Greenhalgh's 2005 China Quarterly paper directly quotes and names Liang Zhongtang as the most outspoken of the social scientists privately hostile to Song Jian's group at the December 1979 Chengdu symposium

chinapopulation-policyone-child-policyhistoriographysong-jianliang-zhongtanggreenhalghcitation-genealogy

The same Tier 1 China Quarterly paper the vault already cites as the source of Song Jian's translated self-credit quote (see claim-song-jian-self-credited-1980-projections-triggered-one-child-policy) also names and quotes Liang Zhongtang as the most outspoken of the social scientists who were, in private, hostile to the natural scientists' move into their domain. Describing the December 1979 Second National Symposium on Population Theory in Chengdu, where Song's group first presented its projections, Susan Greenhalgh writes: "Though publicly appreciative, in private the social scientists were largely hostile to the natural science takeover of their domain. The most outspoken, Liang Zhongtang of the Shanxi provincial Party school, warned of the coercion that would be required to enforce one-childization among the peasantry and the social costs that programme would entail, from labour shortages to rapid ageing to fractured family economies and social support systems" (p. 270).

This upgrades a fact the vault had only held as paraphrase since 2026-08-10 (see entity-liang-zhongtang's Updates log) — at that time explicitly withheld from its own claim-note for lacking a direct quote — into a Tier 1, quote-grounded record. It independently corroborates Liang's dissent at the 1979 Chengdu symposium (see claim-liang-zhongtang-1979-two-child-proposal-and-1985-yicheng-pilot) from the opposing side of the dispute: Greenhalgh, Song's principal English-language chronicler, independently names the same critic with the same substantive objection. What it does not corroborate is the two-child alternative itself — Greenhalgh's passage records the coercion and social-cost warning, cites Liang's own 1985 book chapter for it, and says nothing about a two-child proposal.