This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The major problem with this article
It is set up to debunk Menzies and there is no reasonable attempt to summarise his theory. Talk about punching a man down before he has spoken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.115.184 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Menzies' theory could be summarised by saying that it is unecessarily complex and inept. His main premise - that fifteenth century Chinese seafarers could have, or would have, surveyed large parts of the world by drifting around on ocean currents - doesn't stand up to detailed examination. That would be bad seamanship and bad organisation. There is no historical evidence that Chinese mariners were incompetent in their methods. Norloch (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- And in any case, this is a biography, not the appropriate place to discuss his books, their articles are the appropriate place for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Instead of being happy that Menzies crackpot theory is included in an encyclopedia which is outrageous enough (imagine an entry in the EB...), the guy even starts complaining. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
This whole biased article on Gavin Menzies violates the official policy Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, that they must not be libelious against the person. It seems as if this small group of misfits vandals are trying all they can to discredit and destroy Gavin Menzies and his books!
There is virtually no neutrality on these articles whatsoever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Edmund Burke's adage might well be paraphrased here. - The only thing necessary for hokum to flourish is for good folk to do nothing about it.Norloch (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
IP socking & pov editing
98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs) - the edits make it obvious and they both geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Forthcoming book on Atlantis
An announcement here that a book is to be published next year revealing the 'truth' about Atlantis and its "trading empire that spanned from the Great Lakes in North America to Kerala in India." Now as this won't be published until August a year from now, I don't think it should be in the article. BUT -- the link says "Gavin Menzies will be presenting the book at the Royal Geographical Society on 16 April 2010" and we can use that when it occurs. A change from 'to the Royal Geographical Society' which was the false claim made when his first book was launched, he simply hires the venue, as can anyone. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
- Oh good grief, does the man's insanity know no limits? John Smith's (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Merger?
- Can't we just group all his pseudo-historical pamphlets into one single article? Just by opening up an article of its own for each of his fantasy stories, I feel, Wikipedia plays unwillingly his market agent. Not even Shakespeare has separate articles for each of his plays !!! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
So, for which merge should we go:
- Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
- 1421 & 1434 ?
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that 1421 and 1434 should be merged. They cover the same topic, it's just that he milked it to get another book out of his "research". 1434 should just be considered a follow-on.
As for this Atlantis book, maybe it should not have its own article. If one is created it could just have a redirect to this page with a brief mention of the book when it's published. John Smith's (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would suggest merging 1421 and 1434 to Menzies. Atlantis definitely shouldn't get its own article before publication, and probably not afterwards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've added merge templates to those articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for that, I somehow did not think of this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I've added merge templates to those articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Since the templates have added a week ago and it's been something like three weeks, since the idea has been floating here on talk page, allow me a brief vote count:
- John Smith's (talk): 1421 & 1434
- ClovisPt (talk): Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
- SarekOfVulcan (talk): Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
- Gun Powder Ma: Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
- Nickm57 (below): supports unspecified merger
- Norloch (talk): "suggestion is certainly worth considering"
- PericlesofAthens: at the least, 1421 & 1434, but would not object to merging with Menzies
Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Merge Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434. I think time will show his books are just a passing fad. The more books he publishes the more each one will be seen for what it is, so let's start combining them all here now. Jojalozzo 22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I have no problem with merging all three articles. I intend to contribute to the descriptions of the books; having a unified Menzies article will be more convenient. --Other Choices (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the merger, but I am afraid half of the contents got somehow lost in the process. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Merging doesn't mean to copy everything over. However, if there's more material you think belongs in this article, you can do into the history of the redirect and get it from there, like I did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does anyone think that this article would benefit from a paragraph on 1434? ClovisPt (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so. If we're going to redirect the page to this article, we might as well include some summary of the work and responses to it by relevant scholars and academics.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I just added a little section on 1434, which I believe is sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- No problem. I actually wrote the English Wiki article on the Chinese official Wang Zhen, so I am surprised indeed to find that Menzies is using his Nong Shu (農書) as some sort of holy grail book of knowledge scoured by everyone from Taccola to da Vinci. I'll let the serious scholars speak for themselves, but it's kind of hard not to share an opinion about this on the talk page: it's laughable! This in consideration that direct Chinese-European exchanges of scholarly knowledge did not occur until the hard work of Matteo Ricci, who visited the Ming court at the beginning of the 17th century. His work with the Chinese official Xu Guangqi paved the way for others like Johann Schreck, who, alongside Wang Zheng (王徵), published the Diagrams and explanations of the wonderful machines of the Far West. This is the real history of the beginning of direct Chinese-European scholarly exchanges, although Geoff Wade, in that Reuters article I just cited, does note that certain technologies were earlier transferred along the Silk Road between the Chinese and European spheres.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking care of that. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- I just added a little section on 1434, which I believe is sufficient.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe so. If we're going to redirect the page to this article, we might as well include some summary of the work and responses to it by relevant scholars and academics.--Pericles of AthensTalk 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Does anyone think that this article would benefit from a paragraph on 1434? ClovisPt (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Pericles of Athens, the printing press and firearms were invented in China and then transfered to Europe along the Silk Road. Don't even try to dispute this fact because you KNOW it's true!!!
