Talk:Zheng He/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Zheng He's family

Wenming's descendants?

I'm not disputing the above, but could a source be cited for Zheng He having an older brother called Wenming, who's direct descendant is shown in one of the article photos? Fergananim (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That was a good catch. I've flagged the caption. If there is no response, let's say within the month, I propose removing the picture and caption. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted the photo and caption. I hope we can get another photo of the memorial statue, including info on where it is, when it was made, and by whom -- but without alleged descendants in the picture, unless they can document their claims. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Family couldn't possibly have invaded Yunnan with Genghis Khan [Levathes's error]

I removed the following line, because although it seemed well sourced, it was plain nonsense if taken literally:

The family claimed to be related to an officer in the army of Genghiz Khan who helped occupy Yunnan and was appointed provincial ruler in 1274.

Note that Genghiz Khan never conquered Yunnan but died about 50 years earlier and that Yunnan was in fact conquered by his grandson Kublai Khan, who is the founder of the Yuan dynasty. since i have no access to the cited sources i cannot check what's actually written in them. Anybody who has access to them, may feel free to introduce a corrected version of that line, but please only do so, if you have really checked the sources yourself.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you seem to be absolutely correct. Thanks for your eagle eyes! I took the information from Levathes who makes this (obviously incorrect) claim on p. 62 of her book. Mills is more circumspect - he just says: "His great-grandfather had borne the Mongol name of Bayan, and had perhaps been a member of a Mongol garrison stationed in Yunnan." Thanks so much for pointing this error out John Hill (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ic , thanks for checking the references again. Mills claim seems reasonable (and i guess correct), so the article should use that one then.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din

If you want this claim or information please cite reputable scholarly source and if in any possible in English as well. The source so far was a website or news site in Chinese in general that's not a reliable source. I'm aware that this information is floating around on many web fori and websites, but that's not reliable.--Kmhkmh (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: I already looked at the following pdf (http://www.cityu.edu.hk/op/Zheng%20He.pdf). Though that paper seems from a university website at least it is not reputable or reliable source. From the looks of it it is clearly not a published paper and it doesn't cite any sources. We have no idea whether author is a distinguished scholar or merely a student or whether he's in the field of historical research at all. If the ancestry is really that well known and established (rather than being an urban myth) as the author claims, it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a proper scholarly reference for that fact.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S.: i found a rputable source in the german Interwiki now.--Kmhkmh (talk) 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Shih-Shan's book, p. 38, at Google Books includes a passing reference to Zheng He's ancestry - not what I'd consider a helpful or thorough source. At the least our source should include a reference that supports the claim and such a reference is missing in Shih-Shan's book. I see several references on the web (including WP's own Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar article) to Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din being "the ancestor of many Chinese Hui lineages and that of most of Yunnan's Panthay Hui population." In my view such a statement is insufficient basis for determining Zheng He's ancestry and Shih-Shan does not help us get beyond such generalities. Jojalozzo 02:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok I don't quite follow your argument here. Are you suggesting the earlier sources where more reliable than this book of history professor published by a university? None of the earlier sources matched WP criteria and certainly other WP articles cannot be used as references at all. A reputable book or secondary source can be used even if it does not reference all its statements by footnotes to primary sources. Moreover the book is not responsible for claims you read anywhere else on the web and it doesn't make any statement regarding the Hui people in general, but describes Zheng He specifically as the great great grandson of Sayyid Ajjal and is only used for that. However if you have other sources being better by WP standards feel free to add them.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I applaud your efforts to source this claim about Zheng He but I don't feel Shih-Shan's book is any better source than the others since there is no way to verify it. The book is not about Zheng He and has barely a page about him. Without something to back it up, Shih-Shan's rather offhand statement holds no more weight for me than other statements on the web about Zheng He's ancestry. Given the difficulty of finding anything that actually points to Zheng He's relationship to Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar and the widespread but unsupported belief that most every one from Zheng He's birthplace is related to Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar, I think our skepticism is well founded. I propose we drop the sentence about Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar until we can locate a proper reference that explains the ancestral link or at least points to the documentation for it. Jojalozzo 13:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is not a book about Zheng He but about the yongle emperor to whom Zheng He plays an important role and who is not just a minor footnote in Yongle's biography. Meaning everybody researching Yongle would research Zheng He as well (to a lesser degree). The main difference to arbitrary web sources is, that Shih-Shan is an established history professor, who published his book with through a university. That makes him a reputable source in the WP sense and a "WP-verification". Contrary to those website we have academic reputability and some editorial process/quality control. There is no reason to assume that a historic scholar would repeat completely unsubstantiated hearsay in his book. Also the information/reference may very well be in the bibliography of his book. The fact that this particular line has no footnote is no indicator that the information is false or unsourced, it just has no footnote (usually most sentences or statements within an academic book don't have footnotes). Of course it would be even nicer to have direct reference to primary sources as well (historical text or inscriptions containing Zheng He's lineage), but they are not really required to have the information in the WP article (secondary sources are usually sufficient). To sum it up I'd consider Shih-Shan not as a optimal but a sufficient source, unless there are good reasons to believe his description of Zheng He is wrong, i.e. we get contradicting information from other reputable sources. But unreliable or questionable stuff read elsewhere on the web do not provide a valid reason to question Shih-Shan. And again Shih-Shan is not talking about any general general relation claims of Hui people in Yunnan to ayyid Ajjal, but he specifically states Zheng He being the great great grandson of Sayyid Ajjal and nothing else. The difficulty to find other sources for that info might be rather relative , i.e. there's a difference between "I can't google it or i don't find it in some catalog right now" and "a thorough examination of all known sources about Zheng He (including non-english ones) could not corroborate the claim". If the latter was the case, then I'd agree that Shih-Shan cannot be used, but so far that doesn't seem to be the case. On that note googling didn't even turn up Shih-Shan for me, I just found him because he was used in the German WP. That's a concrete illustration of how much can currently still be missed by mere google or library catalog searches.--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A few other pointers in literature, which are not the best choice for a WP source, but they more or less corroborate the account of Shih-Shan: Eunuchs in the Ming Dynasty, p. 154, The great explorer Cheng Ho, p.7--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see merit in your arguments. Let's allow this one to rest. Jojalozzo 18:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had previously missed this reference: Chunjiang Fu, Choo Yen Foo, Yaw Hoong Siew: The great explorer Cheng Ho. Ambassador of peace. Asiapac Books Pte Ltd 2005, ISBN 9789812294104, p. 7-8 (restricted online copy, p. 8, at Google Books), but see now that it has the ancestry details we're looking for (without sourcing it unfortunately). If we could just get that same detail in a well-sourced document... Jojalozzo 18:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the sourcing is still not optimal. A source citing the exact historical sources would definitely be an improvement. Hopefully somebody will add that in the future.--Kmhkmh (talk) 20:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

