Talk:Gavin Menzies/Archive 1

Neutrality Tag
Very clearly from the many comments below this article has been disputed as being inherently biased for many months, but little progress has been made to seriously balance the article. The article as stands gives only negative opinions about the subject with no attempt at neutrality. The neutrality tag is long overdue.ProfGiles (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

1421 theory
There should be links to writings of these 'commentators' who regard the 1421 theory as 'baseless in fact', so that readers can judge for themselves the authority of the commentators and read the refutations of Menzies' theory that would demonstrate any baselessness.

The debunking sites linked to on the 1421 theory page, and reproduced below, debunk only a small fraction of the theory.

Debunking sites

 * The discovery of America by the Chinese in 1421 is a big lie! The author changed a map to fit his theory! by Manuel Luciano da Silva, MD.
 * 1421: The Year the Chinese DID NOT Discover America: A Tabulation of the Evidence Against Gavin Menzies

I think Menzies was only saying that the voyages could have happened. He made various calculations on how the journeys would have panned out. The trouble is most historians are not sailors and their explanations do not seem convincing either. It is also very likely that Marco Polo made up his travels in Cathay, but he doesn't seem to get the same sort of attack as Menzies. 81.155.100.213 (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually Marco Polo was ridiculed by people in Italy for the rest of his life after returning there.Borock (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Economist is giving it a fair hearing, noting that much of Mr. Menzies' assertions are on the record in Chinese texts. The full link is for premium, but there's enough to titillate the curious mind at http://www.economist.com/books/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5381851 --Arthur Borges (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It is possible that there were Chinese voyages of exploration. Chinese mariners were just as competent as mariners in other regions. However, because they were competent, it follows that they would have organised their expeditions in a competent manner. The nonsense written in the book '1421' certainly doesn't demonstrate competence! Expeditions for exploration were tightly organised affairs, using small handy vessels, for maximum efficiency and minimum risk. They didn't carry along excess baggage in the shape of floating palaces and thousands of useless mouths to be fed and watered. If diplomatic or trade missions were considered worthwhile, those came later - after the explorers had mapped out the efficient routes and the safe havens. The book '1421', presents an unintentionally ludicrous picture of groups of high ranking officials, sitting around on their ships, for month after weary month - while the expedition explorers urgently search out something significant for them. That flawed premise in "1421" may be amusing but it's also rather insulting to the competence of Chinese seafarers.Norloch (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More evidence needed
those 2 sites dont convince me. the first one seems to be biased against another country being involved in discovering the new world besides protugal and i dont know about the other one

the comment that most people think its "baseless" seems like POV to me


 * For the record, the columbian expedition was spanish, not portuguese. And this 1421 theory is hilarious for everyone except, appparently, chinese and british people. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.62.37.2 (talk) 11:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not very well received in China either. Or in Britain for that matter.--Dougweller (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not what he says, Dougweller. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurborges (talk • contribs) 19:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Trivia
What subs did he serve upon? Bastie 23:50, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * HMS Rorqual and HMS Resolution--68.85.27.47 14:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Place of Birth
Where was he born?--Mais oui! 12:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Character assasination
Most edits on this biography are very sad. Many people who are editing here are trying to slander a person who wrote a controversial book. Menzies may be completely wrong, but the way some (probably NOTABLE historian experts) write against him is disgusting. They even try it it with uttter nonsense, such as to link some legal case of 1996 with a book that was not published before 2002. Furthermore, there is no document proving that Menzies was GUILTY in the HMS Rorqual incident, but this event seems to be the most important chapter in his life. Even worse are allegations like that: "some critics (of course without name and only indirectly cited, perhaps Mr. Geoff Wade, who may have written many of the anti-Menzies edits) have questioned Menzies' nautical knowledge and whether he actually sailed the routes he has claimed ...". Can there be any doubt that ALL the routes, which had been sailed by a captain of the Royal Navy above or below sea level have been recorded in the nautical logbooks of the Navy? If there is no evidence that Menzies did not sail these routes any such allegations should be deleted--Pjotr Morgen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.224.52.156 (talk) 23:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no actual suggestions in here, please use talk pages to suggest changes to the main page rather than to chat about the subject. See WP:TALK for more info.  WLU 20:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it should be "there are no suggestions", while "there is no suggestions" is wrong (singular - plural). Since you did not propose any change to the article, your comment belongs to the same category of useless chatting ... Secondly, it must be evident from my remarks, what I suggest to keep and what to discard.--Pjotr Morgen 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps your suggestions might be better received if you phrased them in a slightly less POV and hostile manner. If you want to blank this section and replace it with a set of suggestions for the page, it'd be more useful to the page.  In my opinion.  WLU 02:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "If there is no evidence that Menzies did not sail these routes any such allegations should be deleted--Pjotr Morgen" That's pretty clearly a suggestion about content on the page. What's your problem, WLU ?