This merging is actually a deletion of the previous two articles masquerading as a so-called "merger." UNACCEPTABLE! --71.68.249.69 (talk)
- ??? The spread of the formula for gunpowder, along with the use of the very earliest gunpowder weapons is one thing, but the printing press proper is another matter entirely. I've seen that you were trying to use Joseph Needham's work to support your claims (without an inline citation I might add). I actually own his very extensive works, and am quite familiar with the early movable type printing process as pioneered by the 11th-century Chinese craftsman Bi Sheng; perhaps you've even seen my work at Shen Kuo about this very same topic. If you were familiar with both the Song-era Chinese movable type invention and the European movable type printing press as developed by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, you would certainly be aware that Gutenberg's method was very different from the Chinese, especially with its use of the screw press; the screw was not used in ancient or even Middle-Imperial China until introduced by European travelers in the 17th century. It seems that, despite the presence of Europeans in Medieval China, including Marco Polo, the technology of movable type was not directly transferred, although woodblock printing, a Chinese innovation of the 9th century AD (and perhaps earlier in the 7th century), is somewhat debatable. In either case, none of this has anything to do with Zheng He or the Ming treasure fleet sailing into the Mediterranean and docking along the shores of the Italian peninsula. Please, let's stay focused on the article and discuss this someplace else. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
The thing that concerns me about the merger is that 90% of the material in 1421 article has been removed. What is left is an unsatisfactory article. Let me take one point: the only thing the current section says about the writing style of the book is that it is "informally written". True in itself, but the presentation of the book is as a scholarly work, complete with copious references, notes and acknowledgements. For example, there are plenty of valid references to the documented life of Zheng He. It's only when you look carefully you realise that these stop dead when he gets to the meat of the book: the voyages beyond the Indian Ocean. Another issue is that the work of the publishers in rewriting the book has presented Menzies as a far more coherent and polished writer than he evidently is.
When I read the book I was taken in by it, and it was only after reading the Wiki article and contacting one or two scholars that I was able to see why it was such an elaborate fantasy and make a few additions to the article. I think we owe it to Wiki readers to restore a proper discussion of the book so that they can see for themselves why the academic opinion of the book is as it is. It's part of a blurring of fact and fiction in our world which is very lucrative for those concerned. Chris55 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
- As for the retention/removal of material, I am willing to go by whatever the community thinks best, but I remember clearly that only several months ago, there have been a number of editors busy for while with expanding the analysis section of 1421. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
"unanimously discounted by professional historians"
This is my first post at wikipedia, so please bear with me as I progress up the learning curve for communicating on this site. The claim that Menzies has been "unanimously discounted by professional historians" flies in the face of Menzies' account of of his 2002 participation as keynote speaker at the biennial conferences of two Associations of Zheng He Studies in Nanjing and Kunming, China. According to his account, Menzies was treated with the greatest respect by a large number of professional historians who accepted his central thesis (providing abundant corroborative evidence) that Zheng He's fleets did indeed explore and map the world in the 1420s. This is summarized on pages 475-79 of the 2008 reissue of his book 1421.
In addition, the Chinese Heritage Newsletter acknowledges that Menzies is "exhaustively cited in Chinese popular writings." See footnote 3 at http://www.chinaheritagenewsletter.org/articles.php?searchterm=002_zhenghe.inc&issue=002
It seems to me that either Menzies totally fabricated his account of his Chinese scholarly reception (which I don't believe for a minute -- the guy's reputation would have been instantly demolished by his many detractors) or the claim that Menzies has been "universally discounted by professional historians" is horribly ignorant and should be changed quickly.
