Talk:Adrian Zenz

Dispute over material from his book

@DemisJohnson, Loksmythe, and Horse Eye Jack: Can you please resolve your content dispute here, in lieu of edit warring? Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 17:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@DemisJohnson: In particular, do you have a quote that supports the claim being added to the article? I see a passage against laws against criticizing homosexuality on pages 36-37 and a passage about the dominant world philosophy being the spirit of the Antichrist, but I don’t see anything directly linking the two (or capitalism either). — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Originally it was sourced just to the introduction of the book which is free to access. I read the whole introduction and while it was typical of born again Christian hermeneutics I found none of the things which had been claimed. I see that the citation has since been updated to cite two specific pages which I don’t have access too. The weird thing for me given the limited access is how three different accounts (two SPAs and an IP) all apparently have access to the hard copy of an extremely obscure text which I cant find in any of my local libraries. TLDR: I don’t entirely doubt that whats claimed is in there in some form (its born again twaddle after all) but its not in the intro, and to summarize the book as such seems off. At least based on the intro those specific contentious claims are not what this book is really about, if they’re made I imagine its rather throwaway (especially if they’re only to be found on the two cited pages of a rather long book). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I can see the pages fine in the free Google Books preview, but I don’t see a direct connection in the cited pages. Of course, the SPA/IP activity is strange, but doesn’t preclude this possibly being in the book. The surrounding pages sort of hint at what’s actually being claimed. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, hadn’t checked google books. I’m not going to read hundreds of pages of text which I have no interest in to see what exactly is in there, lets assume its in there... Is just pulling out those bits due? Its not being done by a reliable source, its being done as OR while citing the text itself. If its supposed to be a summary of the book what we have here is not that. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

If its just supposed to be about self it seems like a bit of a hit job... Why no mention at all that the guy is really into hermeneutics? That seems like the biggest takeaway from this book. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Here are screenshots of the relevant passages from pages 31 and 47 on Amazon (click "look inside" then search for keywords). On my reading, they support the claim that laws against the physical punishment of children are promoted by Satan, but not that homosexuality is (that section is describing antidiscrimination laws, not explicitly condemning them). In any case, this whole discussion is a little silly. Zenz is primarily notable for his work on Xinjiang and the page feels like it's cherry-picking out there bits (of an already rather out there book) to discredit him. (Look at the contribution histories of the accounts adding the material to get a sense of their political motivations...) I'd suggest leaving things at a mention of his religion and a topline summary of the book's prediction of the end of days and the Antichrist. 2601:18A:C781:4100:B4D7:FA86:E54B:2B8 (talk) 18:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you on most things but we already have a WP:RS which says he’s born again and that he believes he’s led by God or whatever already, we don't need about self for that. Books generally aren’t reliable for crafting a summary of themselves, generally books are only included on the author’s wikipedia page when they’ve been reviewed in a reliable source. Existence does not establish notability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I eventually took a closer look at the relevant pages. The quotes from page 47 do include direct connections like

Rising numbers of countries are banning all forms of physical punishments of children [...] But true scriptural spanking is loving discipline and not violence, and neglecting the wisdom of the church makes the church increasingly vulnerable to the schemes of the enemy. Another important God-given authority structure that Satan is attacking through the postmodern spirit is that of gender authority structures [...] Through notions of gender equality and the unfortunate fact that men have abused positions of power over women, the enemy is undermining God's unique but different role assignments for men and women.
— book pg 47

The link to criticisms of homosexuality is not supported by the text, so I’ve removed that part shortened the mention for now.