If you want documentation, look up his family genealogy records, that is the only primary source. this links says that zheng he's original family geneological record exists. 69.165.153.89 (talk) 04:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well yes though their could be others sources as well than his personal family records. In any case we would need the exact reference and somebody who has actually access to them or their translations. This actually brings up up another question i was wondering about. Are there any online projects for East Asian historical sources/writings. If we had something like LacusCurtius, The Latin Library or Perseus for East asian or South Asian sources that would be extremely helpful.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity/Origin/(Empire) of Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din

Rather than edit war about this issue, lets discuss it here.

Persian seems to be as accurate as we can make it, though I'd also accept Khwarezmian: Our article on Sayyid Ajjal Shams al-Din Omar says: "Shams al-Din was of Iranian origin being a Muslim Khwarezmian from Bukhara, sent to Yunnan by Kublai Khan after quelling a local revolt." None of that really speaks to his ethnicity, just his place of origin which has a long history of conquest. Jojalozzo 23:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

there is language problem here. There is no argument that Sayyid Ajjal is of Persian/Iranian origin (he was born in Buchara). The argument is about the language used here, i.e. being a mongolian governor is not the same as being mongolian, but is rather means being a governor for the mongolian empire. Mongolian is meant to refer to office of the governor and not the ethnicity of the person in that office. That point was also explained in the history list, so please just don't revert this by telling he was Persian. If you consider the potential ambiguity of the term "mongolian governor" a problem by all means replace it by a full sentence describing that we was of Persian origin and worked as a governor for the mongols, but don't simply substitute (falsely) Mongolian for Persian.--Kmhkmh (talk) 00:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah! It is a language problem. If we're talking politics, maybe Yuan or Mongol would be less confusing and more accurate. I understand "Mongolian" (should be capitalized) to be an ethnicity or nationality not a political designation. Jojalozzo 01:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I misread the language as well. There has to be some way of revising the sentence so it includes all relevant and interesting information, yet isn't too confusing. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 01:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes that formulation works. However I removed the part with the chinese government. The (early) yuan government was not identical with the central Chinese government, since the song dynasty still existed until 1279.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

America

Is this treatment of Menzies NPOV?

Is there any source for this, or should it be removed as bias? DOR (HK) (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Scholars consider this book, insofar as it relates to the Chinese discovery of America, to lack factual foundation. Menzies could not read Chinese and the whole book failed to have direct quote from any articles or studies written in Chinese. He also failed to understand the departing port is not close to Beijing. Recent DNA study showed that natives in Latin America shared common trace with Chinese but back to 12,000 years ago. Menzies claim that current day of natives were offspring of Chinese some 600 years ago (20-30 generations) has no scientific support.

