden weckten nur wenig Interesse in der Fachwelt. [...] Sogar er selbst spricht von „skurrilen Datenarbeiten“, die ihm zeitweise „wie eine irre Zeitverschwendung“ vorgekommen seien.
[He had hardly any publications to show, taught at a marginal evangelical educational institution, and his unconventional research methods aroused little interest in the professional world. [...] Even he himself speaks of "bizarre data work" that at times seemed "like a crazy waste of time".]

— MarkH₂₁^talk 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'm still not really clear what the takeaway is supposed to be. Can we say anything about what conclusions he drew? And how the FAZ piece evaluates them? The quotes you posted seem to be explaining that he was discounted by the scholarly community initially, but were his methods/conclusions later accepted? Apologies for this game of telephone... 128.36.7.84 (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC) (Edit: I'm the original IP—my address keeps changing for some reason. I should really create an account.)

The part about being largely ignored academically was talking about his earlier work on Tibet, which is why that is in the "Tibet" subsection of this WP article. The FAZ article later talks about Zenz's work on Xinjiang being the first non-anecdotal evidence for repression in the Xinjiang re-education camps, which is mentioned in the "Xinjiang" subsection of this WP article. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, I realized that its location in the "Tibet" section and its reference to "Tibet" strongly suggested that it was about Tibet. I've now managed to get the FAZ article myself so my earlier questions are moot. For anyone else interested: the article doesn't say what Zenz's conclusions about Tibet in particular were, or whether they're reliable. It mentions his unconventional research methods on Tibet to show how surprising it was that he became so prominent. His research on Xinjiang has been accepted as solid by the UN and Western governments (and the FAZ appears to endorse it), perhaps suggesting that his earlier Tibet work was also good, but that last point is beyond the scope of the article. What's in the mainspace page is a fair summary of the first paragraph of the FAZ article, although it reads weirdly out of context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.182.25 (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Zenz didn't actually go to Tibet to collect data but researches via the internet and uses the ad posting for security guards and connects it with monks self-immolation as if they are solidly connected. That is not just unconventional but unprofessional as he doesn't know the deeper context of those ads and the article did not ever suggest that his earlier Tibet work was good. In fact, it very clearly stated that his methods were deemed as non-arousing by the other professionals. And even Zenz admitted that he felt his work was crazily messy tho he felt that God was giving him a path. There are many different reasons why private security guards can be posted to Tibet and there are multiple reasons why monks self immolate. Zenz only really knows superficially that security guards are being requested but a hiring ad for security guards doesn't necessarily mean it's associated with monk self-immolation or china's treatment of Tibetans. Yet he was making such conclusions based on not knowing the deeper context in which it was unrealistic for him to possibly know that solidly.MangoTareeface9 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

talk:MangoTareeface9 that's your assessment but we don't know if it is FAZ's assessment or that of the scholars they are referring to. His research appears to seek out open source big data from which inferences can be drawn, which is unconventional (especially in anthropology) but not in itself unprofessional and not in itself methodologically flawed. We'd need to look at what other scholarly assessments say before drawing any conclusions in Wikipedia's voice.BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:12, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

PS looking at the citations of his work would give an indication of what other scholars in his field think of it: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ALWIr18AAAAJ&hl=en BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Going the open source route is becoming more and more popular for social sciences researchers unable to get field time because of autocratic regimes on the ground. I’m sure if Zenz had been allowed to conduct fieldwork in Tibet would have. You fault Zenz for not knowing the deeper context but no non-Chinese academics do because the region has been locked down for more than sixty years (and the Chinese ones cant be trusted given the complete lack of academic freedom in that country). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 January 2021

Adrian Zenz is NOT a sinologist Please change: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) is a German anthropologist and sinologist known for his ArthurYase (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) To: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) is a German anthropologist known for his ArthurYase (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Bestagon (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Organizational issue with two sections on Tibet

Tibet is discussed in two sections, but the difference between them is mostly chronological (2017 for the first part, 2020 for the second part) and not in fact a distinction between his work and its reception. Tibetologist (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tibetologist: Done. It should be clearly split now. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Article is unbalanced, needs criticism along with the praise

Zenz's research has been criticized by the Chinese government and various state media outlets, including China Daily, CGTN and Global Times.

https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/t1793427.shtml

https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/listeningpost/2020/07/china-pushback-beijing-questions-western-reporting-xinjiang-200725065150345.html

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/25/asia/xinjiang-karakax-list-china-response-intl-hnk/index.html

If a Chinese researcher was criticized by the US government and media, it would be included in his Wikipedia page. The right thing is to mention both criticism and praise of his work, and let the reader decide.

Chinese newspaper Global Times has criticized Zenz's claim that 80% of newly placed IUDs in China in 2018 were fitted in Xinjiang. It cited publicly available government statistics indicating that the actual number was 8.7%, concluding that the 80% figure "cannot be arrived at by any calculation, except by misplacing the decimal point."
https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1193454.shtml

An editorial in China Daily criticized the "Karakax list" - a list verified by Zenz of 311 Uyghur residents from Karakax county in Xinjiang who have been sent to Xinjiang's re-education camps - stating that only 19 people in the list have overseas relations, instead of all of them as alleged. It also criticized the list's assertion that Uyghurs are imprisoned just because they pray at home or keep in touch with relatives overseas, calling it "too absurd to believe", adding " if praying at home was a crime, then all Uyghurs would be imprisoned."

https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202002/23/WS5e526719a310128217279993.html

Further sources:

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-01-04/Ajit-Singh-on-Xinjiang-misinformation-Who-is-Adrian-Zenz--MYIQXMdmms/index.html

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2020-07-11/Xinjiang-Separating-fact-from-fiction-in-recent-media-reports-S26kn9ZBok/index.html

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1180434.shtml

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197187.shtml

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1197187.shtml

https://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1194066.shtml

After all, if the US government criticized a Chinese researcher by name, it would all over his BLP page. Why not for western researches? It's a government we're talking about. Which IS A high-quality source as specified by BLP policy. It's a government thats saying it. So the Chinese government is a no brainer.

And as for state media, we have to reach a consensus on whether they are high quality sources or not. China Daily and CGTN are not listed on the RS page. AS for GT, it is listed, and the page states that there is "no consensus on the reliability of the Global Times", and that it is considered biased. We need to reach a consensus if we can include it if it is properly attributed.
Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 17:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Global Times, CGTN, and China Daily are unreliable sources. Their unreliability is independent of their state media status. You appear to be confused about how wikipedia works and are attempting to insert a WP:False balance into the piece. We don’t give equal time to both sides or anything like that. I would advise you to check out Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard as all three sources are currently under discussion and nascent consensus in all three cases is that they are unreliable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Also just FYI you cant use “no consensus” sources on a WP:BLP, you can only use reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

In that case, you should have no problem in including the criticisms of the Chinese GOVERNMENT, since they have been attested by good-quality reliable sources such as CNN and Al Jazeera? Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes we can say that there has been critiscism etc from the Chinese government and source it to the WP:RS which say that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Far from being "confused", I merely repeated Wikipedia policies. If a government X criticizes a researcher Y, and there is an RS for it, why not include it? We both know that if X was US and Y was a Chinese or Russian, Wikipedia editors would have done it in minutes. But since X is China and Y is an anti-China researcher, it's still not included on Y's Wikipedia page. Which I'm going to do now. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 10:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Neutral observer here, the Adrian Zenz article definitely needs some balancing, especially considering the contoversial topic surrounding Xinjiang in addition to his personal views. I don't see why it should be left out as per WP:NEUTRAL, as much as how some Wikipedians might not like it. Telsho (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)— Telsho (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We leave them out per WP:BLP, WP:NEUTRAL has nothing to do with this. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually that discussion is already going on in this talk page on other sections. This section is only about criticisms of Zenz from the Chinese government and media - and consensus has been reached on the former. There is no RS currently that states Zenz's views on homosexuality etc. as far as I know - hence the problem. All sources that state this are all unreliable as per BLP standards, which seem to be a bit higher than those of other pages it seems.

I suggest you revert your changes to the page before someone else does. Also - Cholima report is not a reliable source on anything. You might as well just cite that guy's tweets as a source. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no real "praise" or praise section in this article so the whole premise of this discussion is pretty much invalid. Criticism and praise sections should generally avoided per WP:CRIT. As per Horse Eye Jack, this is a WP:BLP, which means that there is even a more stringent requirement to use high-quality WP:RS. Chinese state media and particularly Chinese government sources (https://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/) are not RS and utilizing them in this article is a major BLP violation. Loksmythe (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

See next section on this page which I've created specifically on this topic. Honoredebalzac345 (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I looked at the reference# 25 Vanderklippe, Nathan (9 March 2021). "Lawsuit against Xinjiang researcher marks new effort to silence critics of China's treatment of Uyghurs". The Globe and Mail.