This should obviously be balanced by other aspects of his hermeneutics works, but I'm not sure if I want to read more of this right now... The addition of this to the article by IPs/SPA, may have been in bad-faith, but basically the entire book is dedicated to how modern society is supposedly falling to the Antichrist. Looking through the contents, what was added isn’t actually extraordinary cherry-picking. — MarkH₂₁^talk 08:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the research but we still have the WP:DUE question and the multiple authors question, we don’t yet have consensus that this is a source we can use. Please don’t restore anything sourced to the book until we have consensus per BLP. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I didn’t restore anything, I just shortened it. The multiple author thing seems fine, since it now clearly states that it was a coauthored book. The current form seems much more due weight than the earlier version, but I can see the concerns from both sides. If there’s still disagreement we can open an RfC because it doesn’t look like discussion will get editors much further. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The “please don’t” was a reaction to “oh my god everyone is edit warring I hope MarkH21 doesn’t join in,” sorry if it came off harsher. I think given the off-wiki canvassing ([1] etc) a RfC on the BLP noticeboard is probably appropriate, this venue has been effectively poisoned as we can see from the zombie like hordes of IPs and SPAs. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of details on book per lack of third-party, independent sources, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:BLP / WP:POV concerns. Loksmythe (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Strongly support inclusion as relevant passages are publicly accessible, for free on google books, his religious views are fundamentally relevant as an academic known for his work at a theological college and given his main topic of research is related to a religious conflict PompeyTheGreat (talk) 23:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

How did you access the sections you summarized? Do you own the book? At issue here is where are the major sources (Associated Press etc) calling attention to details of his religious views? Absent that you're arguably engaged in WP:ORIGINAL research. He's *not*, in fact, known for his work at a theological college but for what he's done in the Xinjiang field, which incidentally also isn't entirely reducible to a "religious conflict".--Brian Dell (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

adrian zenz literally described homosexuality as " one of the four empires of the beast" and argue that normalizing view of homosexuality and anti-discrimination laws is becoming intolerant to "biblical Christianity". you don't have to read the whole to know this, just read pages 30, 31, and 33(which the source linked to). DemisJohnson (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd ask where's the link proving that but that's not the issue anyway. Maybe he also dresses up as a Geisha every Easter. The point is that it is not what he is famous for. If you want to contend it's relevant, show us reliable sources (i.e. not just personal attack pieces) that deem it relevant.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Oppose inclusion of the book. No one has yet provided a reliable source that discusses its contents. Without that, it's original research and not notable for inclusion. The WSJ article mentions his status as born again, so let's leave it at that. (There also seems to be an external campaign going on to discredit Zenz; I'm doubtful some of the editors present are operating in good faith.) Harland1 (^t/_c) 00:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

his book is a reliable source. in fact it's the most objective and best source out there. you don't need to read the whole book. just read pages 30,31 and 32 to know how he views homosexuality and racism. it seems to me that you guys are willing suppressed facts and truth to hide his views on homosexuality, racism. and his overall Christian fundamentalism view.DemisJohnson (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Harland1: A a self-published source is a reliable source about the person, so this wouldn’t be OR. The question is whether the claim is actually supported by what’s written in his book. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21: Good point about the source being OK as a source for itself. I still think the best approach is to list the book as a publication but not mention particular claims in the book. If we do that, we're going down a tricky road. Why, for example, mention the view on non-violent parenting and not the book's analysis of the Epistles? Or homosexuality but not the discussion of modern communications tech? (I've now spent more time than I ever intended looking at this silly book.) The book has lots of stuff in it and there's no good reason for including some of it but not the rest. Harland1 (^t/_c) 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: If the claim is directly written in his own book, then it’s a reliable source as a self-published source and not original research as some editors claim. The claim would need a clear quote to support it though. — MarkH₂₁^talk 00:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Good catch on the WP:ABOUTSELF vs WP:SPS. The original research comes because they’re not I statements (e.g. “I view homosexuality as X, Y, and Z") and must be inferred from the text which has *two authors* and no demarcation as to who wrote what. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

there's nothing more original than using his own book as a source to confirm his view on homosexuality and Christian feudalism thinking. this is his book, not my book .DemisJohnson (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Its technically two people’s book, that complicates things a bit as far as WP:ABOUTSELF is concerned. Just a note though as you’re new here, even when it falls under about self we still prefer a WP:RS. Self sourcing is always inferior. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says that a self-published source is an RS for statements about the author. There are different levels of reliability, but it’s still an RS about the author.