Certainly grammar is a problem. It is argumentative. It should at least be revised -- but not in such a way as to lend support to Menzies, whose writing is not a reliable source. If you haven't already changed it, I'd keep the first sentence and ditch the rest. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 15:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether Menzies is right or not, this paragraph has no footnotes and expresses a strong opinion. Hence, it violates NPOV protocols. DOR (HK) (talk) 13:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I removed the cite of Menzies' book in "Further reading," along with the criticism and link to a critical website. The book is already mentioned more than once in the article, with links to 1421 theory, and it does not belong in a list of recommended further reading. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Once you get involved with the geneticists or in the specialty of genetic studies you will find that it's full of biases when study results are published, ie. Western geneticists are oftenly bias and don't always reveal the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.217.84 (talk) 18:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I put Menzies' book back into the "further reading" section as it is about the subject of this page, well known and important to the full understanding of the subject. Nevermind if you like it or not, it belongs there. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, here we go: WP:CITE states, on the subject of Further reading sections:

An ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "Notes" or "References" sections, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links". However, if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well. This also makes it easier for users to identify all the major recommended resources on a topic. The Wikipedia guideline for external links that are not used as sources can be found in Wikipedia:External links.

One of the key lines here is "items used as sources in the article... are usually not included in 'Further reading'". 1421 is not only a source for a material in this article, a link to its article exists within the article itself. The second important line is "if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well." 1421 does not cover the topic, Zheng He, beyond the scope of this article, as it lacks reliable biographical data and, as such, is not used as a source for most of the article; nor does 1421 have significant usefulness beyond verification, by any reasonable standards. Therefore, I am removing the book, yet again. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 03:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't pick and chose which parts of Wikipedia policy you like and ignore the rest.

books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader.

Are you arguing that this book is not related to the topic, or that it might not be of interest to the reader?

if an item used as a reference covers the topic beyond the scope of the article, and has significant usefulness beyond verification of the article, you may want to include it here as well.

Or, perhaps you’re arguing that the book in question doesn’t cover the topic beyond the scope of the article, or have usefulness beyond verification of the article. Either way, it belongs here and shouldn’t be deleted without a real discussion and consensus. My second revert is now in place. Please don’t push this any further. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It clearly does not belong in the Further reading section. I would like to hear what other editors think about this. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 14:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I have removed 1421 from "Further reading" again, and I detect a consensus for keeping it that way. The book is not a reliable source concerning Zheng He. This criticism may apply to other items in "Further reading" as well; there is no doubt that it applies to 1421. Also note that the article mentions the book previously and links to an article about the book and the debate surrounding it. No one is suppressing the book, in case that is a concern. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 05:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm bringing this back to the Talk page. First, I questioned why statements such as Scholars consider this book, insofar as it relates to the Chinese discovery of America, to lack factual foundation. (etc.) were allowed to stand without any support whatsoever. Then, I questioned why the single most important reason why this subject has received any recogniztion at all over the past decade was not considered worth of listing in the "Further Reading" section. To the first, there has been no response of note. To the second, there is simply a revert war. What is the point of removing an important source on this topic? DOR (HK) (talk) 04:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

• First point: I agree that the statement you cite was tendentious in a list of "Further reading." I suggested trimming it at first, but decided that both the statement and the cite of 1421 as recommended further reading did not belong. So I removed both.
• Next point: You suggest that Menzies' book is the single most important reason why Zheng He has "received any recogniztion at all over the past decade." Yet there are many authors besides Menzies who have published recent studies in English dealing wholly or in part with Zheng He. I hope you don't think that the notability of a subject depends mainly on whether it generates headlines or appears on bestseller lists. That would be a misconception.
• Finally, you asked for the point of removing an important source. You may not have noticed that the article already discusses Menzies' theory and links to another article devoted entirely to the 1421 hypothesis. No one is trying to suppress Menzies' book or to pretend it doesn't deserve notice. But because the consensus among historians is overwhelmingly against the hypothesis, we cannot use 1421 as a reliable source. Including it in a list of "References" or "Further reading" would imply a recommendation of the book. That is why it is necessary to remove the book, not from the article, but from the section.
• That's my position. I am always open to reason and evidence, but please proceed with courtesy and assume good faith. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 07:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you seem to think other authors would have written on Zheng He, or would have gotten more than passing recognition, if Mr Menzies hadn't make such provocative statements in his own book. Louise Levathes, for example, wrote before Mr Menzies, yet received almost no recognition until after his first book was published. And, I guess I missed the part where you arbitrarily decided the quality of Mr Menzies work was unacceptable, but I never did catch exactly who this quality was unacceptable to. You? Sorry, not good enough. However, out of good faith, I have refrained from reinserting the reference for now. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I have not been explicit enough. Please consult 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and the other Wikipedia pages I have linked in my previous comments. You might also consult the archives of this talk page, linked at the top of the page.