I did not see how the author arrive the conclusion that "it has publicly confirmed that Zenz's claims are truthful" --Ktchiu (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Many people pointed out that a Youtube footage posted on Mar 16, 2019, by an Uyghur high school girl describing how they harvest cotton seems to contradict Mr. Zenz's claim.

--Ktchiu (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Deliberate censoring of the source of 1 million count without real reasoning - undelete it

Newsweek Japan reported that the accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's initial estimate of 1 million, were sourced by Istiqlal, an Uyghur exile operated media organization based in Turkey who had said they obtained the numbers from a reliable local public security source.

That's not an undeniable fact. Even mercor acknowledged that above fact but it has been deleted a month AGO. In straight, Adrian is a anti gay right wing rapture ready evangelical that used the report from an exiled ughur media group to base his 1 million count at face value.

However it seems people have been using false reasons to protect his squeaky reputation. But Wikipedia does not act as a biased PR. It should not remove significant information. The below paragraph should be Added back in as multiple sources back that fact and it shouldn't be hidden if wikipedia is impartial. Ie. https://www.newsweekjapan.jp/stories/world/2018/03/89-3.php

https://edtimes.in/for-incompetent-expert-adrian-zenz-benefits-are-more-important-than-truth/

https://merics.org/en/analysis/where-did-one-million-figure-detentions-xinjiangs-camps-come

Newsweek Japan reported that the accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's initial estimate of 1 million, were sourced by Istiqlal, an Uyghur exile operated media organization based in Turkey who had said they obtained the numbers from a reliable local public security source. 49.179.9.213 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Also not like it makes any genuine difference but I am the very same user as 49.179.9.213 but forgot to login and you can send a reply to me. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia will always favor western "reputable" sources on issues such as this even if they're literally all coming from Zenz, who this article seems to whitewash all criticism of (such as the fact that he thinks China is literally the biblical anti-christ and has also never been to Xinjiang in his life). 47.218.105.234 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed some editors keep deleting that Info with dishonest reasons. Like recently gaslighting that the sources are unreliable. MERIC may be biased but I don't think they will lie excessively about such things like the accounting figures to base the 1 million count was sourced from an exiled ughur media group in turkey. It's factual and noteworthy considering that the source aka Istiqal is pretty biased source to believe at face value. But it's obvious that people want to hide the information from public awareness. Smh. https://merics.org/en/analysis/where-did-one-million-figure-detentions-xinjiangs-camps-come Nvtuil (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Is Zenz a reliable source

I searched the corresponding archives and it appears to never have been debated, but I think it'd be important to establish whether he is reliable, reliable only on some issues or completely unreliable. Hobbitschuster (talk) 03:49, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? For this article, whether he is a reliable source for information about himself, see WP:ABOUTSELF. For other things, it would dependent on how he was being used and best discussed case by case in the relevant articles. No individual can be described as always or never a reliable source: see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It really says a lot about who's who at Wikipedia that Adrian Zenz's book isn't a reliable source on Adrian Zenz's book, and the Chinese government isn't a reliable source on the Chinese government's views of Adrian Zenz. Hmmmmmmmmmmm... very neutral encyclopedia you're working on here (insert WandaVision winking meme here) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4a81:b800:9965:95e7:d636:57e6 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This seems a bit like a WP:FORUM-eqsue thread. For posterity sake, however, I'll respond. Per WP:USEBYOTHERS, how accepted and high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, whereas widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. The Globe and Mail, which is a perennial reliable source, notes that he has been "singularly influential in discovering, translating and publicizing government reports, procurement documents and internal recommendations that have charted authorities’ shifting campaigns in Xinjiang" and that "The Globe and Mail and other Western news outlets have cited his work." The Globe and Mail also describes China's depiction of life in Xinjiang as being truth-deficient, writing that "around the world, Chinese emissaries are presenting glossy, factually questionable accounts of life in Xinjiang." The Globe and Mail also describes China's response to Zenz's publications, in particular, writing that "[t]he Chinese government has called his [Zenz's] findings 'lies' – even when it confirmed them." (The article cites examples of declining birth rates and forced labor in Xinjiang as two areas where China, in particular, has simultaneously confirmed Zenz's claims while also calling him a liar.) The Globe and Mail, of course, is not the only reliable source that describes it this way. As noted in the article itself, Reuters has corroborated Zenz's findings on forced labor in Tibet and Zenz has been widely cited by reliable media outlets for his investigations into Xinjiang (and to a lesser extent Tibet). There are good numbers of reliable sources that have been reporting positively on his work, while I haven't encountered reports from reliable sources that would suggest that his extant published work on the treatment of minorities in West China is unreliable. Taken together, I believe that this reflects positively upon the reliability of his works that have been published. (Adrian Zenz is, of course, a person, not a publisher. WP:SPS applies when he self-publishes information, though most of his relevant work on the topic has been published either in a think tank publication or by an academic journal; I am not sure the extent to which this particular criterion would apply here.) — Mikehawk10 (talk) 06:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz's recent discussion that events in Tibet are analygous to those in Xinjiang, has been shown to be (let's say) exaggerated. See Robbie Barnett's article -- https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-policies-its-far-west-claim-tibet-xinjiang-equivalence Tibetologist (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I've read through the blog post you've linked. I would note that the article is a blog post that the Council on Foreign Relations marks as an opinion piece, so the writing should be attributed to the author if we choose to use it (though it appears another editor has removed it for the time being). The opinion piece seems to save its criticism for to the public media reporting on the Reuters story and the Zenz information, not for the information Zenz provided himself (though it does single out his NY Times opinion piece for being more forceful in its language than his report). The piece reserves its sharpest criticism for a podcast that we should not use as a source, though it importantly picks out that there's been a good deal of speculation in the media that claims to be sourced to Zenz. I don't think that including information on the opinion piece author's reaction podcast would be WP:DUE, much like the author that removed the content sourced to the piece from the article. We can't really use the article to overrule the vast majority of WP:RS reporting on the topic. I'm wondering if we should include the opinions expressed in the piece inasmuch as it criticizes MSM coverage of Zenz's work, though I am unsure as to what that would look like. I'm also not sure that the single opinion piece is WP:DUE, and I have a concern regarding whether the piece is a part of a non-news blog since I can't find information on editorial oversight of CFR blogs other than CFR's declaration that these blog posts reflect only the views of the publishing author. Do you have any information regarding the editorial oversight on CFR's pieces published on its blogs (or the Asia Unbound blog, in particular)? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Barnett used to direct Tibet studies at Columbia, is now a researcher at U London, and CFR published the piece, so we can be confident at least that Barnett is a recognized expert. I agree that citing his post with attribution is reasonable. I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that a regional expert would be taken aback by mischaracterizations of Zenz's findings by a number of journalists, and along political lines. As you point out Mike, Barnett also has some criticism of Zenz as well, though that criticism is minor by comparison. -Darouet (talk) 20:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The reason I linked to the Barnett piece in the article is because I felt that the article substantially overstated the Reuter findings. Barnett argues carefully that Reuters did not corroborate widespread forced labour in Tibet. I would be happy to see the mention of Reuters stated more softly. Tibetologist (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, it looks like someone has already handled this very well in the meantime. Tibetologist (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Zenz has said "The BBC commissioned my research."

https://twitter.com/adrianzenz/status/1146904332299907072?lang=en

Does this make him a BBC "investigative journalist" and therefore a RS? Keith McClary (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Adrian mentions in his paper that there's no official information on number of detainees. So he didn't use official chinese documents. Despite what the current article is wrongfully implying. But Instead he uses a report from an exiled ughur media group as his source that claims to have come across a leaked report that has the number of detainees. What is shocking is that he regards that source as completely factual at face value albeit admitting that the source could be lying hence his claim was a speculation. But That is how he got his 1 million count in his own words and it seems rather questionable to use literally an exiled ughur group plus anecdotal accounts to make his estimate. Page 27 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4j6rq/

One editor here tried to claim that it's not that important to tell how he got his 1 million count estimate. Except for the fact that his methods are clearly speculative and so at the very least, people should mention on how he actually got the 1 million count estimate and not omit it. Nvtuil (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

He is treated as an expert by large number of sources and the UN. Oranjelo100 (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

And that's an issue. It appears that western politics isn't anywhere as impartial when it comes to regime change. Yet Wikipedia overly treats it as an infallible source. And hence why the western hawks got away in lying about debt trap diplomacy and Bolivia using flawed methodology. Ie. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/democraciaabierta/how-the-oas-and-the-medias-lack-of-scrutiny-caused-a-violent-coup-in-bolivia/

Wikipedia needs to be better than that and not have bias towards govs but instead to evidence.