There are two authors, but it is still a publication of Zenz’s. One could note that it was co-authored in the sentence in the article, but that doesn’t change the self-published RS aspect. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You’re right I meant independent reliable source, and we do prefer them in all cases over self source. I do think that the two authors thing is a much bigger issue for about self than you’re making it out to be, we can only attribute the views to both authors we cant make any definitive declarations about Zenz based on it (at least not without very specific wording in the source itself). Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree on both. On the second point, that’s what I meant by including that it was coauthored in the article, e.g. "With ___, Zenz coauthored the book ___ which argues ..." — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

self-published sources as sources about themselves are only inferior if it's self-serving. this is his book expressing his Christian Christian fundamentalists view. you can't get a better and more objective source than that. DemisJohnson (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@MarkH21, Loksmythe, and Horse Eye Jack:

here's a direct screenshot from page 31 where argue that anti-discrimination law and normalizing LGBT views in is intolerant to "biblical Christianity" "anti-discrimination law and normalizing LGBT views in is intolerant to "biblical Christianity"". DemisJohnson (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• I added a longer quote. If that’s still disputed, I'll start an RfC so this can be settled since discussion probably won’t lead us further. At least the SPA/IPs likely from off-wiki activity has died down. — MarkH₂₁^talk 19:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Well the latest back-and-forth reverts between Bdell555 and Talleyrand20 shows that we still do need an RfC. I’ll start one shortly. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"known for his... critical views of homosexuality"

This currently appears in the very first sentence in the same breath as being known for what he's written about Xinjiang. If it's true, there ought to be media mentions that approach media mentions of him in the Xinjiang context, and I don't believe those mentions are there. Setting aside the fact Global Times is a dubious source when the topic is western writers and Xinjiang (and here relies on Max Blumenthal's Grayzone when even Grayzone admits that Wikipedians believe Grayzone unreliable), the views on homosexuality are mentioned pretty much just mentioned incidentally. How does this merit top line featuring?--Brian Dell (talk) 23:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I hadn’t noticed we were using Global Times, thats 100% unacceptable on the BLP of a non-CCP member and even in that fringe use case would be questionable. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

What I have also noticed is a lot of off-Wiki mobilized WP:BRIGADE activity concerning this page. See here and here. I think it's quite obvious there's a campaign to discredit the subject of this WP:BLP because of what the subject has said on the Xinjiang issue.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Tweets like that generally mean its time to shut the party down. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:BIASEDSOURCES, use of  Global Times or CGTN is not currently a banned source on Wikipedia, Horse Eye Jack is free to have the opinion that they should be banned as sources on Wikipedia, but they are not currently PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It needs to be a WP:RS to be used on a BLP, the only exception is WP:ABOUTSELF. As there is no consensus that Global Times is a reliable source it cant be used here, period. Thats not my opinion its policy: "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.” per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no consensus that the Global Times is not a reliable source in this instance, merely your opinion, policy clearly states: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand... This is a BLP, I don’t need to show its unreliable you need to show that that it is reliable. Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources there is no consensus of reliability. The issue isn't one of neutrality is one of reliability. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

just use his book as a source. don't use controversial state media like global times or cgtn. DemisJohnson (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Huaxia (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, it clearly states that the Global Times is considered a biased source, as per WP:BIASEDSOURCES biased sources can be used as outlined in the policy. "Editors may not have been able to agree on whether the source is appropriate, or may have agreed that it is only reliable in certain circumstances. It may be necessary to evaluate each use of the source on a case-by-case basis while accounting for specific factors unique to the source in question. Carefully review the Summary column of the table for details on the status of the source and the factors that should be considered." PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