How embarrassing it is to have unwittingly caused you so much pain and suffering. I suppose it was presumptuous of me to expect you to follow the links I provided without being expressly invited to do so. I also appreciate your kindness to me in impugning my character and ethics, and then taking notice of your own self-restraint. Have a lovely day. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How sad that this discussion cannot be kept civil. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My take

My take is that if you have 300 huge ships and the wind is in your favor most of the time you would discover America, and was likely discovered way before Zheng He's time, like during the Yuan or Tang dynasties. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.217.84 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Medallion Argument: Geoff Wade could be wrong

Geoff Wade could be wrong:

• 1) in old times, the Chinese name/translation for the Christian God was not so unified, there were many ways to say the "God".
• 2) Christian religion first came into China and became on-some-level popular, that was in Tang Dynasty, and that very first Christian religion was Nestorianism, and Chinese people including the emperor named/translated it as "Jing (景)". So, later times, many Chinese people knew or only knew Christian religion as "Jing". For this, you can check many old Chinese records, and especially the Tang tablet standing still in Xi'an -- 大唐景教流行中国碑 (The Tablet of the Great Tang of Jing Religion's Popularity in China). The map's indication in fact is quite correct.
• 3) In Ming Dynasty (about 15th, 16th century), the more "real" or "modern" Christian religion then landed on China in mainly today's Yangtze River Delta (especially Shanghai & Ningbo first), and Pearl River Delta Area, still, the Chinese name/translation for the Christian God was not so unified. (AmericanWon (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

I've checked many co-called "facts" exampled by Mr. Geoff Wade, seems that guy neither understand Chinese characters well enough nor being familiar with Chinese history. Anyway, many of his points are craps, he's an amateur researcher. (AmericanWon (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

For the study of Christian religion in Ming and Qing China, please also check Nicolas Standaert's work, kinda in depth. (AmericanWon (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Such as one of the first real Christians in China in late-Ming -- Zhu Zongyuan (朱宗元 1609-?), in his notes he recorded the God as "Tianzhu (天主, The Master of Heaven)" instead of "Shangdi (上帝)" (AmericanWon (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

First, Menzies is an amateur researcher, Geoff Wade is a Senior Research Fellow in the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore. Secondly, this is not a forum for discussing |Zheng He, let alone Geoff Wade, the purpose of this page is to work on the article -- not with our own ideas or research. If you have some sources that are missing that deal directly with the subject of the article, please bring them here. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Wind Current Map

I suggest this world wide perpertual wind current system be added to the main page: http://www.crd.bc.ca/watersheds/protection/geology-processes/images/clip_image002temp_000_000.jpg thanks Rob.C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.42.217.84 (talk) 18:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

1380s monument?

There is some error at the end of the first paragraph: "At the beginning of the 1380s, his monument was renovated in a more Islamic style". Whose monument? Zheng He died later. Ullrich.c (talk) 08:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not the "first paragraph," but I see what you mean. In other words, Zheng He's monument was renovated long after his death. I think the reference to his burial at sea in the same sentence -- as if it also happened in the 1380s -- is what makes the sentence confusing. I'll revise it. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 15:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. My brain took a nap. I suspect that "1380s" is transposed from "1830s." But as we can't be sure, I'm going to omit the date and write "later." -- Rob C. alias Alarob 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Religion

Three questions

• It is said that Admiral Zheng He was allowed to build a mosque in Nanjing, is this mosque still existing and possibly where, in which city district?
• Zhang He´s grave in Nanjing still exist - but in which district?
• As same as everywhere in China some Hui live among the Han and as same as everywhere in China also in Nanjing they form 1% of the population. Are they concentrated in a special quarter or district? If yes, which district? --Roksanna (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note, this page is for discussing the composition of the article, not for fielding general questions about Zheng He. Your questions about the mosque and the grave may be worth researching and perhaps including in the article. I don't think the living arrangements of Hui people in modern Nanjing are relevant to an article about Zheng He. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 22:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't all Hui Muslim by Definition?

Are we assuming here that "hui" (回族人) refers to those who are descendants of "hui" people? If someone is descended of mixed "hui" and "han" (漢人) is still "hui"? To me it seems that if we're calling someone "hui" we have to assume they're Muslim. The only other option seems to "non-religious". But if there's a dissenting opinion, I want to hear it. Otherwise I'm going to change the sentence to "Like other Hui people, Zheng He was a Muslim." because if I put "like all" I feel it ignores the non-religious. But again, does anyone have a good reason to maintain the status quo and assume there, for example, Buddhist Hui people? סרסלי, קײק פּלז (talk) 11:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

How can Peranakan Chinese be Non-Muslim and Hui?

How could the peranakan chinese in Malacca be of the Muslim Hui's when they have never been or are muslims? Where did this come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.79.2 (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Outlandish Zheng He/Chinese claim to introduce Islam into SE Asia

There are major factual errors in many of the sophistic augments attributing events to Zheng He. With regard to the introduction of Islam to Indonesia and essentially the region (including Malaysia and Philippines) I have added important data from peer-reviewed texts, (which are usually on prescribed reading for university course curriculum) which reflect the academic discourse and not the fantasy hagiography of Menzies and the other half-witted hacks. The Chinese academic discourse in the main reflects identically that of Western discourse- and it is damaging and insulting to serious Chinese academics.

