Talk:1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

Proposed deletion
I am questioning why this book needs its own Wikipedia entry. Seems like only publicity to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 (talk • contribs)

I have removed the prod tag. I believe the book will meet the notability guidelines. The next stage if you wish to seek community consensus on deletion is articles for deletion process. I tmight be publicity but I don't think it is mere spam. --Matilda talk 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pseudohistory
While I personally do not disagree that the work is Pseudohistory I think to categorise it as such we need to cite a source. --Matilda talk 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * http://counterknowledge.com/?p=109 - need to check if this is regarded as a reliable source but it least it isn't just the view of Wikipedia --Matilda talk 22:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think this would count for a reliable source for the categorisation of 1421 as pseudohistory : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575347/How-Da-Vinci-Code-tapped-pseudo-fact-hunger.html --Matilda talk 23:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is obviously a biased thesis about the book. It is not fit for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a personal blog from Myspace. If American teachers also tell their students that Columbus discovered America, that claim is not just pseudohistory, it is obviously complete fraud! If it were possible to sue the American education system through the International Court of Justice, books like Menzies don't need to be published. The fact is, this article discusses possible minor errors in Menzies book, which might not be errors at all. The sources of the counter-thesis proposal is simply too unreliable. Menzies major ideas still hold true, and it may even be linked to the strange paintings of Da Vinci, which some explain from Dan Brown's thesis, but which may have influenes from Asian Gnostic-Buddhist philosophy. The fact is, if it's really pseudo history, would a major publisher such as Harpercollins put its reputation on the line for it? Even a kindergarten student would know the answer. Colourfulglobe (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The answer is of course yes. Major publishers publish virtually all of the well known pseudo-whatever. Doubleday, for instance, published the DaVinci Code. No one thinks the publishers take such books seriously, everyone knows that they will publish what sells. In the early 50s, in Florida, I was taught that the Vikings got to America before Columbus, by the way. Menzies stuff is not history, even in China they recognise that. You can't say 'it must be true because a well-known publisher published it/it's in the history section of the bookistore, etc'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller  (talk • contribs) 20 July 2008


 * Then, what constitutes a "reliable source" then is in the eye of the beholder. Some in china don't believe in it, but some do! The same thing is true in the west.  Some do and some don't.  Not everyone agrees because of self-interest. History is narrated based on self-interest and is always narrated subjectively.  It's always subjective.


 * To say that you discovered something implies nobody was there before. What about the Indians?  To say it was discovered from the perspective of Europe is legal semantics.  It's a loophole.  It's spin!  To say that something was invented implies you were the first one to create it.  To say that somebody else re-invented it independently later is spin!


 * If that's the case, why not show everything (pluses, minuses, etc.) so that the reader can be the judge and jury. American media is very biased and Wikipedia pays the price for it with biased articles.  An article should be neutral, unbiased.  It should allow the reader to determine what is "reliable" and "unreliable" since this is always a matter of opinion.  Even in physics, there is such a thing as relativity.  Let the reader decide. Colourfulglobe (talk) 06:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You asked what constitutes a reliable source - we have a guideline - see Reliable source - it isn't merely in the eye of the beholder. If you think there is bias in the article which is about the book, please advise where you see that bias. Matilda talk 07:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The guidelines of Wikipedia are Wikipedia's opinion of what constitues a reliable source. It is not acknowledged universally as absolute. It is also not clear cut since these are only guidelines and if a vote is needed to determine something, only the ones who participated in the vote have a say. Some pulitzer prize articles have been discovered to be fraud. Academic books have their errors. Why not tell something in an article and say who it's from and where you got it and let the reader decide to believe it or not.

