Talk:Adrian Zenz

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

One-sided arguments

[edit]

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)[reply]

We can only go woth what RS cover.Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree- this appears to be a very one-sided presentation about Zenz. Suggest reference is made to the following article https://johnmenadue.com/when-facts-are-not-necessarily-facts-the-uighurs-and-china/ for balance. 2001:8003:17EC:C400:78B9:EDF4:4044:99BE (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this an wp:rs? Slatersteven (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bohaskan the whole article reads like a self praising LinkedIn portfolio. It's ridiculous. His religious zealousness mixed with evangelical anti-communism should already be a major red flag for everybody. 🚩 He has almost zero scientific impact in social sciences with no citations. The math related to the "genocide" doesn't pass any serious statistical analysis. It's such a pity what Wikipedia has become. US 🇺🇸 paid agitators are allowed to control de narrative and throw any dissidents to the cleaners with reckless sinophobia. 100056255 (talk) 16:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then provide some RS saying all of this. Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Zenz is fluent in Chinese Mandarin? Really?

[edit]

only one Telegraph article states that he is fluent in Chinese Mandarin (I will refrain from rolling my eyes: Mandarin is what white people tend to say when they mean the Chinese language). Curiously, for someone of the supposed stature and public profile of Adrian Zenz, I am unable to find any video clip or news report anywhere in which he actually speaks in Chinese. This should be of grave concern that undermines his so-called research, if he is unable to understand first hand what his source material actually states. Please understand that I am not from China and I have no agenda for or against Zenz or China. I'm just a little disturbed that this Wikipedia article might be inaccurate. 27.125.240.86 (talk) 12:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1RR reminder

[edit]

A reminder to all editors, especially Slatersteven and Revirvlkodlaku, that there is a 1-revert restriction in place at this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory article

[edit]

This article says this: "Zenz has been the target of a pro-Beijing disinformation campaign, according to U.S.-based cybersecurity firm Mandiant. A fabricated letter was spread through fake news sites, alleging that Zenz received direct funding from US government entities."

While also saying this in the introduction: "He is a director and senior fellow in China studies at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist think tank established by the US government and based in Washington, DC."

So he IS being funded by the US government. How is that disinformation? 2001:638:508:FE02:0:0:0:DC (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both can be true, as he is not directly funded by an organization he works for maybe. Slatersteven (talk) 11:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't making sense here. Mandiant claims that the claim Zenz receives direct US funding is a pro-PRC disinformation campaign, which turns to be true, making it not a disinformation campaign, therefore Mandiant itself suspicious of disinformation. 137.220.122.47 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not it is not, as he is not being paid directly by the US government, but by a third party. Slatersteven (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You saying that "the director and senior fellow at the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, an anti-communist think tank established by the US government and based in Washington, DC" isn't paid by the US government? Yeah I guess lobbying also isn't bribery in your eyes. 137.220.122.47 (talk) 17:15, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No they are paid by the think tank. And no lobbying is not bribery, under the law. The organisation is not part of the US government, According to Title IX, Section 905 of Public Law 103–199, it is an independent organization. Slatersteven (talk) 17:25, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]