On that list what color is the Global Times? If its anything other than green it cant be used on a BLP... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack: Yellow sources can be used on a BLP. It just depends on the context of the particular source. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I think its more universal than that but thats not an argument for this page, I expect you agree that in this particular circumstance it is not appropriate to use CGTN or Global Times? Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with the removal in this particular instance. Just pointing out that BLPs don’t have a "generally reliable-only" requirement. — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

They have a very strong reliability requirement which isn't automatically met by anything other than a generally reliable source. Any source that isn't generally reliable would require consensus to be reached on the talk page about its reliability in the given context if it was challenged. Unless that consensus is reached adding back anything to a BLP that isn't from a generally reliable source is against policy. There certainly isn't any excuse for PompeyTheGreat edit warring it back onto the page sans consensus. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@PompeyTheGreat: like you said. Global Times is a biased source. using his book is the only objective and valid source here. DemisJohnson (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The book is an objective and balanced source for the factual content of the claims being made, the Global Times and CGTN being linked do not make any new claims, and therefore can be used in a BLP, as they merely demonstrate that the book has received coverage in notable outlets, and as such including it in the article does not constitute a breach of WP:UNDUE. Horse Eye Jack's claims about yellow sources are not factual. They cannot be used alone to introduce new facts into a BLP, but they can be used to demonstrate responses to reliable sources (ie the Book) PompeyTheGreat (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Global Times article was added by me in response to claims by another editor that including content of the book was a breach of WP:UNDUE as the book did not receive any media coverage. You cannot use biased sources to claim new facts in a BLP, but you can use them to demonstrate notability of a reliably sourced (as per WP policies, as the editors have already agreed a consensus on that) source, in this case the book. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

then why not just use his book instead? using global times and cgtn as sources will only cause skepticism and controversy.DemisJohnson (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Because using the book alone would lead to Horse Eye Jack being able to remove it entirely, as without demonstrating the book receiving outside coverage, it could be perceived as WP:UNDUE to emphasise it PompeyTheGreat (talk) 02:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Basically, what I am saying is that to include the book, we have to demonstrate that it is relevant to this article and the work he is most notable for on China. Clearly, the fact that the book has been mentioned in the Global Times (a CCP controlled paper) and CGTN (controlled by the Chinese state), this demonstrates that the book is relevant to his China work. PompeyTheGreat (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Since PompeyTheGreat said the CGTN and Global Times articles "demonstrate that the book has received coverage in notable outlets", it should be noted that the source for both articles is The Grayzone, a deprecated source. CowHouse (talk) 08:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Global Times and CGTN aren’t good enough sources to say anything about this outright in WP voice. An alternative is to use in-text attribution in the article body with something like "The Global Times and CGTN have described Zenz as ...". — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed should Wikipedia say Jimmy Lai is "a traitor, a criminal and a force of evil who has sowed violence and chaos" because GT says so? When it comes to individuals opposed to the Chinese government GT is at its most tabloidish. I'll add that the reason why you don't see those statements on Lai's page is because, in my opinion, there's enough editors there to ensure that these attacks be seen for what they are as opposed to "must have" inclusions.--Brian Dell (talk) 04:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with DemisJohnson. Why even bring in ccp media as the main sources? It only serves to muddy the water for people unfamiliar with Adrian. In theology sevtion, we should just stick to only use Adrian's own book as his source where he makes plenty of explicit statements against homosexuality, gender equality, non violent parenting and atheism. He published and promoted thaf homophobic book so he is known publicly for his anti-gay views among his loyal christian readers MangoTareeface9 (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

References

AP article on sterilizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Egregious BLP violations occurring

There are egregious violations of WP:BLP policy occurring here. We need to strive to uphold BLP here, which is not currently happening. As the BLP policy page reads: "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. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Loksmythe (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

the source is literally his book, we even linked the specific pages to back up our claims. but you decided to ignore it continue to vandalize it anyway.

