Talk:Adrian Zenz

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2021

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

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

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

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

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 believes; 
- 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 Xijiang. 

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)

The "Led by God" part

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

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

Criticism of Xinjiang Work

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

"Criticism

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• User:Horse Eye's Back - editors are free to edit and tidy-up (a great thing about WP!) if I've infringed upon WP:NPOV by my clumsy wording.Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
• We are not looking at the critical sources on their own though. They have been widely discussed (often critically) in reliable sources? The Australian, ABC, The Sydney Morning Herald, South China Morning Post, Australian Financial Review, Foreign Policy, Sky News among others ([1] [2] [3] [4] [5]) have discussed Jane Golley and the anonymous paper. The work by The Gray Zone has been discussed by Aljazeera, Haaretz, Axios, Wall Street Journal, Russia Today (not reliable but shows wide coverage), Coda, New Statesman, South China Morning Post among others. I concede that sourcing can probably be slightly improved for The Gray Zone section. Many of these sources are used elsewhere in the article so what is wrong with them now? This appears to be WP:POV by omission if we cannot accept well sourced information. Vladimir.copic (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Two points in response:

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

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

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

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

Fluent in Mandarin?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Chinese government hasn’t just challenged him. He was sanctioned along with with nine other people and four European institutions in response to EU sanctions imposed on China for human rights violations in Xinjiang,[6] that would appear to objectively make Zenz a victim. Please either provide a source which supports "shady character and methodology” or withdraw it per WP:BLP. The Telegraph is a WP:RS in this context, Chinese state media is not you’re making a false statement of equivalency. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC) Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Please substantiate your claim of this being an "unremarkable fact" when I have a multitude of points regarding my skepticism. Also please stop assuming bad faith in me. I have already told you this multiple times Softlavender. I am not a pov-pusher, edit-warrer, "endlessly engaging in battleground behavio[u]r", wikilawyering or WP:IDHT. You have no evidence to validate a single one of your claims and that is shocking when you are making a hatchet job with numerous false accusations. All I have done is engage in discussion to create a fact-based BLP. What's interesting to note is that you have admitted to having a subscription from The Telegraph [7] so you have a conflict of interest. I hope you're complying with the WP:COI guideline as it describes any external relationship. Cheers. ButterSlipper (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent revert

Hi Mikehawk10. Similar to before [8], 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" [9] but there are many problems with this. As stated by Cullen [10] this is an exceptional fact and yes there has not been a consensus but that's because the post in the noticeboard has only been up for approximately 3 hours as I write this and if we're measuring based on policy-based arguments, then the intext attribution would be maintained because you and the user campaigning for your side rely on falsified speculation while Cullen who questions this claim and I have made sufficient corroboration that has no rebuttal. I heavily dislike users unilaterally choosing on a whim and without discussion expunging my work and that is a rejection of accepted standards (read the "Before reverting" part). ButterSlipper (talk) 06:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

No, the status quo ante (before you started edit-warring) was this [11], prior to your attempt to remove the information entirely [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 10:21, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

How was I edit-warring again??? And I did that edit in your second diff because the way it was phrased there was a very protruding violation of NPOV using that alleged fact to bolster his legitimacy. We had discussion thereafter and there was another status quo here [13] that had occurred because Mikehawk10 tried to push his point when mine was pushed and I reverted that and put in a middleground with just intext attribution because we are still waiting for the consensus to flourish. I explained that in the talk page. [14] What you are doing Softlavender is totally going against the Wikipedian spirit of collaboration and making brash reverts and statements like that one about my "pro-Communist" agenda. ButterSlipper (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)