Talk:Gavin Menzies/Archive 2

Threads between January and August 2010 can be found in Archive 1 to keep cronological order.

Map section

Have you noticed that the whole map section bears no relationship to Menzies thesis? This is pretty much a sideshow, Menzies is not once quoted. Therefore, I am for a removal. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I posted the following in an earlier section yesterday; perhaps other editors didn't see it, so I'm reposting it here.--Other Choices (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the following unsourced statement from the "map" section of the article: "Gavin Menzies claims the map demonstrates that Zheng He sailed to the Americas and Australia." Perhaps a source can be found for this, but not in either of Menzies' books. There is a further issue of balance and neutral point of view. Currently, the article devotes one fourth of its space to debunking the Liu Gang map, with no discussion of the map in relation to Menzies' books. However, Menzies discusses at great length many other maps in his books (dozens and dozens of pages), but these aren't discussed in the article. The Liu Gang map is not mentioned at all in 1421, and it is discussed in only five pages (out of over 300 pages) in 1434. Why is this particular map mentioned at all in the article? I propose that the current "map" section be deleted from this article and moved to a separate, new article.--Other Choices (talk) 10:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, don't want to disappoint anybody but a separate article on the map is out of question. If we keep it, its relation to Menzies' hypothesis should be made clearer. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:08, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't care if there is a separate map article or not, but somebody went to all the trouble to write this map section, so I thought they might want to preserve it somewhere else. In any case, I favor deleting the map section from the current article.--Other Choices (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The last paragraph reports on the carbon dating lab's request for Menzies to remove his inclusion of them in his interpretation of the dates on his web site. Jojalozzo 23:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If we want to keep this, then I think we should explain how Menzies uses the map in 1434, which means we'll have to decide if this is important enough to add to the article. On pp. 128-30, Menzies uses the "1418" map to talk about the advances of Chinese map-making in the early decades of the 15th century. His major reference to the "1418" map is on pp. 272-73, where Menzies alleges that an inscription on the map refers to the Paracas religion, which, according to Menzies, was unknown to Europeans until 1925 (thus proving to Menzies the authenticity of the map).--Other Choices (talk) 07:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not invested in keeping the map section. I was just pointing out that it did tie into the Menzies article at the end and wasn't completely off topic. I haven't read 1434 yet and do not edit in or have opinions on anything related to it. Jojalozzo 04:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

How central can the map be to Menzies' theory? We don't give Erich von Däniken in his article much room for his interpretation of Mars photos, so why should we give Menzies a platform to discuss his maps extensively here? Remember we had such a section one year ago, and it was removed on consensus. Any detailed discussion of Menzies' theory is outside the scope of this article, we have external links to both his site and the critics for that. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Biographical synopsis

This recent addition duplicates the passage immediately above. This is particularly relevant since exactly these nautical claims of Menzies have been challenged by his critics. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

GPM, you seem to be conflating the 1959 trip in the Newfoundland with the later voyages in the Rorqual. The 1959 trip covered a different stretch of the ocean, including Africa. Perhaps the article should be tweaked to adjust the chronology of the different voyages. If Menzies' account of his 1959 trip has been questioned by scholars, then of course a reference is appropriate.--Other Choices (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a copy of 1421 here and would appreciate seeing a snippet-quote of Menzies statement that HMS Newfoundland was submarine (not a cruiser) on page 113. Jojalozzo 01:30, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

On page 113, Menzies doesn't identify the class of the Newfoundland. Identifying the Newfoundland as a submarine was my own error. My apologies, I'm not British; and thanks to whoever caught that error.--Other Choices (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"lacks supporting references for Chinese voyages beyond East Africa"

The article states that 1421 "lacks supporting references for Chinese voyages beyond East Africa." I think this is inaccurate. Although the validity of the following examples may be open to question, Menzies does have supporting references, including (per the 2008 edition of 1421):
1) The stone inscription by Zheng He stating that he visited "3,000" countries. (pp. 111-12)
2) The Kangnido Map showing general features of the western coast of Africa.
3) The 1459 Fra Mauro map with its notation of a Chinese junk sailing west of the southern tip of Africa around 1420 (p. 122)
4) The I Yu Thu Chi (Illustrated Record of Strange Countries), which shows animals native to South America "found two years and nine months' jouney west of China" (p. 272), and which also depicts the Arctic area (p. 514).
5) Menzies cites Professor Wei Chuh-Hsien (Wei Chu Xian) for multiple records claiming that the Chinese reached both the North and South poles. (p. 509)
6) Menzies cites Professor Zhu Jianqui's paper at the Oct. 2002 conference for a record that part of Zheng He's fleet still hadn't returned in 1425, lending plausibility to the general idea of extended voyages.
7) Menzies also mentions early European accounts of earlier Chinese voyages to America, including those of Antonio Galvao (1563) and Juan Gonzales de Mendoza (1588), as well as mentioning Hugo Grotius's reference to old Chinese shipwrecks off the coast of Mexico (p. 550).
--Other Choices (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the meaning of this part of a sentence is pretty clear and in its whole context, fair. One could add "verifiable and independent references..." to make it very clear that Menzies' reading of "Chinese" junk in the Fra Mauro case is his own, as is the Kangnido map's "general features" of the western coast of Africa etc. Nickm57 (talk) 02:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Per Nickm57. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your points 1-6 don't amount to supporting references (point 4, for instance would need to be confirmed by an expert). The Frau Mauro map only proves someone had sailed past the tip of Africa, nothing more, and Herodotus knew that Africa could be circumnavigated more than 2,000 years ago. Point 7 has been discussed for 150 years and even Needham (who Menzies amusingly refers to as an expert on Ming China), who was impressed by various Chinese similarities on a visit to Mexico in 1947, accepted the scholarly consensus against proof of this (see Ronan, Shorter S&C in C 3 p153-9). Speculation continues but there's nothing yet to support any connection with Zheng He's voyages. Chris55 (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The statement without a citation is OR and the discussion here amounts to more. I added a reference to support it. Jojalozzo 13:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The Chinese certainly know about much of the rest of the world before 1421. Trade can lead to extensive voyages, but if there is to be anything made of the voyages, then there had better be something at the destination. You will notice that the Chinese of 1421 had little to say about Australia, then a place unappealing to traders for lack of objects of interest -- no spices, no precious medals, and no possibility of meaningful trade. Africa was then far richer. Australia was far closer to China than was any part of Africa... but the Chinese had no cause to ply ships of any kind off the coast of Australia.

Governments do not send out expeditions of discovery for the sheer sake of discovery. Columbus came close to abject failure, and they usually need the enticements of the possibility of profitable trade or some military advantage. Even in the 19th century, when the British and French navies were exploring the waste seas of the Southern Hemisphere, the objectives were mapping to find favorable passages for shipping -- and any troublesome shoal, rocks, and shallows to avoid.

Currents of the Pacific Ocean would have made a Chinese discovery of the New World almost as likely as a European discovery of the New World. But the Chinese clearly found arctic and subarctic regions (basically anything north of Japan) unappealing. But had the Chinese made any more-than-superficial appearance in places like Alaska or what are now the west coasts of Canada and the US, then the Chinese would have made their presence far better-known. Wouldn't there be tribes of Native Americans who adopted aspects of Chinese religious life, writing derived from Chinese characters, metalwork, navigation, and other aspects of the sophisticated economic and intellectual life of China? The sites of Vancouver, Seattle, Tacoma, Portland (Oregon), San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tijuana wouldn't each have a Chinatown; they would be sites of Chinese cities!

1421 now reads like a bad alternative history (a science-fiction genre)... and considering how different the Chinese were from Europeans of the time, a New World 'discovered' from China by Chinese would be vastly different from that which we now know. But so would the New World be had the Vikings successfully colonized "Vinland".Pbrower2a (talk) 15:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pbrower2a, you're new to this discussion, so perhaps it is worth repeating the request (made repeatedly by others) to limit discussion to suggested improvements to the article. For whatever it's worth, my earlier seven suggestions led to significant changes following extensive (and sometimes vitriolic) discussion by many editors, all of which has been archived HERE

Despite the flaws in 1421, Menzies is slowly gaining international respect for popularizing the theory of Chinese pre-Columbian interaction with America. See US-China Review, Summer 2011 I think that eventually, this should be mentioned in the article, but perhaps this source isn't a good one to use for this particular point. For whatever it's worth, I've initiated a discussion of this source on this talk page

--Other Choices (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Just curious

Just curious, Other Choices, but is there some end to your endless inquiries and criticism on talk? For two weeks now you have been dragging about every bit from the article to the fore in what some editor has long fittingly described as micromanagement of semantics. You must feel that this article is one great unfair piece of anti-Menzies propaganda, don't you? So why don't you go to some noticeboard instead? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Gun Powder Ma, in the above paragraph you exaggerate, mis-characterize, and assume the accuracy of personal opinion. This seems to be typical of your approach to editing this article. You and some editors tend to be openly contemptuous and/or hostile to the subject of the article, which, in my opinion, makes for bad editing. The article as I found it had a palpable anti-Menzies bias, and I took on the task of improving it.