I have noticed how western governments instead of explaining how he got the evidence in detail. Media is mostly quoting that it's what "experts" say and according to them. That's called lies of omission and shouldn't be tolerated. My issue with the current wiki article is that people have no issues outright claiming that ISTIQAL got leaked Chinese docs of the camp accounting figures as if they're established facts. That's wrong. How do you know for a solid fact that a group of exiled ughyurs are telling the truth and not just lies for their agenda? We don't know that for a fact and yet we call people experts who claims it as a fact. That seems shady to me. https://sizeof.cat/post/adrian-zenz-jamestown-foundation-manipulate-free-press/

Nvtuil (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nvtuil: As Horse Eye Jack (who now edits under Horse Eye's Back) has noted on this talk page before, Size of cat is a self-published blog by a non-expert. If that is your source for backing your analysis, that doesn't seem to carry much weight.

Additionally, the pre-print of Zenz's that you have included in your response contains a link to the peer-reviewed journal that published Zenz's work. Generally, when a study is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it tends to support the credibility of the study, not diminish it.

Further, Wikipedia has a verifiability policy and a reliable sourcing policy. There are also a list of perennial reliable sources that have undergone evaluation by the community. Widespread use of a source by reliable sources without comment for facts, per WP:USEBYOTHERS, is evidence that a source themselves is reliable. I don't think there's much of a ground to stand on here that would point to Zenz being unreliable, especially considering how reliable sources have reported on them. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:10, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

neutral and objective language needed.

statement like he "reveal" something about china implies it is a know fact. it is not, this is basically his "claim" and should be worded as such. his position should not be taken and worded as authoritative fact given the lack of alternate source that verified those claim. 101.127.15.2 (talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Instead of treating his claims as if they're actually hard proven facts. It should be more objective and be a minimal mention that his 1 million count is a speculation. And in his own words, he admits that his sources he had used, can be dishonest and that he had used anecdotal accounts plus literally an exiled ughur media group who claimed to have a leaked Chinese document showing the figures in the camp. Despite those are clearly not impartial sources given their self interests. Page 27 https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/4j6rq/ Nvtuil (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Please see MoS:CLAIM. We avoid "reveal" but we also avoid "claim". BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert appears to have reinstated MOS:CLAIM violations

I am looking to proceed without edit warring, and I would kindly ask for input on the following:

Should the sentence, "The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been sourced from Istiqal, an Uyghur exile media group based in Turkey, who had claimed to have gotten chinese leaked documents" be substantially changed, in light of MOS:CLAIM and the WSJ source included below?

In the Xinjiang subsection within the Anthropology section, Nvtuil has reverted my edits and inserted the sentence The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been sourced from Istiqal, an Uyghur exile media group based in Turkey, who had claimed to have gotten chinese leaked documents.. The editor also removed information that I had added that had been sourced to a report from The Wall Street Journal, a newspaper that is listed as WP:GREL on WP:RSP. I believe that this sentence violates MOS:CLAIM and that it does not give the full context of the sourcing.

• The source from WSJ states that To arrive at the estimate, Mr. Zenz extrapolated from a partial tally of detainees attributed in Japanese media reports to a Xinjiang security official. He cross-referenced that with testimony from former detainees and the documents he unearthed indicating the size and number of camps.
• MOS:CLAIM states that [t]o write that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence and that said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.
• In light of these, I made an edit that changed the line to The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been based upon Japanese public reporting,¹ including reporting from Newsweek Japan,¹⁷¹⁸ on documents leaked by an anonymous Xinjiang security official¹ to a Turkish Uyghur exile media group.¹⁷¹⁸
• The editor reverted my edit, writing in the edit summary "Stop meddling with the edits. Now instead of deleting the info like before, you just weirdly made the previous edit both incorrect and ridiculously hard to read.. I just made the edit straightforward to read again."

I believe that the sentence re-inserted in a revert of my edits have violated MOS:CLAIM. I also believe that my edit was readable and that my insertion was backed by a reliable source, so I find the allegation that I inserted "incorrect" information to be a bit odd, as the WSJ is a world-class paper and the article has been published without any sort of update/correction to this for over two years. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Japanese source sholud be mentioned. He probably used multiple sources. Oranjelo100 (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Quit the false red herring. Anyone impartial see what you wrote and it was hard to read. (See below) The reason why I edited it was not as nefarious as you make it to be.

Previously I had added in these edits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016272237

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016084038

I wrote this yesterday -

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been sourced from Istiqal, an Uyghur exile media group based in Turkey, who had claimed to have gotten chinese leaked documents.

That information was what you had also previously deleted days ago. And then later approx 2 days ago, you attacked that information yet again with unnecessary and weird editing in that you have made it impossible for the public to read. Which is the same effect of deleting that info. You had earlier changed it to;

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been based upon Japanese public reporting,[1] including reporting from Newsweek Japan,[17][18] on documents leaked by an anonymous Xinjiang security official[1] to a Turkish Uyghur exile media group

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1016142123

After reading that, no offense. I couldn't make heads or tails of what I have just read. It took me several tries to finally understand it. Nobody can easily understand what you just wrote. People can understand my edits easily. Clearly my edits were drastically easier to read unlike yours. That is obvious why I edited it yesterday so people can actually understand it as I made it easier to read. Unlike what you did which is just borderline Vandalism or unnecessary editing and yet you make those accusation at me on my talk page. But I am not here wanting an edit war either but that does not mean I turn a blind eye on people making it so hard to read specific sentences. If you got issues with my edits, by all means. Discuss it here but my edit to fix your bad edits was not wrong.

And fyi, the full context is that the alleged "leaked documents" is directly according to Istiqal's claims, who are a group of exiled ughyurs. That's not really hard proof that such a thing happened. Istiqal is hardly a neutral impartial source since they have their agenda yet a lot of western media are just taking them at their word. That's not decent journalism. It is no different to western media's approach on Libya where they just took the rebels' words at face value and presented it just like that. Western media is certainly not immune to jumping to wrong conclusions when the evidence is thin and misled people in the past. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/western-media-in-libya-jo_b_933901

That's why Wikipedia should be mindful of that and have fairer Level of scrutiny. Hence unlike Wall Street Journal, I gave the full fairer context that ISTIQAL indeed claimed to have received leaked chinese docs as that is a fact. And people should know that. I welcome civil discussions on that but Wikipedia can not just mindlessly quote western politics. It needs to be loyal to what is the hard facts here and the hard facts is that ISTIQAL, an exiled ughyurs group claimed to have gotten leaked documents from china and western media is treating Istiqal's claims as if it's proven. Despite how would they really know for certain? Hence my edit was at least neutral unlike WSJ. I didn't make up facts or pushed unproven narratives like them.

Nvtuil (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Nvtuil: I would like to respond to various points that you bring up in your long reply.

• Your statement, "my edit was at least neutral unlike WSJ. I didn't make up facts or pushed unproven narratives like them." is clearly WP:OR. The WSJ is listed as WP:GREL on WP:RSP, meaning that the community believes that it is generally reliable as a source for facts. On a further note, WSJ noted that "Japanese media" attributed the documents to the officials, which seems to indicate that it was more than just ISTIQAL who was making the attribution.
• You stated that "nobody can easily understand what you just wrote." It appears from their response in this discussion that at least Oranjelo100 understands what I wrote. I would assume that there are more people that do so as well.
• You stated that "The reason why I edited it was not as nefarious as you make it to be". I literally quoted your entire edit summary for the most recent edit and my only comment on it was that it was your edit summary when you reveryed my edit.
• You stated that "That is obvious why I edited it yesterday so people can actually understand it as I made it easier to read. Unlike what you did which is just borderline Vandalism or unnecessary editing and yet you make those accusation at me on my talk page." WP:VANDAL states that vandalism is defined as "editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose, which is to create a free encyclopedia, in a variety of languages, presenting the sum of all human knowledge." I don't believe that adding information that is obtained from a reliable source could be reasonably construed as vandalism. I would respectfully ask you to strike the portion of your comments that accuse me of committing "borderline vandalism".
• You've cited a Huffington Post Contributor piece in your response. Per WP:RSP, these are generally unreliable for statements of fact, owing to their near-zero editorial oversight and their lack of a reputation for fact-checking these sorts of articles.

I think that this is better in line with WP:V to include the information from WSJ in the article in addition to the information from the other sources, and I am taken a bit aback by the accusation of "borderline vandalism" being pointed at my good-faith edits that have found additional information from a reliable source and incorporated it into the article.

Returning to the question at the top of this discussion section, I don't see any reason in your writing that is based in community consensus or wikipedia policy for why we should exclude the information provided in the WSJ source (which, by the way, is already widely used throughout the article). And, I don't see a compelling reason that we should continue to use "claimed", provided the coverage from RS on this.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mikehawk10 The previous sentence before you came in and edited, was

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's initial estimate of 1 million were sourced from Istiqlal, an Uyghur exile operated media organization based in Turkey, who had said they obtained the numbers from a reliable local public security source.[29][30

Then you later changed that into;

The accounting figures of the camps that were used to base Zenz's estimate of 1 million had been based upon Japanese public reporting,[1] including reporting from Newsweek Japan,[17][18] on documents leaked by an anonymous Xinjiang security official[1] to a Turkish Uyghur exile media group

I think we can both agree that your editing could be significantly improved in a way that makes it less of a "word salad" and be easier for the public to read.