Other Choices (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Other Choices
- Erich von Däniken is thrice as popular, has sold ten times as many books and probably appeared fifty times as much as keynote speaker. Do we therefore remove the category "pseudohistory"? Perhaps the two cranks can confer on their newest hypotheses on Atlantis. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Gun Powder Ma, for your witty response. I take it that you accept my point that Menzies is not "unanimously" discounted by professional historians. Before I edit that phrase, I would like to share my proposed language, for feedback from you and anyone else who is interested. I think we should say something like, "Menzies' work is routinely discounted by English-speaking professional historians, but his work is popular in China, where he has been enthusiastically received by professional historians." Other Choices (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Given Menzies willingness to fabricate and bend the truth in most other parts of the book there is little reason we should believe his version of his reception at the Chinese conferences. We need independent evidence. I recall his mention of presenting the book at the Royal Geographical Society but not including the fact that he simply hired the room. There was also the conference he convinced someone at the Smithsonian to organize which was well into the planning stages before it was discovered that his work had no professional support. He may have been able to pull off in China what he failed to do in the US. His being cited in the popular press has no bearing on his reception in professional circles. Jojalozzo 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Absolutely. I too remember his claim that he had presented to the RGS. Not just 'at'. There is no way we can include such a comment without reliable sources, see WP:RS, and certainly not from the subject himself no matter who he is. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- From my experience, Menzies is viewed at least as critically by people in China than in English-speaking world. But anyway, it's only one world, so why should we promote two truthes on it? I guess people who find Menzies' hypotheses fascinating have to live up to the same expectations we have for every hypothesis: evidence, logical reasoning, rationality and intellectual honesty – all of which is demonstrably absent from Menzies' book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- My thanks for the replies. This whole situation has gotten me very curious... Clearly, my immediate task is to try to find some independent Chinese corroboration for Gavin Menzies' four-page description of his 2002 visit to the Chinese scholarly conferences. Gun Powder Ma, regarding your statement about evidence, logical reasoning, and intellectual honesty: I have found plenty of well-respected scholarly literature that is much less than perfect in that regard. It's generally not an all-or-nothing deal, although of course sometimes the blatant propaganda factor of a work overwhelms any intellectual merit. My assessment is that Menzies is not in that extreme category, although I recognize that he is capable of stretching specific arguments beyond the available evidence. However, I think it is undeniable that he and his many collaborators have amassed a considerable body of evidence that supports his general theses. Other Choices (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- That they claim support his general theses, like supporters of Atlantis or UFOs. Often looking very scientific until it is closely scrutinised, and usually built on the flimsiest of evidence, sometimes even non-existent. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- My thanks for the replies. This whole situation has gotten me very curious... Clearly, my immediate task is to try to find some independent Chinese corroboration for Gavin Menzies' four-page description of his 2002 visit to the Chinese scholarly conferences. Gun Powder Ma, regarding your statement about evidence, logical reasoning, and intellectual honesty: I have found plenty of well-respected scholarly literature that is much less than perfect in that regard. It's generally not an all-or-nothing deal, although of course sometimes the blatant propaganda factor of a work overwhelms any intellectual merit. My assessment is that Menzies is not in that extreme category, although I recognize that he is capable of stretching specific arguments beyond the available evidence. However, I think it is undeniable that he and his many collaborators have amassed a considerable body of evidence that supports his general theses. Other Choices (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Amassing" is fine as long as each addition is based on more than conjecture. With Menzies' project so much of the evidence is either hearsay or inconclusive but presented as solid. This is most insidious and very difficult for the layperson to detect when such unsupported evidence is claimed to support the next glob of stuff added to the mass. When that happens (and it happens much of the time with Menzies and his crew) "amassing" gets quite ugly. Jojalozzo 12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- You seem to be honestly interested in GM's hypothesis, Other Choices. Drop me an email and I cand send you along Finlay, Robert (2004). "How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America". Journal of World History 15 (2). There you will find that there is not even a trace element of evidence in Menzies' thesis. What GM actually does is inventing a complete journey of Zheng He for which no record exists, and in which Menzies lets Zheng He discover the whole world west of the Cape of Good Hope in the span of just several months. It's comically absurd. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- I dont claim to be an expert on Zheng He or in contact with many Chinese scholars. However, I visit China almost every year, and have yet to come across a Chinese History teacher who is impressed by Gavin Menzies, indeed most I have asked have never heard of him. Most Chinese academics do not support Menzies, of that there just isn't any doubt. The official (English language) voice from China is probably reflected in the recently constructed exhibitions on Zheng He in one of the Ming Tomb halls (at Changling? - I can't remember off hand). It seems to have been designed to educate english speaking tourists about Zheng He's real voyages and makes no mention of Menzies. The saddest dimension of Gavin Menzies books is that the amazing story of Zheng He and his real achievements is actually belittled. I support the merger idea too--Nickm57 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I changed "unanimously" to "routinely," because many (if not most) professional historians have been publicly silent concerning Menzies' work, so it is impossible to know what they really think. Perhaps "routinely" isn't the best word -- I'm open to alternatives -- but I think "unanimously" is too strong. Other Choices (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Routinely" works for me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since there is no dispute among historians about Menzies claims, I propose we refer a "consensus among professional historians". Jojalozzo 01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
- "Consensus" makes sense to me.--Other Choices (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Book on Atlantis and WP:CRYSTAL
This book, by Menzies and what he describes as his team, is not to be published until August 2011. In other words, it isn't written yet. The announcement received almost zero news coverage. Google News turns up only the announcement in booktrade.com. It isn't part of our role to publicise forthcoming books, and until this one is starts to be discussed extensively in reliable sources, mention of it doesn't belong in this article. We mustn't let ourselves get sucked into being part of anyone's PR machine. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
The Links to the 1421 and 1434 articles have been deleted by vandals who are trying to suppress this information from public
The links to 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance have been deleted without any just cause. Those articles are entitled to be here on Wikipedia and must be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- It doesn't appear to me that they have been deleted - they appear to have been merged with the Gavin Menzies article itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
- Those two articles have been redirected, meaning that they each link to a relevant section of this article. The content of those two articles has been merged into this article. These mergers did not include the entire content of each of those articles but rather involved two summaries. If you look at this article you can see that there are sections devoted to each book, about three or four paragraphs long - for the most part, these came directly from the merged articles. ClovisPt (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
No, the articles have not been merged, that's a lie. The is no reason to merge two separate articles detailing two separate books into a biography page about Gavin Menzies. This page is his biography and not the actual pages relating to his books. If you wanted to do something ridiculous like this why don't you go merge all Harry Potter books with the biography page of the author J.K. Rowling. Using the Harry Potter articles as a model since these articles are well written, each different book has its' own page and article and that it has not been merged with the article of the author which is separate. Take a look at the pages here:
- J.K. Rowling
- Harry Potter
- Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
- Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
- Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
- Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
- Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
- Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
The Gavin Menzies page should be a separate biography just like the page of J.K. Rowling, while the the articles for the books 1421 and 1434 should also have their own individual separate pages. This current episode of deletion and so-called merger just doesn't contribute to a good article.
Go read a different book about Ming Chinese naval explorations:
When China Ruled the Seas: Treasure Fleets of the Dragon Throne by Louise Levathes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Levathe's history is much more restrained than Menzies. It says little or nothing on the areas where Menzies makes the most absurd claims. Therefore it does little to support Menzies; whose claims were, and are, discredited.
- We can find other sources which say there are statues on Easter Island, or that there's a particular arrangement of stones at Stonehenge - but it still doesn't make Erich von Daniken's books any less fictional.