Going to a noticeboard is a tactic that I prefer to use sparingly and deliberately. I have been able to get you and other editors to agree to some of my suggestions for improving the article. Some of my suggestions that have been rejected aren't important enough to post on a noticeboard. And the two posts that I already made on the BLP noticeboard have brought attention here from uninvolved editors which has also served to improve the article, even though the second post wasn't answered directly. (Perhaps I posted that one on the wrong noticeboard; I may try again elsewhere.) Posting on noticeboards creates work for wikipedia editors, so after I posted on the BLP noticeboard, I started responding to other editors' noticeboard posts. Hopefully my interventions on other articles have been impartial and constructive. For me, this whole experience has been (and probably will continue to be) a training ground, making me a better editor.--Other Choices (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Reading 1421exposed.com carefully again, I too find bias in the current article. Why, for example, is no mention made of the fact that he was not promoted to Commander even though he had been serving for 12 years in the Navy? This is unsual. Or that his only special qualification are actually torpedos, not currents and cartography as he makes his readers believe? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking these questions here. Why have you never bothered to add these things to the article before I came along? I can think of one possible answer: The innuendo and allegations to which you refer are outside the specialty of the people who presented that statement, and perhaps sensible people will refrain from trying to include such partisan attacks in a wikipedia BLP.--Other Choices (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

To 'Other Choices' - Can you try to be more specific about what you regard as 'innuendo and allegations which are outside the speciality of the people who presented that statement'. If you are referring to criticism of the author's nautical knowledge there is nothing partisan in that. We don't actually know how much of it was actually written by the author, in his first book, but he did accept responsiblity for everything that was written there. The book "1421" certainly contains numerous errors (sometimes derisory errors) - in the theory and practice of navigation and seamanship. Norloch (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

By "innuendo" I refer to the mention of Menzies' seniority without being promoted. The logical inference is that this was through some fault of Menzies, which may or may not be true. Hinting at such a fault is well within the scope of a self-published attack website, but not within the scope of a wikipedia BLP. By "allegations" I refer to the authors pointing out Menzies' lack of specialist qualification as a cartographer, implying deception in Menzies' thanking of the Royal Navy for training in cartography. For all we know, Menzies took a basic class in cartography (presumably part of the core curriculum for all naval officers), and received additional hands-on training later in his career, especially during the voyage of the Newfoundland. I suppose it's reasonable to argue that such a level of training doesn't make Menzies an expert, but it also seems reasonable for Menzies to thank the Royal Navy for the training that he received. The training of naval officers is outside the specialty of the academics who attack Menzies in the "1421 exposed" website.--Other Choices (talk) 08:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To 'Other Choices' - I don't agree with your views about 'academics' - unless you can state something specific. Purely as an example from the past, I would name Samuel Morison - who was definitely an academic. He was a historian, but one who had considerable knowledge of U.S. Navy operations. Although he was, strictly speaking, an amateur sailor, his published works demonstrate a keen understanding of navigation and seamanship. The difference between Morison and Menzies is that the published work of Menzies (i.e.'1421') certainly hasn't demonstrated any comparable understanding of matters connected with navigation or seamanship. Your assumptions that Menzies may have taken classes in cartography, or related subjects - or maybe gained some special insights from voyage experiences - do appear to be rather weak assumptions. To me, it seems a curious anomaly that someone who had spent many years "learning the ropes" in a professional capacity, could then write so much drivel on the subject. Norloch (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

My basic point here is that the innuendo of Wade, et al., [at their self-published attack website about an issue (the internal workings of the Royal Navy) concerning which they have never published and therefore have no demonstrable expertise] -- even if it happens to be accurate -- is off-limits for a wikipedia BLP.--Other Choices (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

To 'Other Choices' - Again, I disagree with your basic point and your subjective interpretation of "innuendo" in regard to what was actually said in the 'Wade' appendix. The time when Menzies served in the Royal Navy was a period of severe 'downsizing' which created a situation where there were too many officers and too few ships. Many officers chose to direct their careers towards shore-based branches of the Navy because sea service was restricted and promotions were mainly limited to officers who showed exceptional qualities. Apparently Menzies chose to train for the legal branch of the navy. The point is that 12 years naval service as a qualified officer, in that period, would not actually have offered much opportunity for practical seagoing experience. There isn't impled criticism of ability or conduct. It merely shows that it wasn't a good time to aquire experience of seafaring in the navy. I think this is something which is apparent in the author's writing. Norloch (talk) 08:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the article, unless you have a reliable source that makes the same argument.--Other Choices (talk) 22:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lost Empire of Atlantis

Menzies' new book The Lost Empire of Atlantis: The Secrets of History's Most Enduring Mystery Revealed will be published on November 15th. He has already been promoting the new book. Can we refer yet to it, like in the lead, or do we have to wait until it is published? What do the WP guidelines say? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, you guys are not thrilled that he has found Atlantis? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the prospect is more wearying than thrilling - but, you never know. Could be a case of third time lucky. Might be better to wait and see ? Norloch (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Added. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

So Menzies has found the legendary Atlantis, eh? Perhaps Bigfoot or the space ship at Area 51 is next. ;)--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Original reserach in criticism sections

It's tempting to add facts that neutralize criticism. However, even when counter arguments are based on reliable sources it constitutes original research if we do not provide a source that makes that counter argument with the specific intention of addressing the criticism. Jojalozzo 21:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, Jojalozzo. I overlooked the simple fact that Menzies' discussion of the map in 1434 (published in 2008) was a RESPONSE to Wade's 2007 article. I'll adjust the wording in the article accordingly.--Other Choices (talk) 23:02, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work. Thanks. Jojalozzo 23:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that Menzies mentions Wade on that page? The addition is fine if he does, but not if he doesn't. Given the timing I can see that he might mention Wade. Dougweller (talk) 05:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Menzies does not mention Wade by name on that page, but he clearly rebuts the charge that the Liu Gang map is a fake. If you have a problem with that, Dougweller, then perhaps we should ask for a third opinion. In light of your recent display of incivility on the "Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact" talk page, I think it is strongly advisable for you to back off and leave it to others to share their views or revert my post if they think it advisable. Please, let's try not to aggravate the long-standing friction between the two of us.

Perhaps the article's treatment of Wade vs. Menzies should be overhauled. Mention of Wade appears in the section on criticism of 1434. However, Wade's article appeared BEFORE 1434 was published, so Wade never mentioned 1434 in his article. Wade's article was devoted to criticism of a map that was not part of the central content of 1434, taking up just a couple pages in a peripheral chapter. For that reason, if other editors want to delete all mention of the Liu Gang map from the article, I won't object to that. However, if other editors want to delete Menzies' rebuttal, then I think that either the reference to Wade's article should also be deleted or the article should make clear that Wade's criticism is irrelevant to the basic argument of Menzies' book.

There is another problematic area in the 1434 criticism section -- the reference to Taccola in 1419 and 1433. Aside from the question of whether this statement is original research (and it seems that way to me, too), the simple fact is that Menzies acknowledged Taccola's 1419 and 1433 publications on a chart in the middle of 1434, and this chart also shows that Taccola published another work in the 1440s. (This later work is also mentioned in the wikipedia article on Taccola.) It appears that Menzies knows more about Taccola than whoever added the Taccola reference to the article, so I'll vote for that sentence's deletion.--Other Choices (talk) 08:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I was uncivil but if I was I apologise. I certainly am not going to stop being involved here. If he doesn't mention Wade, then the edit meets our definition of original research in my opinion. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

You can of course argue your case at WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 09:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

In the 1434 criticism section the first reference to Wade should obviously stay (and I don't think anyone is suggesting it be removed), but the reference to his 2007 article does seem misplaced. Dougweller (talk) 09:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

As we agree that Wade's article doesn't discuss 1434, I've removed it, and since I've done that and as as you agree that Menzies doesn't mention Wade, I've removed that also. If you really think your bit about Menzies and Wade belongs in the article please as I've suggested ask at NORN first. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that is fine with me.--Other Choices (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this correct?

There is the following passage in the article: "A group of scholars and navigators, Su Ming Yang of the United States, Jin Guo-Ping of Portugal, Philip Rivers of Malaysia, Malhão Pereira and Geoff Wade of Singapore questioned Menzies' methods and findings in a joint message" Is this correct? Shouldn't be Philip Rivers of the United States, Malhão Pereira of Portugal, etc, etc..."?? --Lecen (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It does seem mixed up - but you never know. OKelly (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Menzies claim that "Accepted New Zealand history" is that the Maori brought horses & went to the Americas

What sort of historian thinks the Maori travelled all over the world and brought things back from the Americas? That's the sort of thing Menzies believes, although he substitutes Chinese for Maori. No reputable historian believes this, and horses were introduced to the very surprised Maori in 1814 by Samuel Marsden. I removed the block quote and it was returned with an accusation of censorship, which is also nonsense. I've cut it back but don't think it belongs at all unless we are trying to show Menzies' most ridiculous claims here. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree with you entirely, the block quote in question does not belong in this article.Nickm57 (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

His views on NZ are ridiculous. I just can't wait for his new Atlantis book. OKelly (talk) 21:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The NZ part is just a digression. We have already long agreed that it is better not do refer to Menzies' detailed 'evidence' for every stretch of land the Chinese fleet he claims discovered (which basically amounts to nothing less than Africa, Australia and the Americas). This would make the article basically unreadable for people looking for a general overview of his hypothesis and its criticism. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

1421 Hypothesis

Can anyone tell me when the article 1421 Hypothesis was merged or deleted? OKelly (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

June 2011, according to the page history. —WWoods (talk) 18:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Uhlan (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Atttempt to remove the redirect at 1421: The Year China Discovered the World

I've reversed this and asked the editor who did it to discuss it here if he still feels it should be done. I've pointed out that it is extensively covered in this article (just upgraded to B in the last few hours). It was move protected in 2010 but that expired. Dougweller (talk) 06:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree. We had then one article on GM and two for each of his books and the community considered this to be wildly exaggerated for a proven fringe author and a transparent attempt to 'spread the message'. Not even a titan like James Joyce can call for each of his books an article his own. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

When did Taccola complete his treatise?

I have deleted the following sentence from the criticism subsection of the 1434 section: "Further, Taccola started work on his treatise as early as 1419 and essentially completed it in 1433, one year before the supposed arrival of the Chinese fleet.[31]" This appears both to be OR (as the author said nothing about Menzies or the Chinese fleet) and to be false -- perhaps an incompetent misrepresentation of what the author actually wrote. (Perhaps the editor who added that sentence could provide a quote from the original.)