Let's all please try and make Wikipedia something less than a total joke or forum for sophistic cultural aggrandisement and petty bourgeoisie historical revisionism. Frankly- a lot of this article is dreadful- it attempts to pass off fallacy and fantasy as consensus/academic discourse fact.Starstylers (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but your edits didn't improve it. Please don't use Wikipedia articles as sources, please use sources that actually mention Zheng He. Clearly we agree on Menzies and it appears that you can help improve the article, but this wasn't really the way to do it. Sources will almost always need to mention Zheng He, for a start. There's a big difference between writing an essay and writing a Wikipedia article. Have you read WP:OR? Maybe the best thing is for you to bring ideas here first. Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You'll find on a second reading that the edit is not an essay but disproves the Original Research as portrayed in the article attempting to masquerade as fact. The source texts are peer-reviewed external third-party books, if you'd care to re-check. Thus the Disputation stands the test of Wikipedia edit requirements as it not original research, but, the required rebuttal of Original Research in order for an article which does not meet any criteria of POV Neutrality and research that diverges from academic mainstream discourse. Additionally, the links I use add to Wikipedia in the framework of cross-linking to related articles.

Frankly, if more articles were written as thoroughly as the Disputation alone- Wikipedia would not be a steaming pile of politicised horse manure and would not be ridiculed a d banned from even primary and secondary school referencing (as per UK, Australia and Indonesia school curriculau)Starstylers (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Additionally, I disagree that sources should mention Zheng He- it is utterly irrelevent if Zheng he's name is mentioned- the argument is based on timelines and thus still attacks the fallacious claims. Furthermore, it proves the poor quality original pro-Zheng scholarship- how dreadfully pathetic to not bother reading mainstream discourse on the origins of Islam in SE Asia, even in passing. It's inexcusable. And typical hagiography from hack writers.Starstylers (talk) 16:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What you are describing in your second paragraph seems to be clearly what we call original research. Dougweller (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I too have my suspicions about some of the claimed accomplishments of Zheng He in SE Asia, however, I cannot agree with allowing User:Startsyler's WP:OR, and in particular the WP:SYN, to back this up. He has used Ricklefs extensively when Ricklef's book only mentions Zheng He once (and not in the context Starstyler is using it), and the rest of his writing is indeed essay-like and based on the editor's own logic and reasoning - that's original research. That Menzies might have been a drunk is irrelevant unless a reliable source can be found to say that this is why his Zheng He work is incorrect. It is not acceptable for a wikipedia editor to find a source that he was a drunk and then assume himself that this makes his work unreliable. AGain, that is original research. If one find one source that says "A" and another that says "B", as wikipedia editors we cannot put these together and say that must mean "C". We need to find a source that says "C". --Merbabu (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have an article on Islam in Southeast Asia, so there is no need to rehash the subject here. That article quotes a source stating that Admiral Zheng was an important part of the development of Islam in the region. If that statement is in dispute, the Islam in Southeast Asia TalkPage is the place to start the discussion. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

While the article quotes a few "scholars", the way the article is currently written, it implies that Zheng He was one of the main reasons that Islam spread in Indonesia - indeed, this article seems to say that he was instrumental and central to Islam's spread. Yet this is not mentioned by three of the most important Indonesia historians (Ricklefs, Taylor, Cribb). While I do not support Starstyler's attempt to fix this problem (he made it worse in the other way) and I will not miss him, i disagree with DOR that a dispute with the information on this article should be handled in another article. On the contrary - a problem with this article should be handled here on this article. Given that I don't know much about the "scholars" mentioned here (but I have my suspicions), at the very least it should be mentioned that Zheng He's role is not mentioned by the three I mention above - and/or that this version presented here in this article is not universally accepted. This article treats the version here as fact when it's not clear that it is. I can look into this further, but I will not have a speedy response i fear. --Merbabu (talk) 07:17, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He's Religious Views

I'm not sure whether we get a rerun of some the discussions/problems above, but some recent edits in this section are rather questionable. In particular the rely on unreputable sources or misquote reputable one:

• The overall survey of the ocean's shores is cited for Zheng He belonging to the Hanafi school of islam, however there seems to be no such information in the whole book. Also when citing books for specific claims, please always provide page numbers.
• http://islaminchina.info is not reputable source nor does it actually really support the claim that Zheng He was building mosques in Indonesia.
• http://www.islamonline.net/ is not a reputable source either
• current Footnote 10 (http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/zhenhe/134661.htm) is an article from the xinhua news agency. Why is that labeled as Dictionary of Ming Biography published by Columbia University Press?