There should be a for and against section. A section for the things that make sense and another section for the things that don't. At least there should be a warning or a prompt to request the reader to add to it. If I were not so busy myself, I probably would take the time myself to add some stuff like the picture of an Italian Map which says its source is Marco Polo and Nicollo de Conti which shows an upside down map of the west coast of the u.s, including california and the center of map being beijing and towards the right europe. The map shows the extent of the Chinese-Mongol Yuan empire in the 1200s, which included California. I have seen a similar map personally in Singapore.

I do not have the time now. Maybe in the future, but there should be a prompt and a warning at the top of the article.Colourfulglobe (talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

For people who are thinking to contribute, if we think that we will be wasting our time because our words will be edited or deleted anyway, we won't waste our time on wikipedia. We'll just forget about it. It discourages people from contributing and readers lose out. Americans deserve better. Colourfulglobe (talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why is it only Americans who deserve better ( especially given the way you have spelt colourful )? What warning are you looking to add? Happy for there to be a for and against section - feel free to add.  The guidelines as to reliable source are relevant to this project and this project is the space you are in right now but as with all of wikipedia you can make suggestions if you think the guidelines are in some way not adequate. --Matilda talk 09:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't understand why there should be a prompt or warning on top of the article, there is already an Edit button. Wikipedia policy (not guidelines, says
 * You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.


 * Also:

If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.


 * If you have read the guidelines and policies I fail to see why you are asking your questions. And Marco Polo never made a map with California on it, you are basing that on the work of someone who thinks Aristotle used the word 'hurricane' in his Meterologica. Americans, and everyone else, do deserve better than sources like that, which you wouldn't find in the Britannica encyclopedia, etc. Doug Weller (talk) 10:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

[OFF TOPIC FORUM DISCUSSIONS REMOVED]


 * We need to stay on topic per Talk page guidelines and the topic is this book. Such dilemmas as the One-China policy as far as I know is a long way from the scope of this book and thus off-topic. The scope is not open-ended and the inter-connectedness of all things does not come into it. We have guidelines for dealing with whether we think Menzies is right or wrong and they are based on citing reliable sources to ensure our core policies of verifiability and no original research are observed. I think it is not unreasonable to refer to other authors whose views coincide with Menzies.  You need to include such assertions with citations using tags for inline cites: ie . Matilda talk 05:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This entry is very one-sided; it is simply a cheap attack on the book (cheap in that the review doesn't address actual claims made in the book, just hits us over the head with a long series of historical facts held to loosely contradict assumptions present in the book). If there is a controversy, one assumes there are two sides to the story, but no one is presenting the other side. Is there any reason to keep this entry? I'm skeptical about the book too, but if it's worth having an article on it, it's worth presenting a more balanced view. ichnography talk 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do go ahead and add to the article. Have you seen the one on his earlier book?  I guess we need someone with the book to work on it! You should be able to find some of his claims somewhere, surely? Doug Weller (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

This whole article is completely biased and one-sided thus violated Wikipedia's official policy of maintaining academic neutrality and NPOV (Neutral Point of View). It's seems as if this page is receiving cheap lame attacks by some racist and prejudiced people who dislike the idea that Ming China was more technologically advanced than a post Dark Age Europe and that only China at this time had the naval technology to build treasure ships in excess of 400 (by the Song Dynasty) to 600 ft (by Ming Dynasty) in length that could travel anywhere in the world. The question that Menzies provokes is whether or not the Chinese did so, given the undisputable fact they had the technology. For those ignorant of Chinese history please read the volumes of books "Science and Civilisation in China" by British historian and scientist Sir Joseph Needham. This kind of irrational attack on Gavin Menzies has no academic foundation to support them and are analogous to Western or Eurocentric racists who insist on the myth that Dark Age Europe was the most advanced civilisation in the world and that the Europeans discovered gunpowder, firearms, the movable type printing technology etc., of which these inventions indisputably, based on confirmed historical records, had their innovative origins in China. Neutrality on all articles must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia policy, continuation of this uncivilised series of cheap attacks against Menzies will be reported to higher Wikipedia authorities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.0.146 (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, don't be making such assumptions and accusations about Wikipedia editors being "racist" and "prejudiced" from the edits of just one article; see Assume good faith. As far as I know, no one here has attempted to discredit or disprove the nautical technology innovated by the Chinese by the 15th century. However, It is perfectly legitimate to discredit the claim that Zheng He's "magnificent Chinese fleet" sailed through the Mediterranean to Italy in 1434 given the incredible lack of textual, pictorial, or even archaeological evidence for such a grandiose claim. It is even more incredible to assert that Zheng He's tributary mission sparked the European Renaissance, a movement steeped in relearning the great innovations and discoveries made by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Regardless, our own opinions do not matter here, only what credible, secondary sources and scholarly (i.e. academic) reviews have to say on the matter. And from what I have seen, the serious scholars who have paid attention to this topic have not given very flattering reviews of Menzies' work. Therefore, it is perfectly acceptable to illustrate in this article the mainstream academic view about Menzies' work in an appropriate review section.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviews
putting this here as a resource July 27, 2008, the Baltimore Sun, by Gene Altschuler, the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. "The renaissance of a flimsy theory" --