If other editors feel that this sentence should be retained, then I think it should be balanced by a mention of what Menzies actually says about Taccola. At present, the "criticism" subsection of 1434 is twice as long as the summary of the book, which is clearly unbalanced. Here is part of what Menzies writes about Taccola's books:

"Prager and Scaglia, in my opinion the leading authorities on Taccola, put publication of books 1 and 2 of his De ingeneis at around 1429-33. Taccola began books 3 and 4 around 1434 or 1348 and continued working on them until his death in 1454; De machinis was begun after 1438 and the addenda drawings around 1435 [emphasis in original]." (p. 184)

"As far as I can see, every variation of shafts, wheels, and cranks 'invented' and drawn by Taccola and Francesco [di Giorgio] is illustrated in the Nung Shu....As far as I can determine, every type of powered transmission described by Taccola and di Giorgio is shown in the Nung Shu." (pp. 189-90) Here are two very specific claims at the very heart of Menzies' argument, which I think should be added to the article. If there has been any scholarly refutation of these two specific claims, then of course it should be included as well.

Other Choices (talk) 02:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The author, Shelby from 1975, could not have said anything about Menzies because he published his article more than two decades before Menzies did. Can't see how you can hold this against him. Does not make his observations on the completion date of Taccola's treatise less valid. If you want address unbalanced part, I suggest to add criticism to Menzies' latest book. As a personal note, I would have thought that Menzies' latest book has established beyond doubt the fantastic character of his work – we don't need to pretend here otherwise by giving room to Menzies' vacuous reasonings about details such as the transmission types. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, GPM, my point exactly -- Shelby couldn't have said anything about Menzies, so it is OR to link the two, especially in such a misleading way. I'd really like to see an actual quote from Shelby, because, as I mentioned before, the offending sentence (which I will delete once again) in the article is an incompetent misrepresentation. The sentence implies that Taccola only wrote one treatise, while the wikipedia article on Taccola shows both that Taccola wrote more than one treatise and that his work continued to develop after 1433. In other words, the offending sentence is a misleading mischaracterization of known facts about the timeline and extent of Taccola's scholarship, which leads me to conclude that the offending sentence is an incompetent misrepresentation of what the cited source (Shelby) actually wrote. Shelby couldn't have been that ignorant or stupid. It seems obvious that the offending sentence was improperly sourced (in what might be considered "stealth OR"), which is why I asked you to provide a quote from the source if you want to insist on keeping the sentence in the article.

Regarding criticism of Menzies' latest book, I haven't found any yet -- just a brief synopsis from Kirkus that might be worth linking.

Regarding your personal note, this talk page might not be the proper place to vent your personal opinions.--Other Choices (talk) 02:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The frustrating thing with writing Wikipedia articles on fringe writers is how much they are ignored by everyone except those who believe them. In this case, we can't use Taccola until someone writing about Menzies uses Taccola. Dougweller (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Dougweller, you err here. Other Choices, using Shelby on Taccola has nothing to do with WP:OR, because Shelby is cited correctly. What you rather mean is that it may be WP:SYN. However, it is not WP:SYN either, because Shelby just states an established fact from Taccola scholarship and this established fact is given here. To give an analogy: If Menzies was saying the Tower Bridge was constructed by Zheng He, we don't need to wait either for someone disproving him by referring explicitly to his hypothesis, do we? We just take a reliable source which says when London Bridge was built. We don't need to wait until somebody bothers to address the fringe theory (which usually never happens exactly because it is fringe). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Life would be simpler here if you were right, but I don't think you will find agreement at WP:NORN. Still, if you think you are, please ask there. Dougweller (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Adding our own facts to refute sourced statements is definitively SYN. Something as clearly incorrect as a claim that Zheng He built London Bridge wouldn't require refutation (nor meet NOTABLE or UNDUE criteria), so such extreme examples are of limited application here. Since the dating of Taccola's treatise is not as obviously incorrect as such a statement about London Bridge, we need a source that directly addresses and refutes Menzies' Taccola claims, not a source that helps the reader synthesize a refutation. It's unfortunate that fringe claims often don't garner sufficient attention to provide such sources but that doesn't justify doing it ourselves. Jojalozzo 18:10, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not SYN because SYN would mean that the disputed statement in the WP article arrives at a conclusion which is neither found in Menzies nor in Shelby. However, the fact that Taccola had by then already essentially completed his works is what Shelby says, so it is found in one of the sources. See here where I asked the question in a wider conceptual frame. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

" To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The topic of the article is Menzies. Shelby does not write about Menzies. That discussion has gotten very confused, it would have been better if you'd actually posted the edit you want. Dougweller (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Shelby does not mention Menzies. Use of that source to refute Menzies' work is SYN/OR. Please verify this at WP:NORN before continuing here. Jojalozzo 07:04, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

You do seem to misunderstand what a synthesis is. The topic is Taccola, so Shelby is directly related to the topic. Please explain what is A, B and C in your view here based on WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

That would drive a gaping hole through NOR. No one here agrees with you, at Talk:NOR you didn't get agreement, I'm not sure why you haven't gone to NORN but you can't add it here right now. It's a shame there aren't reliable sources saying this, but there aren't, and fringe editors would love to be able to do what you want to do. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Please explain what is A, B and C in your view here based on WP:SYN. I will be going to NOR as soon as you have made your point comprehensible, so that I can link to this discussion. According to you:

A = <please fill in>

B = <please fill in>

C = <please fill in> Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

No A, B or C, just the point I've been making and have now made at WP:NORN#Can a source written before a book was published be used to refute the book?. Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent IP edits

I've protected another page because these two IPs were edit warring on it. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Video

This seems to be the CCTV production, so copyright protected material, but there is no sign that the upload of the video to Youtube was allowed by the copyright owners. So, if true, I guess we have to remove it from the links, don't we? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. John Smith's (talk) 07:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Chinese discovery of America &c redirect here

Which is probably a bad idea. There have been other theories and rationales for a Chinese discovery of America besides Menzies's, in particular Hui Shen. None of them are true, but there's more to the idea than this gentleman's book. — LlywelynII 23:19, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirected to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Talking about the latter article, there is currently a move request which also directly touches upon Menzies' theory: the question is whether the adequate article name for his and other fringe theories is Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact or Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact hypotheses. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

1421 and 1434

Am I the only one who thinks these 2 books by the subject are notable enough to have their own standalone articles? -A1candidate (talk) 13:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC

Its a best selling book and only the criticism part was merged here. Any objections to restore the full article? -A1candidate (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lots of objections, which you'd see if you reviewed the discussions in the archives, as has already been suggested. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I also would object. Dougweller (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I fully SUPPORT creating two new articles for both the history books: 1421 and 1434. These books are both hundreds of pages long and the fact that Wikipedia editors only give these two books a small paragraph for each is great injustice, considering the fact that some other less significant novels and books have entire pages to themselves. Let's create two new articles for both 1421 and 1434, as sooner or later someone will. 114.229.143.114 (talk) 09:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Support, I also agree with creating two separate pages for 1421 and the other book 1434. 117.90.245.113 (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also support RESTORING the separate pages for 1421 and 1434, but I'm not going to fight for it. There are half a dozen editors with strong views about Gavin Menzies who voted to merge the pages a couple years ago. Most of them are still active editors, and they will come here and make their views known if it appears that support is building to restore the earlier pages. That's just the way it is, let sleeping dogs lie.--Other Choices (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I would also object for a number of reasons. The current version is by the way more reader-friendly which should also appeal to readers/editors who are into Menzies's hypothesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

POV

Pretty much half the article is filled with quotes criticizing the subject, the rest of this "biography" simply keeps on repeating that the entire academic committee views his books as fiction. -A1candidate (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful to read through the archives to get an understanding of the history of the development of the article. Regards Norloch (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Norloch here. I think that the article is much, much better than it was before my contentious exchange with GunPowderMa, who uses Gavin P. Menzies' initials as the basis of his own moniker and who is the chief promoter of the hysterical anti-Menzies rantings of Robert Finlay -- for example, the ridiculous blooper at quote #30, which simply ignores the central claim of Menzies' book that the existence of a number of maps proves pre-European exploration and surveying of the world. To improve the article, I would suggest including this central claim of Menzies to balance the incompetent "scholarship."--Other Choices (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree that evidence from ancient maps forms the 'central claim' by the author. (That particular claim was made by Hapgood, Von Daniken and others - decades before Menzies' first book was published.) Surely, Menzies' central claim was that Chinese mariners explored and surveyed significant regions of the world - using large convoys of sailing vessels for the undertaking. In my opinion that claim is incredibly daft. The Chinese were skilled mariners and good adminstrators and there is no reason to suppose they would have used such wasteful and inefficient methods for exploration and survey. I also have concerns that the author used ocean current data and other data in a selective way to support his hypothesis. regards Norloch (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the maps aren't Menzies' central claim at all. John Smith's (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the maps is the foundation of Menzies' whole argument. He then dismisses all but the Chinese as having been capable of creating the maps. With that central claim made, he develops his fanciful and elaborate "hypothesis" (not a claim, although his failure to repeat ad nauseum that his "1421 hypothesis" is hypothetical, compounded by his habitual failure to clearly demarcate fact from theory from speculation, has led many readers astray) that the Admiral Zheng He's known 1421 expedition around the Indian Ocean was the occasion of a global mapping operation. While many details of Menzies "1421 hypothesis" have been thoroughly and publicly shredded by scholars, Menzies' underlying claim that it HAD to be the Chinese who made the maps who did the surveying that was the foundation of the various maps has never been debunked and (in my opinion) deserves mention in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 05:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Menzies leaped on to the 1763 map long after 1421 had been published. And the 1763 map has been challenged. John Smith's (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the case, its simply his own opinion, and he brings that up everytime he makes a speech about 1421. His theories may sound entirely impossible, but I feel that the tone of this article is inappropriate and the entire thing needs to be re-written. -A1candidate (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Have to disagree with that. He's been debunked by just about everyone, so he can be treated as fringe theory. John Smith's (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

To Other Choices; Apologies, but you still haven't made it clear what you consider is significant about Menzies' work. - In the past, Von Daniken claimed it HAD to be extraterrestials who created those ancient maps. Hapgood claimed it HAD to be long forgotten, Sea Kings. Others have made similar claims for Atlanteans, Ancient Egyptians, Dravidians etc. etc. - So what? - In all cases, the integrity of their research and their evidence was considered inadequate. None of their 'underlying ideas' were actually 'debunked' but there is no obligation for anyone to do that (If there was such an obligation then hard-working researchers would be wasting endless amounts of time debunking crank ideas). It's the direct responsibility of every theorist to prove his own theory and, as you've acknowledged yourself, Menzies failed to make the grade. Regards Norloch (talk) 10:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@John Smith's and A1candidate, I believe that treating his views as a fringe theory is a bit different from the general derogatory tone of this biography of a living person. If A1candidate can suggest specific changes supported by reliable sources, that would be helpful.