This article seems to attract people, who edit a lot of unreliable stuff to turn Zheng He in whatever they'd like him to be. Often that might be done in good intentions but it is totally misguided. Please do only add information from reputable sources and distinguish between belief and historical sciences. Neither religious websites nor private theory book like Menzies are reputable sources in the WP sense. Religious scholars should not be used for historical assessments.--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the 2 links and replaced them with fact tags, and fixed the broken reference that was footnote 10 (numbers have changed) - that should have been two references, somehow they got combined. Thanks for the heads up. Dougweller (talk) 13:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned it up some more. Jojalozzo 15:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Zheng He and Islam in Southeast Asia

That section needs an urgent overhaul. The sourcing is rather terrible (mostly private websites only). It gives quotes of religious scholars and presents them more or less as historical evidence, which is not acceptable fpr an encyclopedia. At best it might describe the view of leading religious scholars (so that readers know what believers might think/assume), but there needs to be a scientific/historical research assessment as well. It needs to be clear what is "merely" a religious view and what are the actual historic facts. Another problem is that a part of the content - possibly the more reliable one - has nothing to do with islam, but simply talks of Zeng He's attidudes towards other religions and his economic activities. --Kmhkmh (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I‘d say go ahead and fix it up – when discussing the coming of Islam to the area, neither Indonesian or Western scholars give him anything but the slightest mention, if they mention him at all. On the other hand, if you read this wikipedia article, you’d be forgiven for thinking that he almost single-handedly converted all of South East Asia to Islam. I noticed this a long time ago, but was wary of getting involved as nationalism is often an issue with these historical articles. --Merbabu (talk) 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually I don't have the personal knowledge or sources for a proper rewrite and in its current state I'd probably rather delete the whole section in particular in light of your assessment. The whole paragraph is mostly a rip-off of Rosey Wang Ma's website, which is not a reputable source and for all the sources she quotes on her website it isn't clear (at first glance) whether they have any academic traction at all. However if nobody is willing to fix that section and we have a sort of editorial consent here I'm fine with removing it completely. I'm also under the impression that this article seems to get appropriated by various religious and nationalistic views, which basically try to associate his famous name with their views/agendas. Hence I suggested a relatively strict editing policy a few sections above (anything without a really reliable/reputable source is to be removed).--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ming Muslim Army" Invaded Yunnan?

I changed Ming Muslim army into Ming army, since the latter is correct in any case and I'm a bit wary about the Ming being primarily non muslims to dispatch Muslim army. Maybe somebody could check the cited sources (I don't have access) and if they indeed do explicitly speak of Muslim army then add it again.--Kmhkmh (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism in Expeditions Section

Reading this page for research for an Ap World Class, I was surprised to find that parts of this are exact copies from the textbook "Traditions and Encounters", published by mcgraw hill. I don't know what to do, so I posted here rather than editing the actual article. PS- it's on page 586 of the textbook, in case anyone needs verification for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.167.234 (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the book, what bits are we talking about? Thanks. They probably need deletion. dougweller (talk) 15:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a very serious matter; see WP:COPYVIO. I'm grateful for the "heads up" and the cite of Traditions and Encounters. Unfortunately we cannot act on this until either a) one of us locates a copy of the textbook, or b) the plagiarized section is identified. If you're still monitoring this discussion, please go ahead and delete the text you've recognized as copied from Traditions and Encounters. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

N.B. I've blanked the entire Expeditions section until this is resolved. (First time doing this.) The prior version of the section is at this link. Please copy the plagiarized text and paste it here, or else indicate the passages it begins and ends with. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

One of a set of maps of Zheng He's missions (郑和航海图), also known as the Mao Kun maps, 1628.

"On the first three voyages, Zheng He visited southeast Asia, India, and Ceylon (today known as Sri Lanka). The fourth expedition went to the Persian Gulf and Arabia, and later expeditions ventured down the east African coast, as far as Malindi in what is now Kenya. Throughout his travels, Zheng He liberally dispensed Chinese gifts of silk, porcelain, and other goods. In return, he received rich and unusual presents from his hosts, including African zebras and giraffes that ended their days in the Ming imperial zoo. Zheng He and his company paid respects to local deities and customs, and in Ceylon they erected a monument honouring Buddha, Allah, and Vishnu."

That's the plagiarised section. I noticed in the template, it says edition "unknown". The textbook is edition 3. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.167.234 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not having access to the source, I have revised the identified paragraph. If additional text is plagiarized, please note specifically where the plagiarism begins and where it ends. Thank you for pointing out this concern to us. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Removing Economic Section OR

Im cutting the following paragraph, unless it gets cited to someone. Pretty dubious, imho, but in any event it should have a cite.

More fundamentally, unlike the later naval expeditions conducted by European nations, the Chinese treasure ships appear to have been doomed in the long run because the voyages lacked any economic motive. They were primarily conducted to increase the prestige of the emperor and the costs of the expeditions and of the return gifts provided to foreign royalty and ambassadors more than outstripped the benefits of any tribute collected. Thus when China's governmental finances came under pressure (which like all governments' finances they eventually did), funding for the naval expeditions melted away. In contrast, by the 16th century, most European missions of exploration made enough profit from the resulting trade to become self-financing, allowing them to continue regardless of the condition of the state's finances.