DemisJohnson (talk) 15:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It’s not an issue of whether the source is reliable per the cited portion of BLP. His own book is reliable as an attributed statement about his own research per WP:ABOUTSELF. An issue would be about WP:DUE for that part, but not for being unsourced or poorly sourced. — MarkH₂₁^talk 18:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

If the book isn't being quoted there's the issue of whether Wikipedia's voice is an accurate paraphrase. I think we need to see the exact underlying text as opposed to just trusting a relatively new editor's paraphrase in this case. Also relevant is the context and especially, as noted, whether weighted proportionately. I don't think calling the subject "far right" becomes non-controversial by attributing the allegation any more than "I'm not saying he's a child molester, I'm just saying it's been said" solves all concerns about whether the allegation is a slander or not.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is exactly calling him "far-right" here? That is a false equivalency. In the wiki article, it just shows the chinese gov calling him that. The ccp also called him homophobic. But ZERO wiki editors is actually labelling him as far-right but just stating the chinese gov critical response to him. And in terms of him being against gays. It cannot be seriously disputed. Anyone who can read english, can easily see the publicly accessed google book source below that he tries to go justify others to oppose laws that protects gay people from discrimination. https://books.google.com.au/books?id=lRtSQB3HHJcC&pg=PA31&lpg=PA31&dq=Worthy+to+Escape:+Why+All+Believers+Will+Not+Be+Raptured+Before+the+Tribulation+homosexual&source=bl&ots=svggzXNAy1&sig=ACfU3U2WRU34VvXkhgM9GT47foYdUJmiCQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj10eiCt6zqAhV8wTgGHf1nCvwQ6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=Worthy%20to%20Escape%3A%20Why%20All%20Believers%20Will%20Not%20Be%20Raptured%20Before%20the%20Tribulation%20homosexual&f=false MangoTareeface9 (talk) 02:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

On another note, but still very much on the topic of BLP violations, is suggesting he's some sort of nutbar who sees the Antichrist behind everything. Whether this would be accurate depends on whether his theology is, in fact, bizarre or in fact fairly orthodox and by that I mean, there are a billion+ Christians in the world and, for example, any of them might make a reference to Satan or even the spirit of the Antichrist when speaking of evil in the world but it's not necessarily that remarkable when the fall of Lucifer is seen as behind the origin of sin in run of the mill Christianity. Sure, one can mock the speaker as "Lucifer! You mean Cinderella's cat? <smirk>?" but there's a difference between someone who repeatedly attributes specific daily incidents to a particular theological or mythological entity in an obsessive way and someone who is doing an theological overview of the contemporary secular world and its ethics. Given the challenges with getting into the weeds of what makes one an orthodox Christian and what makes one some sort of freakshow, why go there unless that's central to the subject's significance? Just state that he's pro-social policy #1 and anti-social policy #2, ideally in the subject's own words so that it's not an overstatement without nuance. That should be good enough for most readers. In the spirit of compromise I have haven't objected to select quotes that are quite possibly being given undue weight when they are just in footnotes. Contrast grabbing a select quote out of hundreds of pages and implying that this is what this guy's about this with, say, highlighting his apparent view that not all believers will be raptured. That's really quite an unorthodox position and, critically, there's evidence the subject may see it that way too since that take is featured in title of the subject's book.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Article needs Context + Clarification on what constitutes the birth control violations

I am on the fence with China's birth control methods. But it seems like Adrian is just spinning the info. Adrian's report is heavily based on 'public" chinese government documents.

According to CBS news. Minorities were always allowed two children. Three if they are from the countryside. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/china-uighur-muslims-forced-birth-control-demographic-genocide-experts-tell-ap/ If they had more than two children, they will then be made to pay a fine or be punished. That's the same deal with chinese hans. Without getting into the moral debate on China's one child policy. This isn't even anything new. And I doubt the chinese government would ever publish any of their public documents on the internet that they want to hide.

