This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Adrian Zenz article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Uyghurs, Uyghur genocide, or topics that are related to Uyghurs or Uyghur genocide, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned. |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Wikipedia is famous for providing general information with a neutral tone. However, this article lacks arguments opposing the main layout, which leads one to think that it is not impartial at all. I request the editors to take a look on the opposite side and provide some critique. Otherwise, the article claims for no-ethics based analysis. The sections to pay attention to:
- The biography of Adrian Zenz; - His personal beliefs; - His attitude towards Chinese; - His work with the think-tank in W,CD; - The reputation of that think-tank; - The other side story; - The Xinjiang - proofs; - The independent researchers and journalists based in Xinjiang.
Unless these topics are covered, the article cannot be in free access, as it advocates one-sided arguments. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.20.55.8 ( talk • contribs)
I agree that the first 4 items on the list should go into there, but the 4 other items are not directly related to Adrian Zenz, so they should not go into this article, and should be put somewhere else.
Bohaskan (
talk)
03:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
What's with the theology section of this article? The book mention seems appropriate for the "Career" section if it's notable at all while his statement about the motivation for his work relating to anthropology seems like an obvious, if somewhat unimportant, point to go in the "Anthropology" section instead. For that matter it's silly that there's even a separate "Anthropology" section given it's just more description of his career. 174.90.223.206 ( talk) 23:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
@ FF toho: The source you've added does not describe Zenz in its own voice as far-right, but instead says that he has been described that way. And he has, for example by the Global Times, but that doesn't actually establish that this should be in WP:WIKIVOICE in the article. Additionally, please note that this article is under WP:1RR and the repeated restoration of the "far-right" descriptor is in violation of this restriction. Please self-revert. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
portrayed on numerous occasions as a far-right. Not only is it not a clear descriptor, it's almost a refutation of that label. — Czello 17:36, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
@
JArthur1984: When I cited
WP:BALASP in
reverting, I didn't mean knocking the header down from a ==Level 2 Header==
to a ===Level 3 Header===
. The point I was making is that we don't really have secondary sources that have reported on this sort of thing, and for that reason this is unduly focusing on a minor aspect of Zenz. In particular, I don't understand why the two quotes you selected are due in its own section here as if they are solely Zenz's views, especially since he is not the sole author of that book. I see that
Horse Eye's Back has also
reverted your
re-insertion of the material, but I want to start a discussion her about it if I was unclear with what I meant in my edit summary. —
Red-tailed hawk
(nest)
02:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)