Cheers. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 04:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Zheng He Map

Simplified Characters?

I have heard that the so-called Zheng He map contains simplified Chinese caracters. Can any Marndarin-spoken person verify this?

2009-03-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not any that naked eyes can see. the style of the writing is of particularly interesting, it's a stylized form that is rarely seen in modern time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edluu (talk • contribs) 17:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The simplified Chinese characters already appeared as early as in Tang Dynasty, especially in Soong, Ming, Qing dynasties, many Chinese characters were already simplified and widely used in daily life, particularly in business and trading.

The offical/governmental simplification of traditional Chinese characters (started in 1950s) also partially consulted those usages in old times. (AmericanWon (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

In many Ming manuscripts and calligraphies, you can see some simplified Chinese characters, some of them are even quite different from modern simplifications. (AmericanWon (talk) 11:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC))

Sinbad

I have another concern here regarding the Sinbad claim. First of all my understanding is that at least the roots and first occurences of the Sinbad story are older than Zheng He. Also the 2 cited sources only look good at first glance. BBC and Christian Science Monitor are normally reputable sources, but the referenced article in the Christian Science Monitor is from the travel section, which is hardly a good source for historic claims in question. The BBC reference is completely unspecific, just BBC news and a date (no link, no information where and when on BB exactly). In short as given we are having a dubious claim without having any acceptable sources to support it. That's not acceptable, so either we get a proper source for the Sinbad claim or that has to be removed.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I searched a bit around[ without finding any support for that clam encarta just speaks on unknown origin and this book dates it in the 14th cenmtury which would be slightly before Zheng He at least.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It certainly does not belong in the lead, which is meant to be a summary of the article. I think it is too fringe/trivial for the article, so deleted it without moving it. Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

On a closing note: I finally found a piece at the BBC mentioning the sinbad thing: [1], but imho in this form it is not an acceptable source either. Moreover just from goggling i get the impression that much of the "Sanbao inspiring the sinbad the sailor stories" that you can find in various unreliable online sources gies bach to Menzies questionable book which is not acceptable as a resource either (since it is largely debunked by academic scholars). Conclusion: without a proper (academic) source any (future) Sinbad references should be removed and we need to pay attention that no dubious claims from web creep into our wikipedia article on zheng he.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Whose influence?

In the "Expeditions" section, the second sentence in the second to last paragraph is:

 His successor, the Hongxi Emperor (reigned 1424–1425), decided to curb the influence at court.

What is "the influence?" 80.227.51.102 (talk) 09:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC) dbw

Vandalism

Birth place in modern-day Africa? According to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/en_aboutchina/2003-09/24/content_22644.htm, and additionally to http://www.islamfortoday.com/zhenghe.htm, Zheng He was born in Southwest China. 24.18.52.147 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The modern africa thing was absolute nonsense that somebody managed sneaked in, John Hill has corrected it already--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Map request: Zheng He's Voyages

I hope that someone with good Inkscape skills can draw a decent SVG map of Zheng He's voyage routes, similar to those given e.g. in Levathes' or Dreyer's (p. 36) books, or in the Ming volume of the Cambridge History of China. There are some maps on the web as well. The main routes (Nanjing - Liujiagang - Fujian - Champa - Java or Palembang - Melaka - northern tip of Sumatra (Aceh) - south end of Ceylon - Calicut; later on to Hormuz) are not in dispute among serious scholars, as far as I understand, although the routing of side trips to Africa and Arabia is somewhat conjectural. It is desirable that the text labels be in a separate SVG level, so that the map could be easily localized for other languages. Thanks to anyone who listens! -- Vmenkov (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. As a bonus project, how about an SVG map that would also show (in other layers) other important Yongle era foreign military and diplomatic campaigns? Such as:

• Yishiha sailing from Jilin City down the Amur and Sungari to Tyr, Russia
• Yongle's diplomats going overland to Samarkand and Herat, to the court of Tamerlane and Shakhrukh
• Tibetan expedition
• Invasion of Vietnam
• Embassies to Korea and Japan

That would be a useful map to add to the Yongle Emperor article. If anyone is willing to undertake that, I'll be glad to provide a draft (as a text write-up or a crudely drawn SVG file). Vmenkov (talk) 03:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Editing Policy Suggestion

Ok, after various edits the text was again falsely pretending that Ma Huan tells in his book that Zheng He was belonging to the Hanafi school. In the whole book the word Hanafi is only mentioned once in a commenting footnote (p. 176) by the editor not Ma Huan. Moreover this footnote is simply listing various islamic schools without assigning anything to anybody. As mentioned before this article seems to be prone to such unreliable edits, which can really taint and degrade the its accuracy/quality over time. If the article is not guarded against this, it becomes rather cumbersome to fix it down the road, as at some point one would need to check every reference in detail to guarantee accuracy.