 Nvtuil (talk) 03:09, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

You can't just throw around unsubtantiated generalisations and claim that western media can never lie. WSJ at times have misled. They promote debt trap diplomacy in their articles despite there was no real evidence to back any of that. Read what they actually wrote.

When Sri Lanka couldn’t repay a Chinese loan for building Hambantota port, a Chinese firm took out a 99-year lease on the strategic Indian Ocean harbor. 

That's not even close to being true. Sri Lanka debt crisis was actually more to western loans and credit policies than Chinese ones as stated by actual scholars who ignored the smearing campaigns of western politics.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/whos-afraid-of-the-belt-and-road-11560108561 https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/08/debunking-myth-debt-trap-diplomacy

WSJ outright misled as proven by ironically western scholars. And yet you just made it seem like no matter what. People should treat major western reporting as all reliable and not to be questioned with. That makes Wikipedia just another conduit for western political views. In Iraq and Libya, we have seen just how western politics can lie excessively. And btw it's not Huffington Post saying that alone. It was directly the U.K. Parliament report that details how NATO's 2011 war in Libya was based on lies. https://www.salon.com/2016/09/16/u-k-parliament-report-details-how-natos-2011-war-in-libya-was-based-on-lies/

So it would be a mistake for Wikipedia to just treat western media every statement at face value without the minimal scrutiny given history. And the fact is that Istiqal, an exiled ughyur media group claimed to have received leaked documents from china. And we are just taking them at their word. That's an assumption and lazy journalism in which is no different to how western media acted in Libya. Nvtuil (talk) 03:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 WSJ is listed as WP:GREL on WP:RSP, meaning that the community believes that it is generally reliable as a source for facts. 

Generally does not even mean it's always reliable. WSJ btw are the same people who have misled the public by pushing claims like debt trap diplomacy even when there weren't any solid evidence to back it. Hence they can't automatically be treated as a trusted source given their actual history of misleading the public. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/china-debt-trap-diplomacy/617953/

Libya war Journalism was misleading precisely because it just quoted biased experts who were taking biased rebels words simply at face value. https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/03/22/libya-and-the-myth-of-humanitarian-intervention/

And the Japanese Newsweek sources made it clear that the accounting figures had come from Istiqal, who had claimed to received them from a reliable local public security source. I think the Japanese report was very neutral as they don't outright assume that an exiled ughyur separatist media group is even a neutral source to be believed just like that. And the original edits before you came in, were decent enough. Nvtuil (talk) 03:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Frankly both versions of the sentence were poorly worded as they both had the same difficult to parse opening clause. I've rewritten it, kept the reference to Istiqlal, and added the important information from the WSJ piece. See what you both think. Sidenote: this isn't the place to litigate the WSJ's general reliability or whether Chinese debt traps are real. Harland1 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Nvtuil:I can't tell if you're suggesting we generally disregard "Western" media on this (even those media outlets listed at WP:RSP) or if you have a specific objection to the WSJ source. If it's the former, I don't think your comments in line with existing Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, nor on community consensus regarding many specific sources, and I have better things to do with my time than hash that discussion out here. If it's the latter, I would also encourage you to read other reporting that seems to be quite fine in saying that the documents are real, including peer-reviewed academic sources. "Mapping Crisis and Solutions in the Uighur National Question", an academic source published in the peer-reviewed Peace Review, noted that [i]n February 2020, a document was leaked from an insider in the Xinjiang region. This document gives the most powerful insight yet into how China determined the fate of hundreds of thousands of Uighur Muslims held in a network of internment camps. As it turns out, this is referring to the same document used by Zenz in his analysis. And, mind you, Zenz's own report that was based off of these numbers was also published in a peer-reviewed academic journal. These are peer-reviewed academic sources, which at the end of the day does carry a good deal of weight. We're supposed to be editing with neutral intent and portraying what RS portray. I think it's fine to mention the source of the numbers as portrayed by RS. And, if you prefer peer-reviewed academic sources over news sources, there are plenty of academic sources that appear in peer-reviewed journals that are using these numbers that you seem to have a personal low confidence in. WP:USEBYOTHERS exists for a reason. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

The edit by Harland1 addresses the problems of clarity and wording of the other two versions. I hope we can stick with this version. Any discussion of the reliability of the general reliability of sources should be addressed at RSN and not here, and the specific reliability of sources on Sri Lanka, Libya and Iraq is also not appropriate here. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

I emailed Auckland University who can find no record of Adrian Zenz completing a Masters Degree in Development Studies in 1974. I therefore request that the words below be deleted.

Zenz received a Master's degree in development studies from the University of Auckland,in 1974

George Andrews Ngaioboy (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Please change the text under "Reception" and then "Tibet" from:

"Development studies researcher Andrew Fischer described Zenz's early work as an "excellent discussion" of Tibetan education that included "interesting ways of measuring and representing" school outcomes[51] and as offering a "rare insight" into Tibetan education with "fascinating" details and of "immense value".[52]"

These quotes have been cut up and distorted, misrepresenting what Fischer wrote. Part of the story is also missing.

To:

"Development economist and demographer, Andrew Fischer, associate professor at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague and Scientific Director of the Dutch Research School for International Development, described Zenz's early work in relation to his own as dealing "with very similar issues related to the interaction between education and employment systems among Tibetans in Qinghai, with similar conclusions albeit from a perspective drawing largely from the anthropology of education literature..." [p.285 of same reference] and that "Zenz (2013) offers some interesting ways of measuring and representing these comparative qualitative outcomes between different types of schools or cohorts of students at the senior secondary and tertiary levels." [p.287, as cited].

"On the basis of this first contact, Fischer and Zenz worked together for several years on combining Zenz's extensive compilation of government graduate recruitments published online, as a way of measuring the extent of preferential practices in public employment in Tibetan areas, together with Fischer's extensive economic and demographic work on employment and population transitions in Tibetan areas. On the basis of this collaboration, they co-authored one working paper [2] and then an article in China Quarterly [3].

"They stopped working together after the article. Fischer has since never endorsed the more recent work of Zenz and has expressed caution with the evidence base of him claims." [4] Shidesemnyi (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done As a fluent speaker of Dutch, I can confirm that the cited article from De Standaard does not mention anything about Adrian Zenz. You are lying. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

This line should be removed: "Zenz, who is a fluent speaker of mandarin Chinese"

There is no evidence that Zenz speaks any Chinese language. 2A02:A460:6219:1:913D:25A9:BA6D:42BD (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the supporting source, your assertion is factually incorrect. Melmann 21:54, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The source linked does not provide any proof that Zenz is a fluent speaker of Mandarin, it simply asserts he does. There is no proof that Zenz speaks fluent Mandarin. LarsU778 (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

The "Led by God" part

Why within the article it is mentioned several times that his reply was that he was "...led by God..."? It looks as a specifical design for the appeal to believers purpose. However, it makes no sense to include this information in the top heading, as it diverts the attention to the emotional appeals. Please, consider deleting this irrelevant part, as this may not stand for the real purpose of his investigation. It is non-academical — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.20.55.8 (talk • contribs)

I reverted the addition of it to the lead, as it's an incredibly small part of this article and the theology stuff is not a significant aspect of Zenz's notability. Seems fine in the theology section though. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 08:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Criticism of Xinjiang Work

My information on criticism of Zenz's Xinjiang work was recently removed. Would like to get consensus for it's conclusion. I feel that this information would add balance to the argument, is well sourced, clearly attributes the opinions (does not say they are facts), shows the response from Zenz or others to the criticism. The assertion by User:Neutrality that this is "Chinese government apologia" is pretty inaccurate considering this has all been discussed by reliable third party sources and is worrying for WP if we cannot include widely sourced information for fear of this accusation. My intended section below:

"Criticism

The Chinese government have claimed that Zenz fabricated his work on Xinjiang. In March 2021, China’s Foreign Ministry announced that Chinese companies and individuals would sue Zenz for economic and reputational damage resulting from his work.

The Gray Zone published an article in 2019 by Ajit Singh and Max Blumenthal questioning the rigorousness of Zenz's research methods as well as the influence of US government funding on his work. A further in-depth report by Singh in 2021 claimed that Zenz's Xinjiang work is the result of "fraudulent statistical manipulation, cherry-picking of source material, and propagandistic misrepresentations" citing the lack of peer-reviewing of his reports. The work of The Gray Zone has been critised in the media and categorised as "left-wing denialism" by Aljazeera.