From my understanding, China still retains a maximum of 2 kids for their chinese hans citizens. Because they are afraid of a huge population. They still however allow minorities from countryside areas - 3 kids max. However poorer uneducated women tend to have a lot of kids (lack of sex education and lesser use of condoms) which makes it harder to raise financially. In Australia, according to a pro-life website, billions of dollars, of tax-payer dollars are federally funnelled into the abortion industry arguably for that purpose. https://righttolife.com.au/resources/article-archive/46-your-taxes-at-work-making-and-destroying-babies

People who are not well read, would see the report that has half truths as the proof that china is forcing absolute abortion on ughyur women..Except that is not the full picture but spun. The full picture is that monorities are allowed two kids. (3 if from the countryside). If they violate it, they would be fined or pubished. And china according to the wiki article, gives out cash incentives to ughur women to control births. And punishes them, not if they actually have one kid but "too many kids".

The wiki article needs to add in the CONTEXT and explain what is deemed as a birth violation. And how many kids the minorities can have. This really has been openly going on for decades but Adrian zenz gives the impression that it's a hidden activity/laws. Given his evalangical roots, he is obviously biased against abortion (pro-life) and is presenting information that was already well known. But giving the spun impression that minority women aren't even allowed to have any kids despite they can have 2 or 3 kids just like the many decades prior. Hence context of what constitutes a birth control violation, need to be added. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 06:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)— MangoTareeface9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Additional info on what constitutes a violation here may be warranted. This is more than just the two child policy though, since violations of that are not normally punishable by "training" camps. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Reliable sources have checked Zenz’s numbers and published, they haven't done that with Right to Life. Unfortunately we on wikipedia cant second guess that decision unless we have something more recent from a WP:RS which contradicts it. I see no spin here but yours MangoTareeface9, tread carefully. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What spin? His own claims are literally based on few individual verbal accounts and chinese public made documents. So name your reliable sources. The chinese gov? since they were the very ones who released those documents. How exactly did Adrian even get his exact numbers without visiting the prisons and relying on what specific evidence? Do tell please. The article writes that minorities are sent to an internment camp for violating birth rules. What reliable source can confirm that and in fair detail. They are just allegations. Not proven. Regardless I merely pointed that since the article talks about birth violations. It should at least clarify what is defined as birth violation and give the necessary context. Is it one kid or 2 or 3? Is it the same number as 2 decades ago. Regardless "birth violation" needs to be minimally better defined as most readers will have little clue on what constitues as one. MangoTareeface9 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC on mentioning Zenz's book

To what extent should the article mention Zenz's book Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation? 20:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

1. No mention
2. Only mention that its existence without describing its contents: With Marlon S. Sias, Zenz co-authored the book Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation.
3. Mention its existence and briefly describe its contents regarding the rapture, the Antichrist, and modern trends, e.g. what’s currently there: With Marlon S. Sias, Zenz co-authored the book Worthy to Escape: Why All Believers Will Not Be Raptured Before the Tribulation which links modern trends, including gender equality and bans on corporal punishment, to the power of the Antichrist.
4. Mention its existence and briefly describe its contents regarding the rapture, the Antichrist, and modern trends, as well as the China Global Television Network (link) and Global Times (link) criticism of it.
5. Mention its existence and describe its contents in more detail regarding the return of Christ, the Antichrist, modern trends, and history, as well as its hermeneutics arguments, as well as the criticism of it.