@Norloch, Menzies' attribution of the origin of the controversial maps to the Chinese was something new, and at the foundation of his bestseller 1421, so in my opinion it is clearly notable and deserves a brief mention in the 1421 section of the article. EDIT: Actually, it's already in there, but not near the Finlay quote, which lacks context. What I've been getting at all along is the article's current use of the Finlay quote furthers the article's long-standing anti-Menzies bias.--Other Choices (talk) 06:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

To Open Choices; - With respect, - you don't seem to be aware that the 'underlying claim' ( which you describe as the foundation of the book '1421' ), was never properly substantiated by the author and his team. The only effort made, in the book, was a series of vague assertions that Zheng He's ships would have arrived at this or that location and then progressed onwards. In the first edition, that was combined with a lot of meaningless psuedo-navigational jargon which was much criticized. (I've read that the most derisory examples were deleted from later editions.)

If you want to make reference to this “underlying claim” in the article then give it some substance by firstly publishing a paper which demonstrates that the author's vague assertions about these hypothetical voyages of exploration and survey would have been both practical and possible. Write a credible account which includes accurate details of seasonal winds and currents and which also details realistic timings for events like voyage durations, survey operations, etc. – ( In other words, do the hard work that the author and his team avoided.) - If you aren’t willing to do that then it seems that you're not offering anything really 'new' or significant - merely an addition to all the other unsubstantiated claims made by a long line of fringe theorist with regard to ancient maps. Norloch (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Norloch, I fail to see the relevance of your recent post, and your condescending tone and your misrepresentation of my name belie the fig-leaf of your hollow protestation of "respect." This article is about a living person who is notable because he writes best-selling books which are themselves notable subjects for wikipedia articles. The foundation of Menzies' argument in 1421 -- his reasoning that only the Chinese had the technological and organizational capability to map the world in the 15th century -- deserves mention in the article on that ground of notability, regardless of whether he proves his point to your satisaction, and regardless of whether there are legitimate criticisms of subsidiary speculations in his book (regarding ocean currents, voyage durations, etc.).--Other Choices (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this might be partly resolved by looking at Menzies own website (I have just corrected the link to it). It appears to summarise his 1421 theory as

• Four huge Chinese fleets circumnavigated the world between March 1421 and October 1423. The fleets comprised more than 800 vessels. These fleets charted the world.
• Sailors and concubines from those great fleets settled in Malaysia, India, Africa, N. and S. America, Australia, New Zealand and on islands across the Pacific
• The first European explorers all had maps showing where they were going before they set sail. They met Chinese settlers when they arrived in the New World.
• China, not Europe thus discovered and settled the New World. European ‘discoveries’ relied on China leading the way." [1]

However, one of the problems in defining his focus of interest and conclusions is that they have continually evolved or shifted. For example, the work on New Zealand seems to have appeared since the first edition's publication. Indeed, he refers to various works "in progress" on the site. But in the case of his 1421 theory, I favour citing him directly, as above.Nickm57 (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, underlying all of the above is Menzies' reasoning that only the Chinese would have had the capability to map the world. I think that deserves mention.Other Choices (talk) 09:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To Other Choices; Firstly, let me apologise for mis-writing your name. It was a careless error linked to problems I was experiencing with "Open Office" format as I drafted the wording. No excuses for careless transposition of the word 'Open' but nor was there any hidden agenda behind the error. Secondly, I've no desire to be condescending. I genuinely would be interested if you, or the author, or anyone else ) could demonstrate that the hypothetical voyaging events described by the author could feasibly have been accomplished in ways that were credible. I say that because I'm unable to demonstrate it myself ( and I have a great deal more navigational and seagoing experience than the author.) As it notes in Wiki... exceptional claims demand multiple high quality sources as proof. That should be our guide. Norloch (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To Norloch and Other Choices: Generally speaking, anything and everything which can be challenged by someone should require backing from good quality sources. In that respect, I agree that we should all stick to reliable sources. However, the subject of this article is first and foremost Gavin Menzies; its not so much about who actually discovered the Americas first. Consider the difference between these two sentences:

• In his book, Menzies claims that a Chinese expedition reached the Americas first, and subsequent European voyages were based on information originally acquired by the Chinese.

• A Chinese expedition reached the Americas first, and subsequent European voyages were based on information originally acquired by the Chinese.

Its obvious that the 2nd statement is an exceptional claim which requires an exceptional source. The first statement, however, only reproduces the opinions of Menzies and summarizes the main claims of his book. As absurd as it may sound, providing a source for the first statement is entirely feasible; but its also unnecessary because anyone who has read the book would know it to be true. It would be a misinterpretation of Wikipeida's guidelines if one were to require a highy quality sources everytime someone summarizes an opinion of Menzies, without actually making the claim itself. To be clear, articles like Astral projection and Out-of-body experiences are Wikipedia:Fringe theories and require exceptional sources, the people who expouse these theories are mostly dismissed by serious researchers and academics alike, but that doesn't mean its okay for everyone to bash them up in their biographies, whether by quoting every single criticism in full length, or by adding such an extensive "Criticism" section under Gavin_Menzies#External_links; if that isn't a violation of WP:BLP then I dont know what else is.

I would suggest summarizing and moving most of the criticisms to a new, separate section, possibly under the heading "Criticisms" or "Controversies"? This way, the reader would know that this is actually a biography and not a personal attack on Gavin Menzies. -A1candidate (talk) 12:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

To A1candidate; Thanks for your well reasoned analysis. I agree with your assessment regarding the examples in your 1st. and 2nd statements noted above. The first statement is indeed unexceptional. However, that wasn't quite what Other Choices was proposing for the article. If you check back you'll see he was proposing the following... quote " Menzies underlying claim that it HAD to be the Chinese who did the surveying has never been debunked and (in my opinion) deserves mention in the article. " unquote... - That,to me, does seem like an exceptional claim because aspects of the feasibility of those notional voyages have been criticized and there is a lack of substantiation. ( As an unimportant footnote, - I did write to the author, shortly after '1421' was published, noting that I wasn't able to demonstrate that those hypothetical Chinese ships could have accomplished their voyages in the way described. I asked him for his thoughts on the matter but, regretably, I never received a reply.) Norloch (talk) 14:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Norloch, you seem to be conflating two separate ideas in your discussion of my point of view:

Menzies' claim that it HAD to be the Chinese who did the original surveying underlying the maps is different from Menzies "hypothesis" that there was a grand expedition in 1421 that mapped the world. There is one chapter in 1421 that discusses a body of evidence suggesting Chinese contact with the western coast of America, and all that clearly implies contact (and presumably mapping) before 1421.

To restate the point: Menzies' claim that the Chinese HAD to be the ones who did the surveying is different from the idea that this surveying was done in 1421. Menzies' book has had the result of focusing attention on the general possibility of pre-Columbian Chinese trans-oceanic contact with America. In my opinion, something to that effect deserves mention in the article, even if only a bare mention of Menzies' underlying argument that it had to be the Chinese who did the legwork behind the maps.--Other Choices (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To Other Choices; The following quote is from the first edition hard-back copy of '1421'............... “ Gavin Menzies has spent fifteen years tracing the astonishing voyages of the Chinese. Now, in a fascinating historical detective story, he shares the remarkable account of his discoveries and the uncontrovertible evidence to support them. His compelling narrative pulls together ancient maps, precise navigational knowledge, astronomy...... “ (etc. etc. - there's lots more on the same theme.)....... So, that's how it was. 'Uncontrovertible' evidence, 'precise' navigational knowledge, 'compelling' narrative. But no gentle reminders to readers that they should keep a careful look-out for all those deep chasms that lie between uncontrovertible evidence and unsubstantiated hypothesis. Indeed, the author suggested that his professional knowledge and experience granted him special insight and that ought to be sufficient to bridge any chasms. As a general point, legitimate researchers have to earn their bread in accordance with established rules of evidence. Should they just bow down and respectfully tug their forelocks, whenever the Lordly juggernaut of the best-seller sweeps past them on it's way to the bank? You've noted that '1421' has been responsible for focusing attention on the possibility of early Chinese trans-oceanic contact with the Americas and you may well be right. However, if that was a primary objective of the book, then it seems an awfully circuitous and questionable way to achieve the objective. It might also be said that inflated controversial claims are damaging because they tend to generate a wider public distrust against all areas of academic research. On your specific point about the author's claim that the Chinese HAD to be the ones who did the surveying ( i.e. for the ancient maps which have been a long-standing unresolved enigma .Why is it noteworthy in exclusive regard to the author? (apart from it being a rather bombastic and unproven statement.) - Others have been considering variations on the concept since at least 1761 - so there's nothing that's original or unique to the subject of the biography article. I could claim with a fine conceit that the 'legwork' of those surveys HAD to have been done by a series of unprincipled skilled rogues who gave no allegiance to any nation or ruler. That's also an unprovable claim because those rogues weren't in business to share their discoveries with grasping governments who would tax them and steal their secrets. I don't deny the idea appears ludicrous on the surface, but surviving documents do show some circumstantial evidence that such events occurred. Even so, I wouldn't want to proclaim that the one and only possible explanation must be that free-roving descendants of the Norsemen had to the ones who initiated the surveying of the Americas. At least, not until I'd complied with the established rules of evidence. Regards Norloch (talk) 16:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Norloch, didn't see your discussion until now. I really don't see how your discussion relates to my basic point that Menzies drew attention to these enigmatic maps in a noteworth (bestselling) book and provided a reasonable supposition that they stem from Chinese knowledge. This is worth mentioning in the biography of the man who is notable precisely because of the best-selling book.--Other Choices (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

From historical point of view, Chinese know-hows had been leaked non stop to Europe take for example, gun powder, compass, paper making etc were all technics that would be considered top-secret today, so it's only reasonable that maps and loads of seafaring info had been leaked to the West right before Columbus time. 76.221.152.189 (talk) 13:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)logicsearch

There's a huge difference between the diffusion of gunpowder, which is supported by plenty of archaeological and textual proof, and the spurious claim that China discovered America or reached Italy. The latter claim, promoted by Menzies, has no support among actual sinologists and has been completely rejected by academia.--Rurik the Varangian (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the current version is POV. This has all been pretty much discussed by many users several times. The bottom line has been well put by Dougweller long ago: It is not supposed to be neutral, it is supposed to represent a neutral point of view. If the preponderance of opinion is that Menzies is wrong, then the article should reflect that. (Quote). The current version has made the same mistake again. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

POV (cont.)