- bobrayner (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
RFC regarding the recent merger
An RFC regarding the recent merger has been opened at Talk:1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_the_World#RFC:_Merger_of_a_notable_book_into_the_author.27s_article, in case anyone was unaware. ClovisPt (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
SPA using at least 2 IP addresses and canvassing
71.68.249.69 (talk · contribs) and 71.68.249.69 (talk · contribs) are clearly the same editor. Edits overlap so it isn't IP hopping. They have also been canvassing. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I've been staring at those two IP addresses for a while now. Aren't they, well, identical? I don't see any other IPs currently active in this discussion. Favonian (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm guessing he means 70.29.208.247 (talk · contribs), who opened the RFC. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- Actually no, it's something to do with the new UI changes. I found two contribution pages with different numbers of contributions and assumed they were different IPs, ie [1] and [2]. Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- 98.71.1.5 (talk · contribs) is, however, the same as 71.68.249.69 (talk · contribs), just in case anyone didn't know. ClovisPt (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
- And also seemingly the same as 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs), 98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), and 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs) - these have been inactive for a while, but a couple of them have been blocked before. ClovisPt (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
68.156.95.225 (talk · contribs)? Another IP from Columbia SC with a similar style... Jojalozzo 21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
- Same editing style, same problems - edit warring, personal attacks, unhelpful edits to articles, etc. Hopefully a block will be quickly forthcoming. ClovisPt (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Now we have MagdalenaPudzianowski (talk · contribs) and her colleague "Dr." VictorFlaushenstein (talk · contribs) operating in striking similarity. These sock puppet schemes belie the legitimacy of 68.156.95.225 (talk · contribs)'s neutrality campaign. Jojalozzo 14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Neutrality
Is the neutrality tag really necessary? Although there's been an IP editor very unhappy with the article, I haven't seen much other complaint about neutrality, and it's broadly in line with the sources... is there a consensus? bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No tag: Neutrality is always a problem with articles about pseudo-academics and their work. 1) Most pseudo-academic work is original research and is notable only because mass market publishers can sell it. 2) Adherence to Wikipedia policy requires we state the nature of notable pseudo-work but be clear that it is not supported in the academic world. 3) Mass market consumers without academic background to evaluate the work may not agree with this policy and perceive our adherence to policy as a problem with neutrality. The neutrality tag reinforces this misperception. Jojalozzo 21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
- No tag, as long as all criticisms are cited to reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No tag - Until someone can make a coherent argument as to why their should be one. I'm removing it for the moment, although I will return it if anyone would like to speak up in support of keeping the tag. ClovisPt (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support for Tag- It seems the article could be edited better to reflect a more neutral point of view. Thanks! :) VictorFlaushenstein (talk
- Please offer some evidence of academic support for Menzies' theories before taking action. If there is a peer reviewed support we should reference it in the article but if there is none we should not imply that any exists. Without academic support there is no need for the neutrality tag. Jojalozzo 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really a matter of providing scholarly support for his theories. The page has neutrality issues because not enough space is given for Menzies' own theories. Take for example the section on his book 1421, the second sentence of the first paragraph immediately begins trying to dismiss his research (as "speculation") before any of his own theories are presented. The second paragraph only mentions the people who are believed to have gone on the voyage with the eunuch Zheng He. Then it says "Menzies produces what he calls "indisputable evidence" that the Chinese ..." Where is a description of this evidence? A paragraph or two would not hurt. The rest of the section is devoted to presenting information from detractors. Look, I know the book is a bunch of bullocks, however, policy demands that both sides of the debate must be given adequate space. Until that information is provided, a neutrality tag is warranted.
- And might I point out the fact that the first neutrality tag was deleted a mere 4 hours after it was put it is ridiculous. Just because the editor didn't discuss anything about it doesn't mean the deleter could not have invited the person to debate the matter on the article's talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, policy doesn't require "adequate space" -- how much space does "moon missions were filmed on a soundstage" get compared to Apollo 11, Apollo 12, etc.? If a debate is as lopsided as whether the Earth is flat or not, it doesn't need to be terribly-well-balanced -- or rather, the balance needs to be weighted toward reality. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- The tag was placed there by an editor who had established a history of unsupported edits and unwillingness to engage in civil discussion here on the talk page. I supported immediate removal of the tag since that editor will not or cannot offer specific reasons for it. Jojalozzo 02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- And might I point out the fact that the first neutrality tag was deleted a mere 4 hours after it was put it is ridiculous. Just because the editor didn't discuss anything about it doesn't mean the deleter could not have invited the person to debate the matter on the article's talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- No tag, per Joja, Sarek and Clovis. John Smith's (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Support for Tag, but I would like to suggest two improvements that would cause me to withdraw support for the tag. First of all, remove the sentence at footnote #6, because it is well-documented that Menzies' work is a group effort, and Menzies' collaborators include Chinese people that obviously have command of the Chinese language. Secondly, remove the extended quote from Robert Finley at footnote #17. There are suitable references from Finlay immediately preceding, as well as other references to academic opposition to Menzies. In my opinion, the extended Finlay quotation is overkill -- unbalanced and inappropriate for a wikipedia article.