![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ 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)
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 velocitybecause 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)
makes birth control violations punishable by internment in the Xinjiang re-education campsis 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)
@ 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)
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. — MarkH21 talk 04:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above quote was given as an example forZum 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.]
unconventional, which the article uses in its own voice:
— MarkH21 talk 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)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".]
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adrian Zenz is NOT a sinologist Please change: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) [1] is a German anthropologist and sinologist known for his ArthurYase ( talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) To: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) [2] is a German anthropologist known for his ArthurYase ( talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Bestagon (
talk)
23:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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://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://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)
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)
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.
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.
[1] -- Ktchiu ( talk) 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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)
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)
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.
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.
[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 evidenceand that
said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.
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. 17 18
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)
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.
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.
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.
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".
@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)
[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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I emailed Auckland University who Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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:
Sorry for the refs making the talk page look weird. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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)
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)
@ 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)
topics like these.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entitiesis well-reflected in the coverage provided by The Telegraph, which states that
Chinese state-owned newspapers and government-friendly publications regularly publish hit-pieceson 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.
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 attacksis not enough to substantiate
repeated cyber attacks.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Talk:Adrian_Zenz/Archive 2#Fluent in Mandarin?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
@ 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)
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 velocitybecause 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)
makes birth control violations punishable by internment in the Xinjiang re-education campsis 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)
@ 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)
inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. — MarkH21 talk 04:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The above quote was given as an example forZum 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.]
unconventional, which the article uses in its own voice:
— MarkH21 talk 16:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)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".]
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Adrian Zenz is NOT a sinologist Please change: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) [1] is a German anthropologist and sinologist known for his ArthurYase ( talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC) To: Adrian Zenz (born 1974) [2] is a German anthropologist known for his ArthurYase ( talk) 21:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Bestagon (
talk)
23:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)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)
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://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://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)
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)
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.
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.
[1] -- Ktchiu ( talk) 00:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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/
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)
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)
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.
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.
[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 evidenceand that
said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to are almost always neutral and accurate. Extra care is needed with more loaded terms.
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. 17 18
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)
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.
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.
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.
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".
@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)
[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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I emailed Auckland University who Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). 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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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:
Sorry for the refs making the talk page look weird. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 00:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: |first=
has generic name (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
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)
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)
@ 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)
topics like these.— Mikehawk10 ( talk) 05:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 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)
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:
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)
pro-Beijing and Chinese state-run media, as well as other state-affiliated entitiesis well-reflected in the coverage provided by The Telegraph, which states that
Chinese state-owned newspapers and government-friendly publications regularly publish hit-pieceson 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.
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 attacksis not enough to substantiate
repeated cyber attacks.
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)
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)
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)
![]() | This
edit request to
Adrian Zenz has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Talk:Adrian_Zenz/Archive 2#Fluent in Mandarin?
ScottishFinnishRadish (
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)