Yes, I agree that the current version is still POV, though better than previous ones. It is still primarily focused on attacking the man and his beliefs. This article should be a biography about the man, not about his beliefs or books, which should be secondary. I guess it's not easy for many people (editors alike) to disengage from what they have been taught at home and school for years; it is difficult to think outside the box, outside the "comfort zone", away from what has formed the foundation of one's belief system; it is difficult to process how others may be thinking and why & we tend to contnue to believe in they stuff we have always believed for years. It generally requires quite a bit of energy to switch gears and think differently - even if only for experimental, testing, what-if purposes. This is reminecent of hardliners in the times of Galileo Galilei who refused to accept for a minute the possibility the Earth was not the center of the universe, let alone accept the theory itself. And let's not mistake this for someone vouching for GM or his beliefs; this is not about vouching for GM, this is about vouching for NPOV - a NPOV that continues to be missing from the article.

No one is saying - certainly not I - to press on and present the article in a manner that defends GM's beliefs. What is being said is let's put personal beliefs aside and make the article a factual account about GM, without his controversial book as a constant backdrop to everything that is presented. What is being said is let's present his controversial book in a manner that does just that: present that it is controversial, but without taking sides. And if most of the world has taken sides, let's say that without saying that we too are taking sides. Let's not translate "controversial" as right or as wrong, but just as what it means - controversial. Let's not duel on how GM's theories have not been accepted by mainstream academia, etc etc etc, but instead say so and move on, without editorializing chuncks of the article in such a manner that it becomes both distracting to the reader. The article should not be a soapbox to advance a particular editor's position on GM. If his book is controversial, let's limit ourselves to saying just that. And, BTW, issues about his book (like the Chinese maps issue) shouldn't be in this article at all; they belong in the article about his book because they relate to the theories presented in the book to sustaintiate the premise of the book - they have nothing to do with GM the person or his biography.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 03:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

He's primarily known for his books, which is why the article focuses on them. It's not like he's a scientist who conducted world-breaking research but who happened to write some books on China. His naval career, for example, wasn't exceptional in any way. John Smith's (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, and there should be leeway with respect to focus in recognition of the fact that he is primarily known for his books. That shouldn't be a debatable issue: If someone has written a well-selling book, he certainly passes the test of WP:Notability - and he does since no one here is arguing he shouldn't get an article. Thus the amount of focus should be negotiable.

What is being debated is whether or not GM should be editorialized against, and the answer is "No, he should not be". Such editorializing shouldn't have any leeway as it would be against the WP:NPOV policy.

It is acceptable to present both sides of a controversy in compliance with WP:WEIGHT; it is not acceptable to present one side only. And what is coming across to readers and editors alike is that single-sidedness is what is happening with this article where only the side intent on attacking his theories is being focused on. This enduring perception explains why the claims of POV have not gone away since this Talk page opened several years ago. It took 500 years for the Roman Catholic Church to accept the contributions of Galileo Galilei, how many will it take to make this article neutral with regard to the presentation of GM's theories? No one is saying we have to accept them; what is being said is we have to present the controversy with equal weight. All that is being said is let's treat the subject in an encyclopedic manner, namely, without POV.

My name is Mercy11 (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Without his books there'd be no article, but hopefully we all agree on that. There is a misunderstanding of our policy here I believe - we do not give equal weight to competing ideas such as evolution and Creationism, and we do not strive to be neutral but to present a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV]] which is quite different. An article which did not make it clear that the mainstream rejects Menzies views and gave the reader some idea why this is would not meet our policy requirements. Dougweller (talk) 14:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Problem is that this article goes way too far in its criticism. There's even a section for criticism under "External links", which really isn't needed. Quoting scholars is fine, but it should ideally be done on a separate article about Menzies' books not on this article itself, and should only come from reliable secondary sources. See WP:BLPPRIMARY. Are these critics ("Su Ming Yang", "Jin Guo-Ping", " Philip Rivers", "Malhão Pereira" and "Geoff Wade") even notable? I dont know if "Robert Finlay" is notable but in any case we shouldn't be quoting him directly from his book (primary source) especially when we're talking about a biography of a living person. See Osama Bin Laden and Adolf Hitler for examples on how to deal with controversial figures with crazy philosophies, in a balanced and NPOV -A1candidate (talk) 14:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, let's not debate something that stands debateless, and not carry on forever ad nauseum: everyone here agrees he is prominent because of his books. End of that conversation please. As for the argument on evolution and creationism, the rest of the community has agreed that they do deserve equal weight and, thus, it has agreed to have articles on both evolution and creationism - in particular at Creation–evolution controversy, which made it out of the POV sinkhole ages ago. So at Wikipedia we do give equal weight to both of those - end of that allegation please. And it is because, as a matter of policy, we do give equal weight to both sides of controversies that the same thing should be done with this article. So, no, there exists no misunderstanding of the Equal Weight WP:WEIGHT policy. But to repeat what has been said ad nauseum before by numerous editors, what exists is a interest to make everyone else believe that policies, such as WP:NPOV, and which represent years of evolutionary contributions and iterative refinent, still need the interpretation of a gifted few to be understood. Such position are self-serving more often than not. And, yes, we do strive to be neutral and to present a NPOV. As such, this article should indeed report that the mainstream rejects Menzies views, because that's an undisputed fact, but it should not duel on it to the point of patronizing that fact. That's where the violation lies; that's the problem with this article as it stands so far. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 17:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

Wikipedia does not give equal weight to evolution and creationism. We do not do so, because policy dictates that we should not do so. WP:NPOV policy quite specifically states that "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". "In proportion to" does not mean "equal" where the overwhelming scientific consensus supports one perspective (i.e. evolution), and the other perspective ('i.e. creationism') is a fringe viewpoint of little scientific credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's stay on the subject - this discussion is about GM, not about those other subjects. And I don't believe anyone here is arguing the definition of equal weight. Distractions. The argument here has been whether or not editors have gone too far in patronizing the fact that mainstream disagrees with GM, and an undisputed fact is that there are editors who still charge that the article, despite some fixes, is POV. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and I approve this message.

You made a specific assertion regarding policy. I responded. If my response was off-topic, then so was your initial assertion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::::@A1candidate - what makes Finlay's work a primary source? Are you saying that any criticism is a primary source? And I can't find anything that suggests we shouldn't use a quotation.

(edit conflict)::::::Mercy11 - in other words, too much criticism? But we don't have an "Equal Weight WP:WEIGHT policy" no matter how many words you use, we have a policy which says, for instance, "when talking about pseudoscientific topics, we should not describe these two opposing viewpoints[the other being the scientific consensus] as being equal to each other." It still seems as though you do not understand our NPOV policy. Having said that, adding more material on Menzies point of view seems fine if written in an NPOV fashion. I can't see why removing critical material is better than adding more explication of Menzies' works. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, let's not get personal, and stay on the subject please. Amount of material pro or against is not the major concern. The major concern is the interest at patronizing one side at the expense of the other. My name is Mercy11 (talk) 18:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC), and Ia pprove this message.

Finlay's criticsm is sourced from an article of which Finlay is the sole author. And "1421exposed.com" isn't a reliable source -A1candidate (talk) 18:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Finley's article was published in a major peer-reviewed journal and shows 19 citations in GScholar. Your criticism of it on that basis is therefore unfounded. Mangoe (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't make it a secondary source. -A1candidate (talk) 18:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a secondary source because it's discussing a primary source. It's exactly what our sourcing policies have in mind. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The primary subject here is Gavin Menzies and his books. Menzies's writing about his books/claims would be a primary source. Someone else writing about them is a secondary source. Ravensfire (talk) 19:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Mercy11, the problem with what you're trying to achieve lies in part with the fact that there are few if any scholarly sources that have a neutral or favorable view toward Menzies' books. Aside from the question of editorial bias here at wikipedia, there is a pronounced scholarly bias against Menzies.--Other Choices (talk) 04:48, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

And with that said, there has definitely been a bias here in favor of criticism and against a decent summary of what Menzies actually says in his books.--Other Choices (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

If there's a scholarly bias against Menzies, it comes of having examined his material and tiring of having it re-raised as an issue—as, frankly, everyone monitoring fringe material on Wikipedia is surely tired. Look: it's not bias for them to reject his theses; it's a perfectly reasonable negative conclusion from an examination of his claims. In other words, someone who correctly examines his books in comparison to the source material and other sources is going to conclude that Menzies's claims are incorrect. I suppose there's some alternative here between saying "...which is untrue" after every statement we relate from Menzies and putting the whole thing in a box prominently labelled "Warning: this section relates fringe theories which are totally bogus," but the perpetual problem in this sort of article is the tendency on the part of proponents to write a paragraph which tells the theory as if it were true and then put the revelation that it's all nonsense as far away from this as possible. It's hardly surprising that we tend to overcompensate, I suppose. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Mangoe, I respectfully disagree. In general, scholarly bias does exist. Regarding Menzies, I suppose that whether or not there is a scholarly bias -- even ridiculously blatant examples like Finlay -- is beyond the task of wikipedia editors. It seems to me that the "tendency to overcompensate" comes from editors who take the scholarly bias against Menzies at face value, often without having read his books. As I've said before, Menzies has some serious problems (with 1421 being far more amateurishly fantastic than 1434), but it's all too easy for wikipedia editors, when deciding on the tone of the presentation of Menzies' arguments, to throw away the baby with the bath water.--Other Choices (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "scholarly bias". There's a scholarly bias against Creationism, against the idea that Egyptians visited America, against the idea that Jesus was a myth cooked up by some Roman family, etc. The fact that Creationists and Menzies make some scholars pissed off isn't surprising but so? I think saying that the mainstream is biased sort of takes the meaning away from biased. Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Scholars are just as capable of bias as anyone else. Thomas Kuhn's discussion of paradigm shifts fits nicely with this topic -- paradigms shift after the old guys retire or die off, finally allowing the new paradigm to see the light of day.--Other Choices (talk) 10:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know about Kuhn. That is irrelevant here. The word 'bias' is inappropriate when you apply it to the mainstream opinion. Dougweller (talk) 12:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Kuhn's name is a strong signal that there isn't any substance to the accusation of bias. look, if people can come up with some scholarly disagreement over the merits of Menzies's theses, then there's grounds for this accusation. Mangoe (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

INSERT: I think you're missing the point of my mention of Kuhn. I discussed Finlay's blatant bias in an earlier, archived thread. But of course his views deserve a neutral presentation in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, OC, I once spent a great deal of time going over the refutation of 9/11 theories with a crank. It was entertaining to do so once, but after a while it gets tiresome to argue with people who won't listen to reason. I do not begrudge Finlay any particle of irritation and anger against Menzies; the sheer volume of fringey pseudo-history out there is a curse laid upon us all.