--Other Choices (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Be bold: I greatly appreciate those of you who are here participating constructively and pointing out specifically how we might improve this article. I'd encourage those who see ways to fix it to be bold and make changes, as long as they are not original research and have valid support. We don't need a tag or this discussion really if folks would make constructive contributions. Jojalozzo 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay, I'm going to make the two deletions I mentioned above, and we'll just have to see if that is acceptable to people on both sides of this question. I originally started at wikipedia because I thought the Gavin Menzies article was biased, but my core interest is elsewhere, so I'm not going to get too upset either way. --Other Choices (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- If neutrality is a problem (I do not see that so far), then I we need additions that improve neutrality not deletions. In my view most of the "negative" information about Menzies is well supported and should not be removed. If someone here feels that the article is unfairly biased then I encourage them to provide some supported balance. Jojalozzo 23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the point in deleting these two points. Menzies' lack of command of Chinese has been explicitly pointed out by Ptak as a major drawback of his research, and to allude to some unknown "team" which must "include Chinese people that obviously have command of the Chinese language" is OR. The Finlay quote which has been part of the article for two years or so has been found inoffensive by many revamps in the past, so a removal would IMHO clearly need a major discussion with a vote. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that Menzies' lack of Chinese language skills is important in someone who purports to be a scholar of Chinese history and presents translations of Chinese documents without attributing those translations to anyone but himself. In general I don't see any point in sugar coating Menzies' lack of academic standing or his willingness to bend facts to fit his theories but if there is academic support for his work let's include it. Jojalozzo 12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- I found a reference to limited Chinese support for Menzies and added it to the article. Perhaps "limited" isn't the correct word -- please feel free to improve it.
- I don't see any support for Menzies here from an academic stand point: "We [the society] don't regard it as an historical book, but as a narrative one." It's basically saying that the mass appeal of Menzies books has helped the society's aims to promote Zheng He studies. It's a stretch to call that academic support. I don't think it deserves a quote in the main text, but perhaps in the references section. Jojalozzo 12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding the extended Finlay quote, I think it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. If anybody disagrees with this, please say so here.--Other Choices (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've no time at all for Gavin Menzies and his books. However, I think the Findlay quote is just too long for Wikipedia. The first two sentences are the key, possibly also the sentence beginning "The reasoning of 1421..." Nickm57 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I should have added - my deeply felt opinion about Menzies is the reason I don't actively contribute to this topic.Nickm57 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how long quotes should be on Wikipedia, however, I've trimmed the quote down a little bit. I'm fine with the original wording if anyone wants to revert back to that, but maybe this way the point of the quote is more easily conveyed to the reader. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- The trimming was done expertly, and has made some room for more rebuttals. It should not be given the impression that only Finlay severely critizices the hypothesis, other experts have also bothered to comment on it.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would there be a way of summing up the expertise of the authors of the recent quote your contributed to the article? I was thinking of something along the lines of "a group of Sinologists, historians, and nautical experts" but I'm not sure how that sounds. Any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- I'd find something along the lines "joint statement of a group of historians" absolutely ok, as long as the individual names appear in the footnote, as they in fact do now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- Would there be a way of summing up the expertise of the authors of the recent quote your contributed to the article? I was thinking of something along the lines of "a group of Sinologists, historians, and nautical experts" but I'm not sure how that sounds. Any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- The trimming was done expertly, and has made some room for more rebuttals. It should not be given the impression that only Finlay severely critizices the hypothesis, other experts have also bothered to comment on it.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I don't know how long quotes should be on Wikipedia, however, I've trimmed the quote down a little bit. I'm fine with the original wording if anyone wants to revert back to that, but maybe this way the point of the quote is more easily conveyed to the reader. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've no time at all for Gavin Menzies and his books. However, I think the Findlay quote is just too long for Wikipedia. The first two sentences are the key, possibly also the sentence beginning "The reasoning of 1421..." Nickm57 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I should have added - my deeply felt opinion about Menzies is the reason I don't actively contribute to this topic.Nickm57 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
- I found a reference to limited Chinese support for Menzies and added it to the article. Perhaps "limited" isn't the correct word -- please feel free to improve it.
- Support for Tag Dzien dobry everyone! This article is very biased toward anti-Menzie organization, it must be processed to be neutral based on principle of official Wikipedia policy. Thank you! Dziekuje Bardzo! Pozdrawiam, MagdalenaPudzianowski