Survey

• Option 3 (otherwise 4 or 5): The book should be mentioned as of Zenz's publications. A very brief description of its contents is more appropriate than extended coverage since it’s not a prominent book (it’s not widely reviewed nor cited by secondary sources) to satisfy the Wikipedia policies of WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLP.
  The book largely covers what the authors regard as the rapture and the presence Antichrist in society, which is what the few secondary mentions of the book focus on. The secondary mentions aren’t good sources on their own, but represents a viewpoint about Zenz (state-owned media's criticism of a researcher unveiling state internment camps). The criticisms don’t have to be mentioned here, but citing the book itself is fine as an SPS-type RS. — MarkH₂₁^talk 20:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 no mention unless its been covered by an independent reliable source. In general we don’t list or summarize books which haven’t been reviewed or covered by reliable sources. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• I am a random, uninvolved editor, invited here by software-bot to review and evaluate this issue.[2] I will offer my review and summary of the situation for the possible benefit of other editors arriving here, both for experienced editors and for new editors. This article has been the target of multiple off wiki WP:Canvassing attempts.[3][4] Those canvassing efforts have been making bad-faith assumptions/accusations about the motivation of editors here, an editor has been targeted individually, and the article history[5] shows a surge in edits by IPs and relatively inexperienced users who may not be familiar with Wikipedia polices. In short, the experienced editors here appear to be trying to appropriately manage this article in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Newly arrived editors have good intentions, but need to be aware that Wikipedia has extensive content-rules. Most of those rules are common sense, but some rules are non-obvious. Those rules are absolutely necessary to prevent an anyone-can-edit Encyclopedia from descending into chaos and utter garbage.
  The subject of this article, Adrian Zenz, is co-author of a book. The book advocates some potentially WP:Fringe views. Some people may consider some of his views to be offensive. In particular Zenz appears to oppose certain child-welfare-and-safety laws, he appears to claim those laws are the work of Satan. As a general rule I'm more than happy for an article to accurately report on someone's fringe or offensive views, when they go out and make a public spectacle of those views. The issue here is that we do not appear to have any reliable source commenting on the book or on the views Zenz's advocates in that book. Wikipedia has several policies including WP:Neutral Point of View and WP:Due weight. In plain English, the relevant point here is that editors are not allowed to use their personal opinions on an issue to just shove anything they want into an article. Writing neutral, accurate, reliable articles is hard enough without making it a unconstrained food-fight.
  1. Under Wikipedia WP:Biography of Living Persons policy, once content about a living person has been appropriately challenged and removed, that content shall not be re-added until the dispute has been resolved and there is reasonable WP:Consensus for inclusion. Sometimes people to shove nasty and harmful things into the biographies of innocent people, so it should be obvious to everyone that it is absolutely necessary that we have a strong policy on this. Editors who violate this policy may be warned, they may have their editing privileges blocked, in sever cases it may result in a permanent ban. So everyone should discuss here instead of trying to edit war the content into the article. Everyone should allow the process to proceed. Everyone should respect the outcome of that process.
  2. We can and should report the fact that he co-authored this book. No problem there.
  3. Describing the contents book:
     • If we can find no WP:Reliable Sources reviewing/describing/discussing the book, our description of the book - if any - should be breif, it should be condensed/summarized from advertising blurbs for the book or from the book-jacket text or at worst maybe summarized from the introduction. This is not a treasure hunt for random idiots on the internet (a.k.a. me and other Wikipedia editors) to go digging through the book making a spectacle of any bits and pieces we personally find objectionable. This general idea is backed up by our WP:Due weight policy. If reliable sources aren't raising some particular point, editors can't use Wikipedia to push that point themselves.
     • If we do find reliable sources discussing the book, great! Then we can briefly and accurately and impartially summarize what those sources say about the book. If it turns out that reviews of the book happen to be strongly critical, it would of course be fair and appropriate and neutral for Wikipedia to accurately summarize that strong criticism. Alsee (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 (or 3, if reliable sources report on the book). Alsee has this right. We should list the book and, if no reliable sources (i.e. not the Global Times quoting the Grayzone) have reported on its contents, leave it at that. At most, we should draw a summary from the publisher's blurb or dust jacket. If reliable sources do report on it, we should include their reporting. Having Wikipedia editors pick out individual parts of the book to include would probably put undue weight on arbitrarily selected parts of the book and might be original research. It would also draw us into endless discussions over why some parts of the book were mentioned and not others. Those are precisely the kind of judgements we want external reliable sources, not Wikipedia editors, to make. After all, Zenz has another book, on Tibetan education, which the article describes with a paraphrase of the publisher's blurb. No one is suggesting that WP editors should go through that book and mention any of its arguments, although it is actually more relevant to the reason Zenz is notable. We should treat his other books the same way. Harland1 (^t/_c) 00:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Agree with Alsee and Harland above. I'll add that as someone with an evangelical background, the biggest takeaway from the book is in fact right there in the title: he challenges Pretribulationism. The brief description of contents that I've seen suggested so far are not accurate in my opinion (and that's further reflected in book reviews which don't emphasize what this survey suggests we emphasize) and rather are motivated by a desire to present the subject in a certain light. For these summaries to not be original research, they need to draw on another reliable source or be supported by an argument like it's right in the title of the book or appears in a publisher's summary blurb or something like that.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 3 (with a very brief description). So far, there is no RS coverage (The reports ultimately sourced to the Grayzone are not RS), so ideally Option 1, because a mention would be undue weight at this stage of the article's development. I do not believe Option 2 is tenable, because it will constantly invite further edits. Zekelayla (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 1 or Option 2. No WP:RS discuss so editors should not be doing their own WP:OR cherry-picking. Loksmythe (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, the book's existence is verifiable. Reporting on the contents of the book should wait until reliable sources cover the content. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• As I have expressed before given the offsite canvassing I am leery of using this venue for the RfC. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