If you can find someone reputable who thinks that Finlay was wrong, cough up the reference. Your distaste for his rhetoric is immaterial, and really your constant harping upon it makes it difficult to take your criticism in good faith. You come across here as the sort of fringe proponent who is at least somewhat sensitive to the reality that orthodox study is uniformly opposed to the theory they prefer, and who perhaps intuits that they cannot make a frontal assault on orthodoxy with a cogent refutation. So instead they respond with ad hominems about how the other side is treating them badly, and they drag out Kuhn as though his theory of paradigms somehow reduces the weight of orthodox thought.

The only thing that is going to give you traction here is some substantial scholarly disagreement. You haven't produced it thus far, which implies that you haven't seen any. Personally, my greatest wrath in this is directed at the editor at William Morrow who accepted 1421 for publication in the first place, thus tying up shelf space at the bookstore which could instead have been used for works of legitimate sinology, but your refusal to come clean about where you stand in this is also bothersome. If you think Menzies's thesis is accurate, then say so. If you think it's untrue, then I submit that you have no cause for defending his thesis from its many detractors. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was quite a rant, and I get the strong impression that you're talking past me to a straw man off to the side, or perhaps you're re-running flashbacks of old arguments with other people.

Once again, you simply don't get (or choose to ignore the context of) my reference to Kuhn -- I was making a basic, general point in response to Dougweller.

I've gotten plenty of traction around here in the past, in a successful effort to get rid of some of the more blatant negative bias from the article. That is to say, the present article is just an aftertaste of the vitriolic "Finlay-esque" bile that it used to be.

It's not about whether I think Menzies' thesis is accurate. It's about the simple fact that Finlay (and most other critics of Menzies) simply ignore Menzies' general arguments that (1) only the Chinese would have had the organizational and technical capability to do the navigation necessary to produce the alleged "pre-Columbian" maps; and (2) there is a body of circumstantial evidence pointing to pre-Columbian Chinese exploration of the Pacific coast of the Americas.

Of course this last one isn't an original Menzies argument, but he sure popularized it. I get the impression that this is the invisible elephant in the room -- certain Euro-centric scholars get overheated about Menzies precisely because he popularizes a general "pre-Columbian" argument that they'd rather not think about.--Other Choices (talk) 13:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Its the extent of criticism which matters here. Like I've said, mentioning that Menzies theories are rejected by the academic community is okay, but quoting extensively from "1421exposed.com" and a group of researchers with questionable notability is going way too far -A1candidate (talk) 14:35, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:PARITY. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Mentioning that Menzies theories are rejected by the academic community is okay, but quoting extensively from "1421exposed.com" and a group of researchers with questionable notability is going way too far -A1candidate (talk) 11:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So go out and find replacement sources. You given the impression that you think the material on that website is incorrect, not that you think it is an improper source. Mangoe (talk) 13:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that "replacement sources" is a good phrase to use here. If a particular author, writing at "1421exposed.com," isn't a reliable source according to wikipedia's standards, then we shouldn't use the source. My understanding is that if Robert Finlay (for example) wrote a piece at "1421exposed.com," then he WOULD be considered a reliable source because he has published in a scholarly source on the topic.--Other Choices (talk) 10:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Several years ago we had articles for every one of GM's book. The dominant sentiment then was that this gave his books undue weight. The articles were also a mess in terms of quality, losing themselves into rants about details of his theory, becoming showcases for nutcases. Now the book discussions hold at least course. Some people show up from time to time to complain about "too much criticism", but this only mirrors the devastating reception GM's theories have indeed received by professional historians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It's been mentioned before. Anyone who feels that the author and his works have some notable merit can publish a paper on the subject in a reputable journal. If the contents of the paper are relevant, it'll certainly be included in the article. regards Norloch (talk) 10:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Pseudohistory

If you follow the link to Pseudohistory you find that it is a perjorative term and if you follow the link from perjorative you will find it states "A pejorative[1] (also term of abuse or derogatory term) is a word or grammatical form of expression that expresses contempt, criticism, disregard, or disrespect." Is a wikipedia administrator really trying to say that expressions of 'contempt' 'disregard' and 'disrespect' are appropriate in a biography of a living person? If so then the project is even more flawed than I thought. What is the purpose of adding this term here - does it really enlighten the reader? Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course we use pejorative terms - anti-Semite, white supremacist/nationalist, etc. to refer to people, including living people. Are you really suggesting that we can't call the work of any living person pseudohistory? And yes, it definitely enlightens the reader. See also for example[2] - perhaps there are some sources here we should add to the article. Dougweller (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't disagree with putting it in the body of the article that he has been called a 'Pseudohistorian'. That's rather different to putting him in a category which implies that he definitely is one. Of course you can find a reliable source which calls him a pseudohistorian, I do not think I would find one which says categorically that he is not a pseudohistorian but I could probably find plenty which do not call him a 'pseudohistorian'. BTW if I studied his claims I doubt I'd be persuaded but I think he's entitled to be approached in an unperjorative manner.Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a category, it's a description of the genre of his writing. You think it's fiction, I think it's pseudohistory. And are you really saying that no living people should be in the pseudohistorian category? Dougweller (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read his writing therefore don't know whether I'd describe it as fiction. I am doubtful whether there should be a pseudo-history category at all but I don't think living people should be placed in it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)Further I think that Wikipedia would be better of without the Pseudoscience and Pseudohistory as the terms are so value-laden and so frequently used to disparage individuals and ideas which certain editors don't like. Sceptic1954 (talk) 14:10, 9 October 2013 (UTC)And while on the subject the Anti-Semitism category is rather dubious - it's a ridiculous term which should be struck from the lexicon because of its general misuse, but there's a case for having it on wikipedia because it's in general parlance. However it is so often used to smear people that we'd probably be better off without it here. Sceptic1954 (talk) 16:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted you and another editor has now not reverted me but removed 'pseudohistory' as unsourced - fair enough in one sense but sourcing is better, and I think it can be sourced. Again, we should not be calling it fiction and I should have caught that earlier and removed the link to Alternate history. So the real issue is can we justify this through sources. Shouldn't be that hard but I've had to request a couple of journal articles. Dougweller (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't check what 'alternate history' meant in within it's terms, I thought it was just 'unorthodox history', so I wouldn't want to restore it. I will still object to Pseudohistory whether sourced or not and you may find You might be interested to know that leading holocaust revisionist/deniers are not placed in the anti-semitism category. Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Now it is even worse - he is not writing 'history' and the Daily Mail, which is the original source, is not a reliable source to decide what is history. This is clearly POV and contradicted by for instance David Henige's article in the "Journal of Scholarly Publishing", The Alchemy of Turning Fiction into Truth where in a discussion of pseudohistory he writes "One of the best-publicized recent works in this genre is Gavin Menzies’ 1421: The Year China Discovered the World". We can add that quote to the article. (I love the quote from Menzies "‘there is not a chance in a hundred million that I’m wrong.’") Or Pseudo History.Weird History: Nationalism and the Internet in History Compass Gregory Melleuish and another writer discuss Menzies and Gregory Fomenko as examples of pseudohistory. Or Invented Knowledge: False History, Fake Science and Pseudo-religions By Ronald H. Fritze[3]. These are all academic statements that call his work pseudohistory - but you are suggesting we ignore them and use the Daily Mail? Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not for us to judge where news.co.au get their stories but only if they are RS. I avoided using the Daily Mail because they may not be the best RS. It's only worse because if you insist on adding it to the pseudohistory category I think by the same logic it must also be put in the history category. Those who live by RS shall die by RS!