In April 2021 while speaking to the National Press Club, Australian National University academic Jane Golley referred to a "convincing" paper debunking the conclusions in Zenz's work. The paper, published anonymously due to fear of the reaction in Australia, claimed that the number of Uighurs in re-education camps had likely been inflated and forced sterilisations are a misrepresented aspect of China's family planning policy. Golley defended the paper's scholarship, saying she received the paper through a former Australian ambassador to China and consulted with two colleagues before publicly discussing it. Barry Sautman, from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, said the paper was a "sound examination of the principal politicised Xinjiang-related issues" and that he himself was not convinced of genocidal policy being carried out in Xinjiang. Zenz has discredited the anonymous paper, saying it would “struggle to get a pass mark as an undergraduate assignment”."

Sorry for the refs making the talk page look weird. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

References

• This is, in fact, Chinese government apologia. (1) the Chinese government's point of view on Zenz (including their "lawsuit" against him) is already mentioned in the article (amply); (2) far from being a "reliable source" The Grayzone is a fringe publication that has been formally deprecated; (3) as for the genocide denial piece in a website called the "European Financial Review" by someone called Dan Steinbock, I am not aware of anything suggesting that this is a legitimate publication at all (and indeed the website appears wildly sketchy); and (4) as for the final paragraph, even the source material refers to it as an "anonymous, unpublished, non-peer reviewed, allegedly academic report"; there's no reason why that should get any airtime at all. Neutrality^talk 00:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:Neutrality: "far from being a "reliable source" The Grayzone is a fringe publication that has been formally deprecated" even though the Grayzone has been "deprecated", it is clear from an objective view that the "deprecation" smear campaign was initiated by a clique of partisans with an assortment of fabrications and misrepresentations in their vapid arguments (I can address them if you want me to). Instead of relying on this slander of the Grayzone as unreliable, could you point out any faults in the articles cited?

"as for the genocide denial piece in a website called the "European Financial Review" by someone called Dan Steinbock, I am not aware of anything suggesting that this is a legitimate publication at all (and indeed the website appears wildly sketchy)" it's amusing that you don't even attack the article itself and instead go on to speculatory mudslinging. The piece by the European Financial Review cited had been thoroughly sourced by books, websites etc. almost the entire way down for its claims and this is not "genocide denial" when there is swaths of contradicting evidence and not even an academic consensus yet. Wow, those US government operatives must've been fringe, sketchy genocide-deniers.

Your edit has only sanitised Zenz further already from this pro-Zenz campaign of an article. Undo this irrational, disgraceful and prejudice reverting. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

References

If you want to challenge the Wikipedia community's stance on The Grayzone, you'll need to do it at the reliable sources noticeboard. Per WP:RSPS, it's not a reliable source for Wikipedia articles. An individual article's Talk page can't override that. Also, please avoid personalizing your arguments. Address content issues without characterizing other editors. Schazjmd (talk) 22:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My bad, where did I personalise my argument again? Also thank you for the advice. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Oops, another mistake on my part. I forgot to also mention that deprecated sources can "be evaluated and used like any other" (Wikipedia:Deprecated sources) in some exceptions. In this exception, I claim that the Grayzone has a credible analysis of Zenz's studies and therefore my point is still valid. ButterSlipper (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Which of the recognized exceptions are you arguing that this falls under? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

The "common sense" exception. "The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in WP:ABOUTSELF (see also WP:SPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB). An external link to the source can be included on an article about the source. Editors are also expected to use common sense and act to improve the encyclopedia. If an exception applies, the source can be evaluated and used like any other. Deprecation does not change the application of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and the use of all sources continues to be governed by WP:RS and WP:V." - Wikipedia:Deprecated sources. This is because the Grayzone makes a careful effort to criticise Zenz, compiling evidence from his background, education, affiliates AND method (I said this before) so therefore it is common sense to give it a non-partisan examination. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

But this is not an article about The Greyzone. That exception does not apply in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That is irrelevant to what I said Horse Eye's Back. I said that on the ground of common sense (which does sanction exceptions for deprecated news outlets), the Grayzone should be given a non-partisan examination. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Using a deprecated source for a WP:BLP is not a common sense exemption, even if this wasn’t a BLP it wouldn’t be common sense and within BLP we don’t have the room to override it with a local consensus even if everyone here wanted to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This is literally what the common sense rule is about. You are rejecting a diligently factual piece that has no sound rebuttals to its accuracy in favour of Wikipedia's rules. It doesn't even violate other Wikipedia rules too. You are nonsensically leaving this source out of the discussion. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

It clearly violated WP:BLP "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source.” We can’t be using a low quality unreliable source for contentious material about a living person. When you understand our policies and guidelines I promise this will all make sense to you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I know that Horse Eye's Back but could you please explain to me how this isn't an exception? Could you please illuminate where I am wrong in comprehending the rules? I have read the BLP article already but as mentioned earlier this is an exception because of the common sense rule. The veritable Grayzone piece(s) can add further nuance to this page and "still be a good contribution" because "[o]ur goal is to improve Wikipedia so that it better informs readers". Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means ButterSlipper (talk) 06:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Furthermore Horse Eye's Back, you are engaging in WP:WL by "[a]sserting that the technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express" and disallowing editors to add reliable and attesting sources. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

One day you will understand the difference between policy/guidelines and essays. There is no common sense exception to BLP. I would also note that the principle here is don’t use unreliable sources... It would appear to be you who is trying to override that underlying principle with a (mistaken) technical interpretation of the policies and guidelines... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Now that I have had time to think a lot and stuff, you are correct. Even though the Grayzone's reporting in those articles are about as accurate as saying the sky is blue, it was unfortunately blacklisted and I see where you're coming from. This is a mistake on my part; thank you for notifying me Horse Eye's Back. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Both of those sources are, as I said, fringe and sketchy. Also, the burden of establishing the reliability of a source is on the proponent. We don't assume that random Internet websites are reliable or that they provide a proper foundation for due weight in an article. Neutrality^talk 00:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

"Both of those sources are, as I said, fringe and sketchy" that doesn't necessary invalidate the statements from the sources and I already substantiated that the Grayzone's analysis of Zenz's study is credible because of the meticulous detail.

"the burden of establishing the reliability of a source is on the proponent" the Grayzone makes a careful effort to criticise Zenz, compiling evidence from his background, education, affiliates AND method. The "deprecated" Grayzone deserves a fair analysis of their piece. Your asinine claims also contradicts and ignores how I substantiated the second website's reasonability (The European Financial Review offers rigorous citations all over the piece).

You are clearly in the wrong and should sanction my right to re-implement the edit. Your rebut is lazy and inaccurate too, please make an effort to engage in discussion. If you continue re-using defunct arguments I will undo your edit because you do not have a believable case. ButterSlipper (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

• I’m seeing a lot of things that we would be stating as facts in wikivoice which are not actually stated as facts in the source, we can’t be more certain about something than them. Looking at the sources this also appears cherrypicked, we need to abide by WP:NPOV. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• User:Horse Eye's Back - editors are free to edit and tidy-up (a great thing about WP!) if I've infringed upon WP:NPOV by my clumsy wording.Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• We are not looking at the critical sources on their own though. They have been widely discussed (often critically) in reliable sources? The Australian, ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, South China Morning Post, Australian Financial Review, Foreign Policy, Sky News among others ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) have discussed Jane Golley and the anonymous paper. The work by The Gray Zone has been discussed by Aljazeera, Haaretz, Axios, Wall Street Journal, Russia Today (not reliable but shows wide coverage), Coda, New Statesman, South China Morning Post among others. I concede that sourcing can probably be slightly improved for The Gray Zone section. Many of these sources are used elsewhere in the article so what is wrong with them now? This appears to be WP:POV by omission if we cannot accept well sourced information. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Vladimir, I am broadly sympathetic to what you say here, but I think we won't be able to expand the article to reflect your concerns unless the discourse in RS moves further on this issue. As the events involving Professor Jane Golley indicate, there is an ironclad narrative that questioning the conclusions of Zenz's research (upon which a vast majority of RS reporting on the Uighur issue depends) is nothing but apologia for the Chinese government. I think this is a shame, because research is research; it should be subject to free and open discussion and debate among experts in the field in which it is conducted. It is somewhat ironic that so many discussions about the actions of the Chinese government revolve around notions of authoritarianism, free speech, censorship, and so on, but questioning the conclusions of Zenz's research is enough to force the resignation of one of Australia's top China scholars. (A hypothetical response would be: "But the work Golley referred to was an anonymous document and not peer reviewed!" My point stands. It appears there are no shades of grey when it comes to deviation from the notion that Zenz's work is unassailably sound: doing so is simply heretical. If a historian, in raising questions about the work of another historian, turned out to have gotten some numbers wrong, he or she would simply say, "Okay, I got some numbers wrong, I need to look at this stuff again." And nobody would care too much. The same is not true of the area we are discussing here.)