  Ah sorry I missed the suggestion of opening it in the noticeboard. Hopefully any closer would be able to see clearly who SPAs are though, should this RfC be controversial. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Its ok, I still think it might be worth asking a question regarding how about self with two authors works on the noticeboard. This can’t be the first time its come up. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

• @Horse Eye Jack: It doesn’t have to be covered in independent sources for it to be mentioned, regardless of whether it’s a short description or a bullet in a list of publications; lists of publications can include unreviewed books so long as the list isn’t overly long or CV-like. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? I’ve seen a large number of short descriptions and bullet lists of publications deleted for lacking independent sources, do you have anything that supports your view? I think theres an argument to be made for its use as about self if the multiple authors dilemma is worked out (we must have an existing consensus on that) but I strongly object to the notion that just because something exists its worthy of mention on wikipedia, that runs counter to longstanding policy. It would be nice to be shown evidence to the contrary, I’ve made a few of the lists deleted on those grounds... Horse Eye Jack (talk) 23:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it can, and indeed should, be mentioned but Wikipedia editors should not be doing what amounts to their own book review if the review just consists of a couple select quotes which may be totally unrepresentative or out of context.--Brian Dell (talk) 02:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

@Horse Eye Jack, MarkH21, and Loksmythe: I don't understand why there's a discussion about this. and i don't think should get drag on anymore. Adrian Zenz's views on homosexuality, gender equality, and his other controversial views are well backed by his book. the only logical argument against this inclusion is that it's taken out of context. but in this case, it's not. he argues against discrimination of homosexuality in pages 30,31 and 32.

I think we should reach a consensus to include these facts on his wiki page. because I don't see any other reason to exclude this other than trying to cover up Adrian Zenz. And if you looks at the history of edits. you would realize that majority of people supports this inclusion. theo only who's really oppose to it is are horse jack and loksmythe.

and that's also not mentioning the fact that I've yet to see any evidence for exclusion of his theological views. the only argument i see here that's still standing is the "out of context" argument. but this is easily debunked if you just read the book or even read just read those few pages that i reference. DemisJohnson (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Talleyrand20, MangoTareeface9, and Antonian Sapphire:since you guys seem to support the inclusion, it would good to hear what you guys think of this. and reach a consensus on whether we should include in his wiki page or not. DemisJohnson (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — DemisJohnson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.