Of course I can point out that news.com.au is quoting the Daily Mail - it's the Daily Mail that's the source, and neither newspaper is qualified to determine who is and who isn't a historian. And you've misrepresented the JSTOR source which does no call him a historian nor does it say he is writing history. Dougweller (talk) 11:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR article calls him 'an amateur historian' in the first para. The noun is the operative word. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. An amateur historian is not considered a historian, any more than an amateur archaeologist is considered an archaeologist. Now I am even more worried as you don't realise that you have actually misrepresented the source. Dougweller (talk) 12:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dougweller here. "Amateur historian" is kinder than "pseudohistorian", but it's still a way of saying that Menzies is an outsider (at best). In the context of the entire book review, which makes it clear that Menzies' work is without historical value, it's clear that it's not intended as a sign of Menzies' competence. (And the fact that Sceptic1954 calls a book review a "JSTOR article" doesn't give me confidence that s/he knows how to work with this source properly.) --Akhilleus (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What may have become lost here is that we are talking about his 'genre' in the infobox. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

What's important to note is that we have multiple reliable sources describing his work as "pseudohistory". Do we have any reliable sources disagreeing with that assessment? What about the description "amateur historian"? Would that contradict the assessment? So the argument here is that "amateur historian" is still a real historian, because of the operative noun. I think one has to be careful with dividing up phrases like this (indeed, why not just say that the stem in "pseudohistory" is operative as such?). Clear example: I can find a reliable source which says that a "sea horse" is a fish, that doesn't mean we should make a change and say that some horses are fish. You always have to look at descriptive phrases and put them into a context. Here we have multiple reliable sources describing his work as pseudohistory clearly and unambiguously, but we have no reliable sources contradicting that assessment at all clearly. NPOV is about being neutral over descriptions when there are mutually exclusive points of view in the reliable sources. If the reliable sources do not communicate contradictory points of view on an issue, then NPOV is not really a concern for that issue, just verifiability and quality of the sources. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether the JSTOR piece is a review or an article is irrelvant, it's still are liable source. Unfortunatelythephrase "amateur historian" isdividedupbyttheconventionsoftheenglishlanguage. I find the justifications advanced here for labelling Menzies in this perjorative way absurd and for me are the sort of thing which is very common on wikipedia which brings the whole enterprise into disrepute but it's really up to Menzies if he wishes to complain. I really Sceptic1954 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Labelling writers of pseudohistory as anything but pseudohistorians would certainly do little for Wikipedia's reputation. As for Menzies, if he wants to complain, he should complain to the sources we cite. Or stop writing pseudohistory. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy: Dougweller has cited professors of history at respectable universities who are by all accounts sincere researchers; it is these people who are calling Menzies' work pseudohistory. If it is disreputable to receive the same regard as such academics on this issue, then why should Wikipedia as a whole be scared of disrepute on this issue? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 17:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no need to label Menzies as anything at all as 'pseudohistory' is a perjorative terms and extreme care should be taken with biographies of living persons. If he is to be labelled as such by the same rules he should also be labelled as a 'history'. And no there is no need for Menzies to complain to the sources, I have recommend he complain to Wikipedia about the editors who select these sources to label him with a perjorative term. I am rather confident that if he did you would be prevented from labelling him as such. Sceptic1954 (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The need is the requirement that we accurately represent the reliable sources. The reliable sources seem to be in agreement that his work is pseudohistory. If we do not reflect that agreement, then we have failed at accurately representing the reliable sources. If you think the selection of sources is skewed, please supply other reliable sources which say his work is not pseudohistory so that we can correct this bias. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There are probably no RS who say his work is not pseudohistory, but there will doubtless be many RS which do not say that it is pseudohistory.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the obviously incorrect claim that the genre of his writing was history. And the idea that "amateur historian" can somehow be translated to "historian" because of some sort of aspect of English as a language just doesn't hold water - of course, anyone supporting that can take it to WP:RSN. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That nouns refer to objects is not some aspect of the english language, it is fundamental basic to all Indo-European languages, likely to be on the first page on any grammar book.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Amateur: Mirriam-Webster. [4]

"one who engages in a pursuit, study, science, or sport as a pastime rather than as a profession"

"one lacking in experience and competence in an art or science"

...And which one fits Menzies, according to the professionals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

These appear to be definitions of nouns rather than adjectives. In the phrase discussed it was an adjective. You'll need to come back with definitions of adjectives if you want to pursue this point. Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nope. If you want to pursue the point against a clear consensus, you will have to take it to WP:RSN. That is how Wikipedia works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Not sure how your comment relates to my previous point, WP:RSN is not concerned with distinctions between nouns and adjectives. However I have found the BLP noticeboard and will report there if I see a wiki administrator continue to try to place a living person into a category with a title which is perjorative.Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, there is nothing in WP:BLP policy which prevents articles describing people by terms with a negative connotation, if this is properly sourced and appropriate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm getting more and more concerned - an editor who claims "amateur historian" can be parsed as 'historian', that the Daily Mail is a more reliable source than academic sources, that is going to report any Administrators who put BLPs into categories he thinks are pejorative despite policy not forbidding it, etc. I presume it's ok if non-Admins do it. And who ignores consensus. SKeptic1954, you clearly mean well but you still don't understand or perhaps accept how Wikipedia works. Dougweller (talk) 20:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It is surely against BLP policy to put subjects into a perjorative category because the policy states that BLP's must be written conservatively and with NPOV. It's worse if an administrator does it. I will report it if anyone tries to restore the category and we will see who has the better idea of how wikipedia works. I haven't edited in the face of consensus. Other points have already been answered.Sceptic1954 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have explained to you why this has nothing to do with NPOV. There has been produced many reliable sources that concur that the work is pseudohistory. No one has produced any reliable source which disagrees with this assessment. NPOV only applies when there are multiple points of view on an issue. Again, if multiple reliable sources give one point of view on an issue, and no reliable sources contest this point of view, then there are not multiple points of view, and so NPOV is not a concern. Placing the article in the category "pseudohistorians" is completely conservative. This is a perfectly accurate reflection of the reliable sources with nothing extraneous or sensationalist included with such a straightforward application of a label. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The argument over nouns and adjectives is really not important here, but as someone who cares about and teaches grammar, I feel compelled to note that in English nouns are often used to modify other nouns, e.g. car park, spot check, acid test. See noun adjunct.

More importantly, I agree with other commenters that Menzies can and should be described as a pseudohistorian in article text, infoboxes, and categories, based on the usage of reliable sources.

If it helps, I'm also an administrator...not that admin status gives anyone special authority over content disputes. But it does mean that I've been around for awhile and know something about the BLP policy... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay add him to the infobox and I'll report it and we'll see. I can only add that there is an 'anti-semitism' caetgory and no holocaust revisionist/denier appears to be in it, and you can bet your bottom dollar that there are loads of editors who'd like to put them in it. There's no need for perjorative categories and I do not think you will persuade a single reader of Menzies to reject him by placing him in such a category. Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Our 'pseudohistorians' category has 122 people in it. [5] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

...and you are factually incorrect regarding our 'antisemitism' category too. [6] AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the latter, It's just not highlighted in an infobox. I see the whole practice of denigrating people on wikipedia has hardened into having perjorative categories. There are some fairly interesting people in the pseudohistorians category. Thanks for the evidence of how wikiopedia fails to live up to its ideals, I'll do my best to inform others about this.Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikepedia's ideal is to be an encyclopaedia - with informative content. Which includes informing readers that not everyone who claims to be a historian is recognised as such. If you have a problem with this, we don't. And nor apparently do the many thousands of people who regularly use Wikipedia as a useful resource. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

who is 'we'?Sceptic1954 (talk) 22:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia contributors in general - the ones who have arrived at a consensus concerning policies and guidelines over whether we can describe people accurately or not. Anyway, this isn't a forum for abstract debate about Wikipedia, and unless you have anything concrete to say regarding the content of this particular article, this topic can be considered closed. We will describe Menzies as relevant reliable sources do - as a pseudohistorian. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I intend raising this on BLP noticeboard. And I can only say that if there is a consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable all then wikipedia sinks into further disrepute. I rather suspect that one reason that so many editors are leaving is because this is considered acceptable.Sceptic1954 (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

He has raised it at WP:BLPN. Note that his main argument is "It is surely against BLP policy to put subjects into a perjorative category because the policy states that BLP's must be written conservatively and with NPOV". He also calls his a category dispute although it is about genre in an infobox. Dougweller (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight

We all know that mainstream scholars reject Menzies' theories but repeating this over and over again doesn't make it any more true. Even the biographies of Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden aren't subjected to such treatment on Wikipedia, as wild as their theories may be. Take a look at:

• Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin Laden
• Adolf Hitler's political views

When writing a biography, we should aim to inform the reader about the views of the person involved, and not rant about how awfully baseless these views may be. At the moment, this "biography" reads more like an essay about how and why Menzies' theories are wrong. There's even a fine selection of his critics listed under Gavin_Menzies#External_links...do we really need to promote all these links and quotations from non-notable people?

I clicked on this article because I wanted to learn about Gavin Menizes and his point of view, but this "biography" simply fails to deliver it.

-A1candidate (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately people with views like yours and mine don't hang around on pages like these long enough to get a majority.Sceptic1954 (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

because your personal views do not represent the views of the Wikipedian community which has determined that we follow the views of the reliable sources.

the fact that people who do not want to follow the reliable sources because the sources do not support their personal beliefs may be leaving Wikipedia because they cannot use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their personal beliefs is a good thing for Wikipedia and our readers. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

it is a far worse thing for the project that actual scientists and historians may be leaving the project because they have to deal with Randy from Boise. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

off topic digression
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Your comment has been noted.Sceptic1954 (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by "Your comment has been noted." By whom? Are you simply saying you've read it and if that's all, why bother? Do you realise that it's vaguely threatening? Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC) I simply want to make it clear that I have read his comment but don't wish to engage in discussion on it. There was no intention to threaten anyone, and I do not understand why a reasonable person would feel threatened by it. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC) no threat taken. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Further discussion

Criticism is always welcome, but I dont think Gavin Menzies' critics should be given more weight than the person himself. This is his biography after all. Similarly, if one were to look at Adolf Hitler's political views as an example, the article rightfully focuses on that person's political views, rather than that of his critics. -A1candidate (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

the purpose of an encyclopedia, rather than a CV or introductory blurb at a speaking engagement is to put the subject of the article into appropriate context. The appropriate context for some fringe thinkers is that the world at large sees them as fringe thinkers. see WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Given Menzies' book sales I'm not sure that the world at large does see him this way. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

well, then WP:PROVEIT. show that reliable scientists have reviewed his work and found it mainstream? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

'the world at large' means the 'general public' rather than 'reliable scientists. I've no gripe about wikipedia being 'mainstream' but there is absolutely no call to use perjorative terminology when talking about the fringe.Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

within wikipedia article content terms, representing the views of "the world at large" means representing the views of the mainstream academic community; ie we do not say that the World Trade Center terrorists were Iraqi even though polls of the american public at large show that they are confused and think Iraqis were the responsible parties. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I speak plain english not wikijargon. However I may not reply further to any comments from the RedPenofDoom if I do not consider they advance the discussion on the questions I raised.. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) your question was how much weight to we give to the critics who put his position in context? - and the answer is, per the policies (which if you wish to edit, you should begin to read and understand), we give the critics enough weight to place his position in context of mainstream academic thought. Which is the overwhelming majority of mainstream academics place his views as complete fringe nonsense and so when we do the same within our article, we are preserving the NPOV (yes that pesky Wikipedia policy thing again). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

That's an unfortunate attitude on your part. TheRedPenofDoom is correct: Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent the views of experts rather than the person on the street. In this situation, this means accurately characterizing Menzies' work as fringe history, i.e. pseudohistory. This is an excellent answer to the questions you've raised.