To address this issue I'd like to suggest a somewhat stricter editing policy to people watching the article:

Any new content which does not properly reference a reputable source will be automatically removed.

In particular regarding books "properly referenced" means, that the reference needs to provide a page or paragraph number. --Kmhkmh (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the lede too short?

Here are the reasons given to me by the editor who added the 'short lead' tag:

What happened on the journeys, and what were the consequences?

What did the person do in the rest of his life?

Seem like reasonable questions we should be able to address. Jojalozzo 21:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the tag since imho the lead is fine. A lead needs to summarize the the main features of its subjects shortly and imho is the current lead does that adequately. For the details and to answer the questions you've raised we have the table of content. Though I suppose we could add a few more specific sentences regarding the treasure fleet/his voyages.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Zheng He and Ethiopian emperor Zera Yaqob

Please note this is quoting ongoing research which is original in nature. After a study on the Fra Mauro map and the circumstances that led to his first time inclusion of dozens of Ethiopian names, drawing on previous research by Dr. Richahrd Pankhurst Professor marco vigano, Italo-Ethiopian scholar presumes the SHIP on the map, cfr. this wiki IS NOT SAID TO BE INDIAN in the sense of the Indian peninsula, ANYWHERE ON THE MAP, but to be 'from the Indian Sea'. If any reference is made in Italy to the Indies in 1450/59, this means, in any case, all the Asia southern coast. Professor Marco sustains any information on a 1420 expedition to East Africa could have most likely conveyed to Fra Mauro by envoys of Emperor Zera Yaqob, visiting for the Florence Council (ca 1440), the recognised source of all information about the horn of Africa on the map. That very Council decreed Zera Yaqob was the long quested 'Prester John'. He mentions the monks' legation from the Ethiopian highlands was composed of knowledgible persons who had unfortunately first saw, to all probability, a ship on their way to Florence, so would have had no indications on the form of the ship they mentioned. The map caption curiously reports with the ship a totalaly mythical story of a bird of huge dimensionsi 'with wings spanning over 60 steps and big enough to carry very easily an Elephant and any other animal' a feat ressembling rather those of Zheng He's fleet Treasure Ships, or Master Ships used to carry back exactly huge exotic animals. The research on the map has led to the discovery of a fortress palace above Addis Ababa Prof. Marco supposes could date to the period, A photo album on the supposed palace discovery and an active research to find trade links via the Adal and Harar sultanate to the Somali coast, leading to indications to the whereabouts of other trade towns on that route. cfr: http://etio.webs.com/thenextexploration.htm The fortress identified on Mt Wechacha appears to correspond with "Amba Nigisti" on the map, and would mpst likely be, if confirmed to be late medieval, as the first observation let presume. The historical Capital of the Christin Empire from ca. 1440 to 1530, date of its destruction by the army of Ahmed al Ibrahimi is now being actively sought for under it.

I conclude: 1) The ship is not indicated as being from present day India at all. The Indian Ocean is stated as its origin and India meant the Chinese coast too. 2) The ship description, and its long journey are perfectly compatible only with Zheng He's expeditions, precisely indications I gather from a Chinese illustrated book show the fifth and sixt missions, 1419-22 had split up into ship groups further reaching other east East African ports, with some of the groups reaching Nanjing month later than Zheng He a-. 3) The lenght described on the map for the ship's journey, 40 days and 2000 miles, is compatible with a possible exploration of part of the East African Coast, certainly nowhere further. The mission had been abandoned due to lack of ports to gain provisions at. 4) The information has possibly been passed to the cartographer by visiting Ethiopian monks, proving a long standing commercial and diplomatic ocntact between the two Empires. An Encarta essay cites the presence of Ethiopian traders in Malacca, then a major intercultural port under Chinese influence, ad early as the 13th Century b-. 5) A very difficult quest for Barara may have now some clear indications at last c-. 6) A chain of towns extending trade contacts between Barara and the Zeila, Brava and Muqadishu ports in present day sections of Somalia is taking shape.

NOTE: could any of the contributors contact Professor Su Ming-Yang, holder of the theory the ship on the map is European, for a contradictory study contact?

I am highly indebted in my finds here in Ethiopia to the contributor who linked in this wiki the Fra Mauro Map to Zheg He.

a- Zheng He's Voyages down the Western Seas, ISBN 7 5085 8K, chief editor Lin Bin, pp. 109

b- "Side Bar Essay", Encarta Encyclopedia, "Seeds of Globalization", by C.A. Lockard. Marcoetio (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

c- Breternitz and Pankhurst, in Annales d'Ethiopie, 2009 XXIV, pp. 209-249.

This is interesting but until any of this becomes verifiable (e.g. gets into academic journals) we can't use it here. Wikipedia is not the place for publishing original research. Jojalozzo 14:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

So I notice that we had a vandalism problem from IP editor(s). So why, oh why, is the article fully protected, rather than semi-protected, and that, for 3 more weeks?? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I've changed it to semi-protection. Dougweller (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)