"he does not employ standards acceptable to professional historians, linguists or life scientists to evaluate the mountain of evidence he has amassed. Because Menzies gives credence to anyone who shares his views, every link in the chain of causation in 1434 is made of papier-mache.

Consider, for example, the e-mail Menzies received in 2007 from Dr. A.C. Lovric, a geneticist. As evidence that Chinese sailors visited the Dalmatian coast in 1434, Lovric cited legends indicating that "oblique-eyed yellow easterners" landed along the Adriatic sometime before 1522, and studies asserting that on Hvar and other islands, inhabitants have East Asian genotypes, non-Slavic and non-European surnames, and use a non-European nomenclature for America. The DNA test that Dr. Lovric referred to identified several explanations for these phenomena. The research paper on Dalmatian names he relied on has not yet been translated from Croatian into English. Nonetheless, Menzies concludes, with breathtaking specificity, that the "results are part of a logical sequence of events": One of Zheng He's ships berthed on the coast; sailors and slave girls jumped ship and melted into the countryside; the fleet proceeded to Venice and Florence and returned to Dalmatia in late 1434; and on the way home, the Chinese were joined by a Dalmatian fleet, under Adm. Harvatye Mariakyr, which discovered 30 Pacific islands and gave them Dalmatian names. In trying to establish that the Chinese visit was the "spark that ignited the Renaissance," Menzies relies on a fundamental fallacy of logic: after-this-therefore-because-of-this reasoning. --Doug Weller (talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah…Dr A.Z.Lovric,.a.k.a. Zyelimeer Yoshamya. I have followed this man’s exploits from one end of the web to the other! It’s only partly relevant to this page, but those interested in finding out more about one of Gavin Menzies’s most intriguing sources can find Lovric (usually claiming Dalmatian Vice Bune discovered most of the Pacific) at Latin WP , claiming DNA proves “Dalmatians had the most intense direct (sexual) contacts with SE Asia”; at Wikipilipinas  claiming many Pacific names are in fact Dalmatian; and at Wikinfo  on Vice Bune, his pet subject. When challenged to cite sources, Lovric runs a very similar line to Menzies about “traditional historians” not being able to accept his revolutionary theories. Lovric’s articles were deleted from English WP and Simple English WP. He is famous for cross-referencing to other articles he has written on the web.--Nickm57 (talk) 09:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, someone to keep an eye out for (pardon the fractured grammar). Doug Weller (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something out for which to keep an eye, surely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.53.74.196 (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Some sources
I've removed an analysis of some selected quoting that I'd restored after a brief chat elsewhere.