For someone complaining about pejorative labels, you seem not to realize that "fringe" itself is usually regarded as pejorative... --Akhilleus (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I go to a lot of 'fringe' theatre. The label isn't perjorative. The fringe is a place for experimentation with sometimes exciting results. Further I've decided that the perjorative language in nthis article and elsewhere is a good thing because it will alert readers to the likelihood of underlying bias in the article. Much better to have bias with perjorative language than bias hidden under a neutral tone.

if he didnt want to be classified with fringe thinkers, then he shouldnt be publishing and promoting fringe thought. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

"if evidence is so scanty as not to permit any definite conclusions to be drawn, any theory consistent with the evidence is likewise speculation and not pseudohistory" (from the wikipedia article on pseudohistory).

Apologies if I am wrong, but Menzies' work does seem to fit squarely in this category, i.e. as an the exception to the pseudohistory category, because he simply seems to make things up that are difficult to disprove. So, especially since the pseudohistory article itself was used in/as the motivation to start this whole discussion, perhaps this discussion would benefit from, or dissolve in the light of, a clear(er) prior definition of or agreement on what is meant by pseudohistory. Does the "definition" of pseudohistory from the wikipedia article even agree with the term as used by the reliable sources? AlexFekken (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

List of Gavin Menzies critics

For starters, how about shortening the list of his critics included in this article so that only the reliable, notable ones are included:

• Robert Finlay
• Su Ming Yang
• Jin Guo-Ping
• Philip Rivers
• Malhão Pereira
• Geoff Wade
• Felipe Fernández-Armesto
• Martin Kemp
• Captain P.J. Rivers (Probably should explain who is he a "captain" of)
• Heeffer (No idea who this person is, but if he is notable than please include a first name)

Another problem is that Gavin_Menzies#External_links is used to promote links of his critics and falls under WP:LINKSTOAVOID

-A1candidate (talk) 10:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:LINKSTOAVOID doesn't say you can't link critics. However, 3 of the links were already used as sources, so I removed them. One of them is not actually an external link and needs to be integrated with the reference as the reference only says 'Finlay' and a year. That leaves 3 actual external links out of what looked like 7 (but was 6). I hope that resolves the issue. Dougweller (talk) 12:08, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know why you didn't fix Heeffer's first name as it is in the reference, but I've done that. There is no 'list' except the one you've drawn up there. Of those names, 3 of them are joint authors (with Rivers and Wade) of a document. Do you want us to remove all the names and just say "A group of scholars and navigators"? Captain P.J. Rivers describes himself as present or past member of the Honourable Company of Master Mariners, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, Fellow of the Royal Institute of Navigation, etc. The FRGS is confirmed in this search[7] and his book is published by the Perak Academy.[8] Dougweller (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I moved the Program Transcript of "Junk History", which is an interview with Menzies, to the external links above, and restored at its place the link to "1421 Exposed", the main online of GM's critics. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

1421: The Year China Discovered America

I've added the U.S. publication title for 1421: The Year China Discovered the World (namely 1421: The Year China Discovered America) to the article as it wasn't anywhere else in the article. I don't know how common the title is international, but within the U.S. that is the only title I've seen used since I first heard about Menzies' "theory" back around 2005. 63.224.159.60 (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Another external link?

Here's a proposed external link that reviews Menzies' claims in the context of reviewing his latest book, "Who Discovered America?": LINK Perhaps editors will be amused by its sentence, "Even Wikipedia characterizes Menzies as a 'pseudo-historian.'" --Other Choices (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Chinese treasure ship

About 600 years ago, china made a big Punt (ship). And the author believes it was the most advanced ship in history.

Chinese treasure ship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_treasure_ship A Chinese treasure ship (Chinese: 宝船; pinyin: bǎochuán) was a type of large wooden ship in the fleet of admiral Zheng He, who led seven voyages during the ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lushreader (talk • contribs) 14:07, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The book is "1421: The Year China Discovered the World", by Gavin Menzies, is not a serious book.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A) china was a very week country for 2000 years.

1) chinese were the lowest class in mongol, manchu, xianbei, Khitan, Jurchen empires. genghis khan's law, killing a chinese = killing a donkey, sorry to mention this

2)jurchen took two chinese kings, and forced them walk naked on the streets. chinese kings had to call the kings of jurchen as uncle for about 100 years. Men of chinese royal family were sold into slavery in exchange for horses with a ratio of ten men for one horse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingkang_Incident

3) chinese king had to call the Khan of Khitan as father, grandfather http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_Jin_Dynasty

4)Aother two chinese kings of chinese were also taken by foreigners as slaves. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emperor_Huai_of_Jin

5) manchus ruled china for 300 years till 1911. the population rate was 100,000,000 chinese VS1.000.000 manchus.

6)Then japan invaded of china since 1937-1945, and killed over 30 millions chinese (some references say japanese killed over 12 millions chinese). Russia and USA saved china , Otherwise china should ruled by japan now.

6) 300,000 mongols defeat 60 million chinese. The mongol empire (Yuan Mongol Empire) which ruled china was very weak. It lost all wars against japan, vietnam, burma, and java. It only defeated china.

7) The Batu mongol Empire was far stronger than the mongol empire (Yuan Mongol Empire) which ruled china.

8)manchuria Empire was very weak. it lost all war against burma and vietnam, it only defeated china.

Manchuria empire lost its entire task force which invaded burma, Include its commander Ming Rui.

B) china was very poor

1) In the past 2000 years. There were more than 110 great Famines in china, people even had to eat people to stay alive.

2) In 1959-1961. . there are 30,000,000 chinese died in starvation. Great Chinese Famine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

3) in 1960's, chinese defence minister Peng Dehui said many chinese had no pants to wear.

4) in chinese ming empire - general Lu Xiangsheng said that, many chinese soldier had no pants to wear.

5)in WWII, chinese soldiers still wear grass shoes. http://img.haokanbu.com/img/blog/684f8084eec24adbae0d1f8f3e7cfa54.jpeg

6)chinese prime minster wang anshi (chinese song empire) had louses on his beard when he talked to his king.

Soap was invented in Babylon 2800 B.C. Soap was mentioned in the Bible. By the second century A.D., the Greek recommended soap for both medicinal and cleansing purposes. chinese started to use soap 100 years ago. .

7)Marco Polo may did not go to china at all.

Marco Polo - Cracked.com

www.cracked.com/article_18427_6-famous-explorers-who-shaped-worl...

Marco Polo, Liar? - Los Angeles Times

articles.latimes.com/1991-10-10/food/fo-13_1_marco-polo-liar

8)Ming Dynasty

www.chinahighlights.com › ... › Chinese Culture › China History

Feb 23, 2014 - The Ming Dynasty is the last feudal regime established by the Han ... and then it fell due to internal rebellions and the attack of the Manchus. ...Perhaps tens of millions of (chinese) people died, and these disasters were ..... In the first half of the 1600s, famines became common in northern China because of unusually ...

C) china was far behind Europe in history.

1) Middle east invented writing 5000 years ago.

2) since china invented writing only about 3500 years ago, so the so-called 5000 years chinese civilization is a completely joke.

The oldest chinese oracle bones is about 3500 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oracle_bone

3) since china entered Iron age 600 years later than Europe and Near East,so china has a much shorter civilization.

At the time, European used iron tools, chinese used primitive tools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

4) when European and middle east people built stone houses, chinese king lived in a mud palace. The Great Pyramid of Giza was built 4500 years ago. Erlitou, The capital of china(2100 BC – 1600 BC) was built by mud.

5)china did not invent paper, gun powder,printing, the magnetic compass.

Professor Joseph Needham proved china invented paper, gun powder,printing, the magnetic compass.

Needham has been criticized for his strong inclination to exaggerate Chinese technological achievements.

example, gunpowder gunpowder was invented by Greek - Greek fire, its chief ingredient was saltpeter, and sulfur, making it an early form of gunpowder.

Glass was invented 5000 years ago. It was before chinese history. The world did not to wait for china to invent gunpowder.

6) china was far behind Greece chinese started to learn solid geometry in chinese qing empire, about 400 years ago.their text book was Euclid's Elements, which wrote by Euclid 2000 years ago.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Obligatory talk page discussion

Clearly, claims of character assassination are just plain wrong, and the relevant policies, guidelines, and essays here are WP:FRINGE, WP:GEVAL, and WP:BLPZEALOT. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

These IPs are sockpuppets of ProfessorJane so we don't need to give them credence.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of that now, and was not creating this for any real discussion, but just to prevent something that's happened to me at WP:3RRNB before: admin who doesn't know me mistakes me for n00b, doesn't bother to check the edits, accuses me of edit warring for not discussing the matter (thankfully hasn't resulted in a block, but has prevented blocks that should've taken place). Ian.thomson (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The article cites multiple highly-credible sourrces regarding academic opinion of Menzies' pseudohistory. The article complies with Wikipedia policy, and attempts by the IP to whitewash the article cannot be permitted to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears ProfessorJane is back. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gavin Menzies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=201
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://infocus.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=203705&coid=120&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110615043059/http://life.globaltimes.cn/art/2011-04/644297_2.html to http://life.globaltimes.cn/art/2011-04/644297_2.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.asianreviewofbooks.com/arb/article.php?article=201
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120421165301/http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/article_view.asp?id=1 to http://www.ari.nus.edu.sg/article_view.asp?id=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)