 * He was captain and the helm at the time of the incident; that makes it his responsibility. If you look at the page linked from the bottom of the page, they have a scan of a report where Menzies writes "I am afraid I am personally entirely to blame for this incident [...]".--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the above user, it seems that quite a few imbeciles are trying to destroy Gavin Menzies without even studying his theories in detail. It's usually the Racists that are responsible for this kind of shit, they don't want to say that Ming Dynasty China accomplished something before they did. In all fairness, we should give Gavin Menzies ideas a chance first, and then wait and see if the discovery holds up to scientific research in the realms of archaeology and historical investigation. And until we can fully conclusively DISPROVE the theories of Gavin Menzies, we should maintain a neutral attitude towards him.
 * We follow our WP:NPOV policy, which is not the same as the editor's idea of 'neutral attitude'. Dougweller (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Character assasination
Regardless of the merits of the 1421 Theory, the personal history section seems full of innuendo: "Menzies claims he sailed the routes sailed by Ferdinand Magellan and Captain James Cook" - is there sufficient reason to doubt this? A 6600 dollar damage from an accident with HMAS Torqual is trivial, and part of the innuendo. A normal car accident can generate more damage, it is not information which needs to be part of Wikipedia. It seems a personal axe needs to be ground against Mr. Menzies.

Peter van de Graaf, 80.61.249.68 (talk) 17:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason to believe that the commander of a naval vessel would by accident follow those routes, or that he would be carte blanche to choose to take his vessel on these routes? The cite isn't really solid, but there's reason to doubt it.


 * 6600 dollars in 1969 would have been a pretty major car accident, and that was the repair, not the cost of an international investigation. Any impact between major sea-going vessels is not trivial, and is worthy of mention on the captain's biography.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Vexatious litigant
I read in the German version that Mr. Menzies has been termed a vexatious litigant. The sources on that check out and I remember this being included in an earlier version of the English page. Why was this removed? Is this not information that is important in characterising Mr. Menzies. The sources for the vexatious litigation are:

http://bbs.omnitalk.org/alumni/messages/28843.html http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm#m

Weeddude (talk) 18:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've re-added the mention. Do you know what exactly he did to become a vexatious litigant? Does the German version provide any more information? Chedorlaomer (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Mr Menzies apparently tried to sue people as part of his bankrupcy proceedings in an attempt to harass them. That's about as far as I know.Weeddude (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, Gavin Menzies was the victim of repeated attacks and harassments by various people who did not want to agree with the findings of his theories and historical discoveries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.32.116 (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We may be talking about two people named Menzies here . As for his 'findings', it isn't a matter of 'wanting to agree', his 'history' has been subject of considerable criticism in China and elsewhere for being close to fictional. He has admitted to threatening to sue at least one person and trying to get one of his biggest critics fired. Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it's the same guy, see below. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I'm still discovering this discussion. I love this part too. P. v.d. Graaf starts a section called "Character Assassination", and then along comes this section to repack his reputation swiftly back in the coffin. Sorry, but this thirst for mention of lawsuits, office politics and reckless sub driving smacks of persecution of dissidents.