This was posted at NOR by GordonofCartoon:

"a dig in News for mid-2008 could well find other reviews - you'd have to be even-handed and include positive and negative, but for instance, there's this Telegraph review andthis one from the New Zealand Herald ("But 1434 suffers from the full range of logical errors that also saw 1421 pilloried by experts"). The later mentions the selective quoting: "The most obvious explanations ... are selectively plundered for support, or bypassed entirely"). Or there'sthis Otago Times one." Dougweller (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * An editor visited Wikipedia talk:Notability (books) with comments about this book. I was curious on if it's notable. A quick look at potential sources finds
 * Haywood, John. 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. (Book review). History Today 58.8 (August 2008): p.66(1). This is a 739 word review. The full text of this review is available for those with access to Cengage. It tilts towards the negative side (more like disbelief)
 * Wolff, Carlo. China as Italy's inspiration “1434” expounds - at length - a theory about who sparked the Renaissance.(AE)." The Denver Post (Denver, CO) (July 27, 2008): p.E-12. This is a 613 word review also available on Cengage. It tilts on the positive side though again tinged with disbelief.
 * Atwater-Singer, Margaret. Menzies, Gavin. 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Library Journal. 133.12 (1 July 2008): p95. A 171 word mini-review written NPOV. The author is a librarian (Univ. of Evansville Libs., IN) and the audience is other librarians.
 * Freeman, Jay. 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. Booklist. 104.19-20 (1 June 2008): p24. A 151 word review with a positive spin as the reviewer treated this as a fiction work.
 * I don't have time to get involved with editing this article but hopefully someone will find the list useful. --Marc Kupper&#124;talk 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the most important reference for the book '1434' (and it's predecessor '1421') should be the Wikipedia article Credulity ! Norloch (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

IP socking & pov editing
, already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using on other articles, is clearly also  - the edits make it obvious and they both geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina. Dougweller (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

To Mr. Dougweller, You should stop putting your non-neutral POV on these articles as you should know that you are severely violating the official policy of Wikipedia on maintaining academic neutrality on all articles. People who consistently vandalise articles based on their personal Western centric beliefs without providing any counter evidence disproving Menzies are not being a constructive member of Wikipedia. If you disagree with the discoveries of Gavin Menzies you must provide academic proof showing that Menzies was wrong, instead of engaging in uncivilised personal attacks against Menzies. It is an indisputable fact, that Ming Dynasty China was the most technologically advanced civilisation in the world during 1400's, with most of Western European civilisation just emerging from the economic poverty, technological underdevelopment and religiously dominated society during the Dark Ages. Of we can say that eastern portions of Europe, notably the Byzantine empire was more advanced than the Western Europeans given the construction of Hagia Sophia etc., but what many people don't realise is that these accomplishments in the Byzantine empire were dependent on intellectual capital coming in the form of the Arab muslim architects, engineers, scientists etc. And the Arab muslims had contacts via the Silk Road with the Chinese and via Arab sea routes to China, furthering an exchange of Chinese intellectual capital and technology to the Western civilisations of Europe. Take for example the transmission of the ancient Chinese magnetic compass to Arabs and then to the Western Europeans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.0.146 (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is the same editor as the IPs above, back with a new IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 98.71.0.146, NPOV does not mean that Menzies' hypothesis should be given by default the same weight as the standard view. It means that facts and arguments should be presented according to their truthfulness, accuracy and verifiability. This has been done in the article and if the unflattering result is that Menzies' theory is an unsubstantiated fringe theory, then we need to to state exactly that. To do otherwise, now that would be the real POV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