In terms of RS, I think this, from the SCMP, is enlightening but probably not enough to warrant additions to this article's 'criticism' section (which should simply be removed and the content placed elsewhere, because of the usual problems with criticism sections.) In the SCMP piece, Zenz himself admits that the figures arrived on regarding total numbers of detainees were extrapolated from small data sets, a fact noted also (albeit much more polemically) by the (deprecated, biased, fringe, wumao, etc) Grayzone. Anotheranothername (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Two points in response:

1. These are valid points but I would then say that the entire "Reception" section is quite problematic. Especially if primary sourced endorsements are seen as notable while criticism with both primary and secondary sources discussing it (even if they discredit it) is not. This is the main reason I inserted these points - as well as the Golley story being so big in Australia.
2. Even if the criticism is junk scholarship (and it probably is), the sheer amount of coverage about it warrants notability (it is notable enough to be covered on Max Blumenthal to some extent). So notable that Zenz himself responded to it. I think editors sometimes mistakenly think that reporting a widely covered view is an endorsement of this point of view. I probably worded this too clumsily and didn't include enough of the pushback but it is bizarre that editors can hand waive away such sustained global coverage. We have entire pages dedicated to conspiracy theories remember! Vladimir.copic (talk) 04:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the Golley paper adds to our knowledge of Zenz. It's not a response to Zenz, but to accusations of genocide generally. I think this article is meant to be a biography of Zenz rather than a free-for-fall discussion of genocide allegations. NotBartEhrman (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting the paper (which isn't Golley's, btw) adds to our knowledge of Zenz. I was saying that there is not enough material in RS on a critical response to Zenz's work from China scholars for a "criticism" section (which, again, is unnecessary split from the content surrounding it). Since the work Zenz is most notable for provides an evidentiary base for allegations of genocide from some very powerful governments/organisations and individuals, we have to be very careful here. That cuts both ways. Anotheranothername (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry I've been busy and haven't kept track of this. I'm inclined to agree with Anotheranothername's arguments. Seems best to integrate any 'criticism' that exists or may emerge into the response section. In my opinion, some of the response section is quite problematic and uses wikivoice for contentious statements eg "Zenz has become a target for coordinated disinformation attacks from pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entities." (Ironically one of the sources supporting this statement specifically singles out The Gray Zone but I won't to get back into that discussion.) This section could probably be rewritten to be more neutral eg something like "rebuttals from Chinese state-run media and affiliated media outlets have been characterised as coordinated disinformation attacks by the Western media" (I feel like its slightly unfair to talk about 'Pro-Beijing' outlets when we cannot mention Gray Zone by name). When I have time I'll give this an edit and remove the small Criticism section. Thanks all (sorry this got so heated). Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:08, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Fluent in Mandarin?

Re this edit: the source previously used for the claim that Zenz is a fluent Chinese speaker didn't mention it so removal was correct. However, this reliable source says "The fluent Mandarin speaker spent months pouring over thousands of documents from obscure corners of the Chinese internet to join the dots to create a fuller picture of what was happening in one of the most closely guarded places on earth." Should/can we say he is so fluent? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• BobFromBrockley: I agree we should include whether or not Zenz speaks Chinese in this article because it is definitely relevant to this matter but the source cited is an uncritical admiration piece of Zenz from a right-wing news outlet. Moreover, this source is alone in making this claim among reliable sources, makes no effort to corroborate further for this contencious assertion and clashes with what Chinese-state media claims (I know it isn't really that reliable but they are Chinese themselves). If we find a more reliable source, it would be reasonable to put it in the first paragraph perhaps and not as a bolster for the legitimacy of his estimate (as that would violate NPOV) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterSlipper (talk • contribs)

I can't find a more reliable source, so maybe we should leave it, but the Telegraph is considered RS and its political position does not change that. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with you again but we shouldn't dogmatically believe what every "reliable source" says and should scrutinise them each on their merits in occasions like this because some reliable outlets are obviously more credible than others (The Telegraph is known for it's pro-Tory and partisan skew) and some specific pieces like the one cited are uncritical and definitely inadequate for this discussion. I assume this claim will remain disputed until better sources are located. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Is it actually disputed? By which I mean is it actually disputed by any reliable sources? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Not really disputed by reliable sources because it's not really talked about at all except that individual The Telegraph article. With more thinking, I believe it would be appropriate to claim Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese but attribute The Telegraph because it is one of the only reliable sources found that asserts that (to my knowledge). ButterSlipper (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

If theres nothing disputed or contentious about it I don’t think thats necessary. The Telegraph is an extremely reliable source and contrary to your assertions that is not an "uncritical admiration piece." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back I can't read the article now unfortunately, but it needlessly heroises Zenz from what I read and the Telegraph has been caught in some scandals regarding factual content so I don't know if we should be only relying on only this individual source to state a fact. We could always attribute it though. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Those are not "scandals". WP's RS policy takes these kind of fact checks into account. More pertinently, most of the failed fact checks relate to science and health issues, where mainstream news media is not gold standard anyway. I would attribute them for issues relating to some UK party political issues (they are a Tory paper). But their foreign policy and world affairs coverage is very strong and none of the failed fact checks relate to this area. In short, unless we have evidence of contestation from RSs, there's no reason not to include this and no particular reason to attribute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean by "needlessly heroises Zenz” I’m looking over the article again and I’m finding it hard to see that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Horse Eye's Back the article immediately victimises Zenz ("Meet the man China is desperate to silence"), framing the situation as if the Chinese government doesn't have reason to challenge his studies because of his shady character and methodology. I would take more parts of the article but I can't read it because of the paywall. Bobfrombrockley The Telegraph has also misled or made false claims on non-health/science related issues so the accuracy of The Telegraph on issues like Adrian Zenz may not be the most trustworthy. I still suggest looking for a better reliable source specifically for this situation because it's not like The Telegraph's claims can be found on other reliable sources as of now and this is a politicised statement because it has been polemically used by both Chinese-state media and The Telegraph to legitimise or delegitimise Adrian Zenz. Excluding this hard-to-verify claim will not be the end of the world and facts have to be the most solid for Wikipedia. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government hasn’t just challenged him. He was sanctioned along with with nine other people and four European institutions in response to EU sanctions imposed on China for human rights violations in Xinjiang,[10] that would appear to objectively make Zenz a victim. Please either provide a source which supports "shady character and methodology” or withdraw it per WP:BLP. The Telegraph is a WP:RS in this context, Chinese state media is not you’re making a false statement of equivalency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chinese government agents/proxies/outlets routinely defame Adrian Zenz, and believe his studies to be false and slander. If Zenz is going to push what the Chinese government believes to be false allegations about human rights in China then Zenz will get backlash from the government. Thank you for notifying me more on Wikipedia policy and now I withdraw the statement that he has a shady character and methodology because I forgot I can't speak my opinions here. Also please keep in mind I am not equating The Telegraph and Chinese-state media here, I am just saying in conglomeration with Chinese-state media opposing The Telegraph's claims and the other factors of unreliability that The Telegraph indicates, specifically in this situation, we should not use it. ButterSlipper (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

We can’t use Chinese state media *at all* in this context and I’m not actually seeing any "other factors of unreliability that The Telegraph indicates” here... If you want to challenge the existing consensus on the reliability of The Telegraph you can do so, but not here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government does believe these charges to be false and also please read my reply I am not trying to say The Telegraph is always unreliable or only generally reliable. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The Chinese government is not a reliable source in this context either, we cannot use them. I know you aren’t trying to say that The Telegraph is always unreliable or only generally reliable, but you also haven’t brought anything up which suggests that they aren’t reliable in this specific context. Nothing you’ve brought up has been specifically regarding The Telegraphs coverage of human rights abuses in China. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper, Horse Eye's Back, and Bobfrombrockley: It might be worth including his fluency in Mandarin in his "career" section, as it's relevant to the skills he's developed as an sinologist/anthropologist. It's well sourced (The Telegraph is a prennial reliable source and this sort of information isn't... contested by anybody who's reliable). I'm going to place it in there for now. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 his profile would be a primary source so we could attribute that but if you saw in the discussion prior, you would see how The Telegraph is one of the only located reliable sources concerning whether or not Adrian Zenz can speak Mandarin Chinese and The Telegraph has a troubling past of factual inaccuracy on topics like these. ButterSlipper (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

"has a troubling past of factual inaccuracy on topics like these.” none of the sources you’ve presented say this. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ButterSlipper: Are you arguing that The Telegraph has an past history of falsely publishing that an academic speak a particular language? I'm a bit confused here. This seems like one of those unexceptional facts that I'd even accept an WP:ABOUTSELF source on. I can't tell what class of topics you're trying to describe when you're saying topics like these.— Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

