Talk:Adrian Zenz

One-sided arguments

Wikipedia is famous for providing general information with a neutral tone. However, this article lacks arguments opposing the main layout, which leads one to think that it is not impartial at all. I request the editors to take a look on the opposite side and provide some critique. Otherwise, the article claims for no-ethics based analysis. The sections to pay attention to:

- The biography of Adrian Zenz;
- His personal beliefs; 
- His attitude towards Chinese;
- His work with the think-tank in W,CD;
- The reputation of that think-tank;
- The other side story;
- The Xinjiang - proofs;
- The independent researchers and journalists based in Xinjiang. 

Unless these topics are covered, the article cannot be in free access, as it advocates one-sided arguments. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.20.55.8 (talk • contribs)

I agree that the first 4 items on the list should go into there, but the 4 other items are not directly related to Adrian Zenz, so they should not go into this article, and should be put somewhere else. Bohaskan (talk) 03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

We can only go woth what RS cover.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree- this appears to be a very one-sided presentation about Zenz. Suggest reference is made to the following article https://johnmenadue.com/when-facts-are-not-necessarily-facts-the-uighurs-and-china/ for balance. 2001:8003:17EC:C400:78B9:EDF4:4044:99BE (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Is this an wp:rs? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

@Bohaskan the whole article reads like a self praising LinkedIn portfolio. It's ridiculous. His religious zealousness mixed with evangelical anti-communism should already be a major red flag for everybody. 🚩 He has almost zero scientific impact in social sciences with no citations. The math related to the "genocide" doesn't pass any serious statistical analysis. It's such a pity what Wikipedia has become. US 🇺🇸 paid agitators are allowed to control de narrative and throw any dissidents to the cleaners with reckless sinophobia. 100056255 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Then provide some RS saying all of this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Theology section

What's with the theology section of this article? The book mention seems appropriate for the "Career" section if it's notable at all while his statement about the motivation for his work relating to anthropology seems like an obvious, if somewhat unimportant, point to go in the "Anthropology" section instead. For that matter it's silly that there's even a separate "Anthropology" section given it's just more description of his career. 174.90.223.206 (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

"Far-right"

@FF toho: The source you've added does not describe Zenz in its own voice as far-right, but instead says that he has been described that way. And he has, for example by the Global Times, but that doesn't actually establish that this should be in WP:WIKIVOICE in the article. Additionally, please note that this article is under WP:1RR and the repeated restoration of the "far-right" descriptor is in violation of this restriction. Please self-revert. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Then we can say "according to", but if it is only one source not in the lede (which is summary of the important bits of our article, and one line is not "important bits of our article"). Slatersteven (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

We're going to say "according to" for Global Times, which is deprecated? That seems odd to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:24, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, this absolutely shouldn't be included. We should be strict on that sort of label at the best of times, but if it's referencing a deprecated source then it's clear-cut to me. — Czello 17:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Then that would have been a better objection, the source is not an RS. Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Have you read the source? It says he's been portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right. Not only is it not a clear descriptor, it's almost a refutation of that label. — Czello 17:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Then we might be able to say that, "he has been called...". But as I said I do not think once source would be enough for the lede, and (I will add) might be wp:undue. Slatersteven (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I reverted. Per WP:BLP we should take the time to get this right. If there are a multitude of reliable sources calling him far-right in their own voice, I'd push for a wiki-voice label. I don't think that's the case. Part of the disputed material is analysis and quotes of one of his books cited only to the primary source. No good. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing "geopolitical analysis" from 2014 book w/Silas

@JArthur1984: When I cited WP:BALASP in reverting, I didn't mean knocking the header down from a ==Level 2 Header== to a ===Level 3 Header===. The point I was making is that we don't really have secondary sources that have reported on this sort of thing, and for that reason this is unduly focusing on a minor aspect of Zenz. In particular, I don't understand why the two quotes you selected are due in its own section here as if they are solely Zenz's views, especially since he is not the sole author of that book. I see that Horse Eye's Back has also reverted your re-insertion of the material, but I want to start a discussion her about it if I was unclear with what I meant in my edit summary. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh, but what you wrote was you didn't see why it should be a "whole section."

I don't see your point as to why it's a minor aspect of Zenz. He's largely known for his analysis of world events.

We can easily address your co-author remark by adding, "According to Zenz and co-author Silas..." if you really think it's necessary. Is there any evidence Zenz has disclaimed that part of his co-authored text? JArthur1984 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The question is one of WP:DUEWEIGHT. Why did you cherrypick these specific claims from a long text? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Adrian Zenz is known for his expertise on Western China... not for his theology nor his belief that the composition of the G20 reflects the the post-WWII world order. If this particular thing is something for which he is well-known, you should be easily able to show reliable secondary sources that talk about this. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)