From the noticeboard
Hi, one thing that jumped at me in the lead is the use of terms like "drivel", which may not be necessary. The article is about the book, after all. I fully agree that it deserves to go in the lead that the tenets of the book aren't accepted by serious historians, but it could be worded a bit more encyclopedically, maybe something like "the conclusions of the book are rejected by mainstream historians" ? --Dailycare (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with the above. Whilst I think it's fair to express reservations about the validity of the book's arguments (for what it's worth I think it's far more likely the Renaissance was ignited by the influence of the Mongol Empire connecting a latter-stage Golden Age Islamic world to Europe) - to have an opening paragraph claiming 'scholars' dismiss the book as 'drivel' (with only one source citing this) surely cannot fit the description of a Neutral Point Of View? What's the point of having guidelines if they're not adhered to? Singlerider (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)singlerider
 * Hmm. Perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead, but I don't see why such an assessment would not belong in the body of the article, so long as the comment is by a credible historian and is placed in a relevant section. It's not the most polite noun to use when describing someone's work, but I do believe it fits the general attitude that serious scholars have expressed in their rather scathing reviews of this book.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 22:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel it a bit of overkill in the lead as well. I'm with Pericles; it can be put in the body of the article. Auntie E. (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If this action is taken, then it should be noted in the article that the quoted person is Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, a respected historian and university professor. Otherwise the comment seems irrelevant.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly. I tried to rework it into the body, but my efforts didn't seem to get the impact right so I am leaving it to those who can write better than I can. Auntie E. (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked again
IP blocked by another Admin for the 3rd time in 2 months, this block is for 3 months, we'll see if he comes back with another IP (see section above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to merge article
For such a proposal, please see here: Forthcoming book on Atlantis#Merger?. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Err...that doesn't bring you directly to the section, try this: Talk:Gavin Menzies. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with any deletion as this would constitute suppression of information and a direct contradiction of our good old American "Freedom of Speech"!!! This article needs to be reinstated just like any other articles. Wikipedia should provide information about all subjects or books regardless of your personal beliefs or opinions, it should remain a forum for freedom of speech and freedom of press!

God Bless America!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * While your patriotism is admirable, it is not directly relevant here, as the English language Wikipedia is intended for anyone who can read English, and is not construed as a specifically American enterprise (although I suspect that most contributers are American). I provided some links on your talk page which you might find it helpful to glance over. The merger of the two books authored by Gavin Menzies into the Gavin Menzies article was done in accordance with Wikipedia policies, at least in the view of the editors who undertook the merger and/or voiced support for the merger at the above-linked discussion. ClovisPt (talk) 16:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To follow up on this, I will add some info about 1434 in the Gavin Menzies article, using some of the material that was found in this article. That would fully justify the merger, I believe. Also, while Wikipedia is not censored, it also does not give ample room for the discussion of fringe theories either. Menzies' work certainly falls into the realm of the latter, given the rejection of his work by several notable academics.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 17:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

As promised, here is the new section I've created in Gavin Menzies' article:

In 2008 Menzies released a follow-up publication titled 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. In it Menzies claims that by 1434 Chinese delegations reached Italy and were in some way responsible for the Renaissance. He claims that a letter written in 1474 by Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli and found amongst the private papers of Columbus indicates that an earlier Chinese ambassador had direct correspondence with Pope Eugene IV in Rome. However, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, a professor of history at Tufts University in the United States and at Queen Mary College, University of London, labels this claim as 'drivel' and asserts that no reputable scholar supports the view that Toscanelli's letter refers to a Chinese ambassador.

Menzies then claims that materials from the Chinese Book of Agriculture, the Nong Shu (農書), written by the Yuan-dynasty scholar-official Wang Zhen (fl. 1290-1333), were copied by European scholars and provided direct inspiration for the illustrations of mechanical devices pioneered by Taccola (1382-1453) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). However, Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University questions the rigor of Menzies application of the historical method and, in regards to the illustrations, asserts that Menzies "says something is a copy just because they look similar. He says two things are almost identical when they are not."

Geoff Wade, a senior research fellow at the Asia Research Institute of the National University of Singapore, admits that some Chinese technological ideas came to Europe around this time, but ultimately classifies Menzies' book as historical fiction and asserts that there is no Chinese evidence for a maritime venture to Italy in 1434.

I believe it is sufficient and solves the problem of the merger.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)