The issues with headlines don't really fret me; we don't consider newspaper headlines to be reliable sources because they are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article. I also don't see an issue issue with The Telegraph publishing what Frank Field said; so long as The Telegraph accurately stated what field said, then it's actually a reliable source for what was said by the MP. The remaining fact check stands, though this is why we also should try to use best sources when available, like the study itself. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Mikehawk10 Horse Eye's Back I will repeat what I said earlier and try to provide more clarity. The Telegraph has had a concerning history of misinformation so the reliability of it on a small fact about Adrian Zenz may not be the best for this situation because it is the only reliable source that states this and The Telegraph doesn't cite this from another reliable source or source this claim with any evidence. As known, context matters and we should not accept The Telegraph as a dependable source in this context. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, I am open to intext attribution to disallow undue weight but still bring possibly relevant information to the board. ButterSlipper (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

I’m not seeing misinformation talked about in any of those links, again unless you have something which is directly related to this context (human rights in China) then this is not the place to bring these things up. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about Zenz and general mainstream information; not human rights in China. Is this not a biography on Adrian Zenz?? ButterSlipper (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I think The Telegraph is reliable for describing an Zenz's ability to speak Chinese. If you don't think it's reliable for these sorts of claims, then I'd take it to WP:RSN, but I think facts reporting from a generally reliable news organization is perfectly fine to use here. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with you in other cases Mikehawk10 but if this were to be such a true and obvious fact then how come not any other reliable news organisations picked up on this fact? The Telegraph has no primary source that it has picked this fact up from too. When you address my other points then I will be willing to accept the changes but as of now intext attribution or removal seems the most reasonable. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Did The Telegraph not interview the man? I don't understand the persistence in rejecting this, unless there is information that The Telegraph is in some way fabricating that Zenz is able to speak Chinese. And, considering Chinese language skills would be pretty important for his Xinjiang work (especially when he was an independent researcher without any sort of institutional support), I really don't understand the extreme skepticism of the source. Again, happy to take this to WP:RSN, but I really don't see the need. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Was there an interview The Telegraph did? If you can find it please cite it and then we can conclude this. When I looked through the article, I couldn't find any interview done on Adrian Zenz by The Telegraph and I have skepticism because yes The Telegraph has fabricated facts before and I do not want to accidentally spread misinformation on a biography of a living person. Also, he is not an "independent researcher" he does his work with the backing of many US government-funded organisations and he does not need to speak Chinese to do his work. I would regard Telegraph as reliable but context matters and The Telegraph is just not appropriate now. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

To WP:RSN we go! — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Right at the start of the article under discussion are the words "tells The Telegraph", indicating this is an interview. It's not clear whether their statement about his fluency is based on the interview or on other reliable sources, but they state it as a fact so it doesn't matter. There is no reason to discuss reliability further. RSN is never going to uphold this minority position but ButterSlipper is free to take this there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Its an RS, we should attribute it, but its still an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven so you agree with me? I believe The Telegraph is a reliable source but I want to attribute in this case as I said on the noticeboard. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said. Note (however) this is called a compromise, it does not endorse the idea that the Telegraph is not fully and wholly an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 09:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Slatersteven, can you explain why you think we need to attribute? I don't have a problem with attribution but it is clear that most editors on this page and a strong consensus across WP acknowledges the Telegraph as RS and the minority editor has not presented any evidence of misinformation (or even inaccuracy) in Telegraph's reporting on non-UK issues let alone China issues. The article is by Josie Ensor, one of their best journalists (winner of the Marie Colvin Award at the Press Gazette British Journalism Awards in 2020), and there is absolutely no reason to doubt it. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Just as a compromise (as I said), no other reason.Slatersteven (talk) 11:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

• Source is excellent and reliable. No need to attribute -- that's like putting scare quotes on this basic neutral statement of unremarkable fact. This discussion is being run into the ground by a clear POV-pusher who is edit-warring and endlessly engaging in battleground behavior, inaccurate wikilawyering, and WP:IDHT across numerous pages with numerous people on this one single issue. Softlavender (talk) 04:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• Please substantiate your claim of this being an "unremarkable fact" when I have a multitude of points regarding my skepticism. Also please stop assuming bad faith in me. I have already told you this multiple times Softlavender. I am not a pov-pusher, edit-warrer, "endlessly engaging in battleground behavio[u]r", wikilawyering or WP:IDHT. You have no evidence to validate a single one of your claims and that is shocking when you are making a hatchet job with numerous false accusations. All I have done is engage in discussion to create a fact-based BLP. What's interesting to note is that you have admitted to having a subscription from The Telegraph [11] so you have a conflict of interest. I hope you're complying with the WP:COI guideline as it describes any external relationship. Cheers. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

What? Paying to read a newspaper means you have COI, seriously?Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi Mikehawk10. Similar to before [12], you have unilaterally decided to revert one of my edits with a vapid explanation. You stated "in-text attribution is odd for a WP:GREL source reporting an unexceptional fact. There doesn't actually appear to have been consensus to remove the information from the article, nor is there a new consensus to use in-text attribution. I don't see why moving the long-present info to the career section pending other discussions is improper here pending other discussions" [13] but there are many problems with this. As stated by Cullen [14] this is an exceptional fact and yes there has not been a consensus but that's because the post in the noticeboard has only been up for approximately 3 hours as I write this and if we're measuring based on policy-based arguments, then the intext attribution would be maintained because you and the user campaigning for your side rely on falsified speculation while Cullen who questions this claim and I have made sufficient corroboration that has no rebuttal. I heavily dislike users unilaterally choosing on a whim and without discussion expunging my work and that is a rejection of accepted standards (read the "Before reverting" part). ButterSlipper (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender perhaps you need to know this too. You are in no place to revert my edit when the consensus we are trying to create for this edit you have sabotaged with few, false and fruitless contributions. You have unreasonably wiped out my edit. I will not accept this. ButterSlipper (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

It's not a matter of what you personally will accept or not accept. Right now there is no clear consensus for attribution, and until there is, the status quo ante prevails, per WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, it was reverted, and now discussion must ensue and arrive at a clear consensus. Do not edit-war or you will again be blocked from editing. Softlavender (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Why do we have the status quo ante when the status quo ante was put in place by an invalid reverting by Mikehawk10? When Mikehawk10 did that, I undid his invalid revert and then specified on the talk page, and now we have the consensus to decide for us while the page should be at where it was previously because that was the middleground I had made for both Mikehawk10 while the consensus was being built. Please undo this yourself I do not want to argue more and more. Also please understand the full context of actions and events before making decisions because if you did do that then you would know that I had correctly made the page what it was before you ruined it. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the status quo ante (before you started edit-warring) was this [15], prior to your attempt to remove the information entirely [16]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How was I edit-warring again??? And I did that edit in your second diff because the way it was phrased there was a very protruding violation of NPOV using that alleged fact to bolster his legitimacy. We had discussion thereafter and there was another status quo here [17] that had occurred because Mikehawk10 tried to push his point when mine was pushed and I reverted that and put in a middleground with just intext attribution because we are still waiting for the consensus to flourish. I explained that in the talk page. [18] What you are doing Softlavender is totally going against the Wikipedian spirit of collaboration and making brash reverts and statements like that one about my "pro-Communist" agenda. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I think it is time to read wp:bludgeon. and close this.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

For posterity sake, the RSN discussion resulted in a strong consensus that The Telegraph is reliable for Zenz's speaking ability. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I accept the Telegraph is an RS for Adrian Zenz' fluency in Mandarin

I no longer believe The Telegraph should be questioned with more thinking. I hope the relevant people know this. ButterSlipper (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent bold changes in content

On 10 September, Vladimir.copic boldly edited the page, which I objected to and reverted in large part (though not entirely). My objection to the edits lied in the removal of sourced content, as well as the radical shift in the tone that appears to present the Chinese state-media apparatus to be on equal weight with those of perenially reliable sources, which isn't exactly how we are supposed to be handling due weight. I'm taking this to the talk page, per WP:BRD. Rather than make this a slow-motion edit war, I'd prefer to discuss this on this page. I do believe that the status quo ante should be preserved pending this discussion, since that version of the page had been on the page since May until it was removed on the 10th. I also do not understand the reason why, in an edit today, Vladimir.copic's most recent revert was so wholesale as to not preserve the addition of a new selected work, a peer-reviewed publication which was published in Central Asian Survey and has received considerable media attention. I'm looking forward to resolving this, though I firmly believe that the page is worse off now than it was at the end of day on September 9 (GMT). — Mikehawk10 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I can see Mikehawk10 has already reverted my edit before any discussion has been had which is pretty bad form in my opinion. I was thanked by two editors, ButterSlipper and Softlavender, for my previous edit. As you can see on this Talk page, these two editors don't always see eye-to-eye so I think that my edit was quite even-handed. I have a few issues with the paragraph in question - some just stylistic (why front load disinformation rather than Chinese government criticism - it flows better? Why not separate this into two paragraphs 1. Chinese criticism 2. Chinese legal action?) and some more substantive:

1. Pro-Beijing A previous discussion on this page decided not to discuss The Gray Zone and other non-Chinese criticism so I think it's unfair to do a vague illusion to them by using "Pro-Beijing". None of the sources use this term. It is certainly more vague than the term "western media" which you take issue with.
2. "confirmed to have been truthful" I feel like this is unnecessary authoritative wikivoice here. It is vague and not encyclopaedic language. We do not need to rebut the Chinese claims at every turn. From the rest of the section and article, the validity of Zenz's claims are clear. It just sounds POV.
3. "repeated cyber attacks" This is WP:UNDUE. The weight or details of this story is not reflected in the source. The source says "Email after email began landing in his inbox from accounts with Uyghur-sounding names offering 'evidence' and imploring him to click on a link." and is evidently cautious about this accusation. We need to have an even higher standard at WP for WP:BLP. Unless more sources are supplied supporting this it needs to be removed.
4. "coordinated disinformation attacks" I have some reservations about the regurgitating of this wording with Wikivoice but I am willing to concede this one.

Ultimately I think that my version flowed a lot better, sounded more encyclopaedic, better reflected sources and removed the tendency to bash China at the end of every sentence while remaining unbiased. Based on feedback from Mike I think removing the "characterised as coordinated disinformation attacks by Western media sources" comment would be fine. Vladimir.copic (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS it is down to you to make a case, not down to the person reverting.Slatersteven (talk) 11:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Actually I think the onus is on Mikehawk10. He is the one reverting/edit warring despite my edit being the result of a discussion on this Talk page. He even reverted before a consensus was reached on this page. Despite this I have made a case as to why my version is better. It removes the contentious or contentiously worded parts and flows better. Vladimir.copic (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

No, the onus is on the individual who's making a bold change. If you're substantially changing longstanding content, including its tone, there should be a good reason given for it. — Mikehawk10 (talk)

To respond to the first three points, where we seem to have substantial disagreement:

1. I believe that pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entities is well-reflected in the coverage provided by The Telegraph, which states that Chinese state-owned newspapers and government-friendly publications regularly publish hit-pieces on Zenz; the CNN, which says Chinese state media and officials have begun attacking researcher Adrian Zenz; and reporting from The Diplomat, which says that As China steps up its efforts to manage global opinions, it increasingly customizes its message to local audiences, including via cooperation with disinformation outlets. ... Notably, as thoroughly explored by ASPI, Chinese media and officials have utilized the coverage of the far-left website Grayzone to discredit reporting on human rights abuses in Xinjiang, singling out German scholar Adrian Zenz for personal attacks. Once could also read ASPI's summary of its report, which states that Our latest report highlights the ways in which the CCP is outsourcing the dissemination of disinformation. It does so by tendering to companies such as the United Front Work Department–linked Changyu Culture, based in Xinjiang. Videos created by the company attempt to whitewash international political discourse on the treatment of the region’s Uyghur population and are amplified by fake social media accounts on US platforms that the mainland Chinese population doesn’t have direct access to. \ Our data demonstrates that the CCP is increasingly leveraging fringe sites like The Grayzone as vehicles for its own propaganda. These sites have pre-existing audiences that the CCP can exploit to inject disinformation into the Western media environment.
2. The Globe and Mail reports that The Chinese government has called his findings “lies” – even when it confirmed them. The report goes on to list specific examples, with (for example) a reference to what appears to be the so-called "Lie 1" mentioned this infographic from the Global Times. Given that The Globe and Mail is a paper of record, and also that the author of the piece won a National Press Award for his coverage of the related oppression of Uyghurs. It seems that this sort of reporting would carry weight, and I don't think that this is undue, and I don't know how wave of hacking attacks is not enough to substantiate repeated cyber attacks.
3. The piece from The Telegraph gives quite a bit of weight to the hacking. It quite literally begins with It was right after Adrian Zenz published his report on the abuse of Uyghur Muslims in the Chinese province of Xinjiang that the wave of hacking attacks began. \ Email after email began landing in his inbox from accounts with Uyghur-sounding names offering "evidence" and imploring him to click on a link. \ His work exposing the mass internment and oppression of the minority Uyghurs has made him a top target for the Chinese government. \"Their work against me is in many ways a sign of success," Mr Zenz tells The Telegraph from his home in Minnesota. "It shows they are worried."(emphasis mine). I don't think that offering the hacking attacks a single sentence is undue. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I tend towards Mikehawk10's view here, especially about no.1 above. I think Rebuttals to Zenz's work from Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entities, have been characterised as coordinated disinformation attacks by Western media sources. is cumbersome wording and we don't need to distance ourselves from what "Western media sources" say if these are RSs, especially as Mike has noted at least one source that is not a "media source", the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. BobFromBrockley (talk) 15:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Continual undoing of edits

I did not really intend on having a long discussion about this and hoped others would make the minor improvements necessary but it appears my edits will be immediately undone otherwise.

The reason for my readding of those edits was simple, i believe there should be criticism of this individual on the article (as there should be with most individuals) and the complete lack of criticism seemed extremely unfair.

Perhaps parts of the other revisions can be added to the one i readded, and the minor issues presented previously can be fixed without completely undoing my (and others) edits.

The issues presented previously such as stylistic flow or cumbersome wording can clearly simply be fixed, on the other hand some presented, such as some sources claiming the chinese governments criticisms are flawed are irrelevant since that is still very much made clear in the article and the criticisms should be presented nonetheless.

Gonna ping ButterSlipper and Vladimir.copic since im sure they have an interest. Corinal (talk) 10:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We say it already "Zenz and his work on Xinjiang have been criticized by the Chinese government,[39][44][45][46] which has repeatedly described Zenz's findings as "lies" even in cases where his findings were confirmed to have been truthful.[39] In March 2021, Chinese state media reported that Chinese companies have filed a lawsuit in Xinjiang against Zenz to recoup economic losses and restore their reputations in response to what Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian described as "Zenz's 'rumors' of forced labor in the region".[38]". Your edit adds nothing new.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well unfortunately due to edit restrictions i am unable to restore and add to the revision but in any case the revision removes and replaces some phrasing that in my view takes away from criticism unfairly and makes it seem like the entire article is without proper criticism such as "Zenz has become a target for coordinated disinformation attacks from pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entities." before such criticism, even if that claim is properly sourced (which I do not consider one of the sources, CNN to be) it still stops the paragraph from being proper criticism. Corinal (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

In my view articles like this should have both supportive viewpoints and criticism not supportive viewpoints alone and criticism with supportive viewpoints mixed in Corinal (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Infact i would be in favour of adding a criticism section, keeping the supportive viewpoints that are currently mixed in where they are in a very positive reception section but unfortunately due to edit restrictions i am unable to do so Corinal (talk) 10:59, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Also note, i will not be able to continue this discussion now as I did not intend on having a lengthy discussion as i mentioned, i will continue it later however when i have more time. Corinal (talk) 11:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

We should not have criticism sections, certainly not ones reliant on Chinese state media.Slatersteven (talk) 11:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I said i wouldnt be able to continue this discussion but I thought i'd check back incase i had anything quick to say and I do, we should have such sections and if it is regarding an individual such as Adrian Zenz who's main thing is criticising China, then yes we should have responses from the Chinese Government. Corinal (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what I quoted, we already cover this criticism from China. And if you are not willing to discuss it why start this? Sorry but you have no consensus for your edits, and if you are not willing to discuss it this should be closed.Slatersteven (talk) 11:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Did you read what i quoted? I think the current coverage is bad. I'm willing to discuss it that's why i'm currently doing so, and how can you claim I have no consensus and this should be closed when you and I are the only one's discussing it currently and we have just begun. Let us wait some time for others to discuss their views before making claims of consensus, in fact the previous discussion didn't really have consensus either its just that the original editor decided to stop discussing. I have decided to avoid looking at this page until Im no longer busy so I'm not tempted to respond to you again, but i hope others will do so. Corinal (talk) 11:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

At least one other editor reverted you. Note WP:ONUS It is down to you to get consensus for inclusion. And CNN is an RS.Slatersteven (talk) 11:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2021

Zenz's knowledge of written Chinese has been questioned multiple times. The source for the claim the he is fluent in Mandarin is insufficient and therefore should be removed. 185.104.171.39 (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Talk:Adrian_Zenz/Archive 2#Fluent in Mandarin? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you have RS saying this.Slatersteven (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with the semi-protection request. It seems that there's an edit war going on (see also the other discussion about criticism being removed) Tiibiidii (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

We literally have had an RSN discussion on this; I don’t think that there is anything that has changed. Have any reliable sources actually questioned his Mandarin abilities? — Mhawk10 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2021 (UTC)