--Arthur Borges (talk) 22:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal history section removed
I took out this whole section, which consisted of the name of his ship, a dispute over his place of birth, and a dispute over his claim to have sailed the routes of Mageleon and Cook. All very trivial and poorly sourced. The basic info is already in the intro. Borock (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then we may as well redirect the article to his first book so far as I can see. But there is nothing wrong with the sources, and 'trivial' is in the eye of the beholder. Dougweller (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually if he is only known as the author of one book that might be a good idea. Then people would be more free to debunk his book there without it being seen as a BLP problem.Steve Dufour (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that 'he' (actually I believe a team of writers, certainly for the first book which had to be heavily reworked) now has 2 books out. There's no BLP problem in the edits that removed. It's a matter of opinion as to whether it was trivial (and I may restore it), and there's no problem with the sources. Dougweller (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd thoughts - there may be a way of merging the two book articles as they are both on the same theme. We'd just have to think of a good title. Dougweller (talk) 18:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually all three topics could be merged to this article. Please debunk his books to Hell, but don't make mean-spirited (especially if uncited by reliable secondary sources) personal attacks on the guy.Borock (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not hugely up on this, but he does seem to claim that his naval background is the reason why he's come to these conclusions when others ahevn't, so it seems reasonable to explore that part of his career in a biography. Sources such as the Navy List and London Gazette will confirm the basic details of his career (Gazette certianly doesn't say what his ships were, the List might).  David Underdown (talk) 08:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking an encyclopedia should have a purpose to improve mankind's knowledge base, etc. If this person is just a nut case he shouldn't have an article at all, although his two books should if they are being read and talked about.Borock (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To help determine whether this should be merged to the article on the books, or vise versa... please take a moment to read the relevant notability guidelines: WP:Notability (people) and WP:Notability (books).  I am not sure if he meets the criteria for authors, so it may be best to merge into the article on the books. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "(c) has won significant critical attention" (from you first link) - doesn't say it has to be positive critical attention. It seems that many of the same criticisms of his technique are aimed at both works, so it seems to make sense to discuss them in one place, which, short of creating a page with some horribly artifical title, to shoehorn in both book titles, a page on the author seems the natural place to discuss that.  David Underdown (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand your move, Borock. If all biographical material is cut out, then why bother to have an article on the person at all? If Menzies integrity and his 'research' is disputed by all sides, we should not white-wash him by removing all material related. Our job here is just to represent things how they are. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So, what do you propose, David? Merging the two articles on Menzies's books with "Gavin Menzies"? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the last sentence which construes a causal relationship between Menzies' retirement from the navy and his attempt at a political career. In fact, the previous year Menzies was found responsible in an official inquiry for ramming a moored US-American navy ship with his U-boat (see the cut-out material for well-sourced reference), and this must have influenced, quite possibly even dictated his decision to leave for good. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I merely paraphrased the Times article referred to, I did wonder about a connection with his "career-limiting" incident, but to make that connection with his resignation would be OR, the reasoning given in the Times article is verifiable. David Underdown (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we don't need to make that connection explicitly and the article actually did not do that. All it said was that Menzies was found responsible for that incident, and there was a heap of documents to prove that. As it now is, the article is tendentious by ommission, in that it gives one reason, but is silent on another. It is then best to reintroduce that stuff in a purely chronological matter, without the use of any potentially misleading conjunctions such as "in order to". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just saw that there is a serius search for other reliable data on Menzies, so as to not interrupt that process, I am going to undo reinstating the previous material for the moment. If this material, however, cannot be found, the biographical section should be restored, as they comply to all relevant WP guidelines on living persons. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see the need to be private investigators to find out damaging personal information on this person. On the other hand, as I said before, discredit his ideas as much as you want. Borock (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly not specifically looking for negative material, merely trying to fill out a reasonably complete and well-balanced biography. David Underdown (talk) 12:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem then. He does not seem to be so notable beyond the attention his book has attracted. I would vote for a merge of the two articles under either name, it does not make much difference. Also putting information on the sequel, or whatever it is, into the merged article should not be a problem. Borock (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well-balanced does not mean that we leave out half of the biographical data. It is btw three articles 1421: The Year China Discovered the World, 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance and Gavin Menzies. Doesn't an article of its own for each book/pamphlet not amount in itself to agenda pushing? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As a rule, when a title precedes a name, it takes a capital. If we write Admiral William Fallon, why are we writing "admiral" Zheng He?

Why is there a palinesque focus on Columbus and the Americas when the book attempts to map out Adm. Zheng's worldwide reach?

If we have five footnotes to support the assertion that his case is "nonsense", why are there none at all to support said case?

Of what relevance is it to note that he rammed his submarine into a US vessel???

Why discredit the man by stipulating he doesn't speak Chinese?

Why discredit him because "earlier editions" said he was born in China but only lived there since an early age?

Why does it say he "claims" he sails the routes of Magellan and whoever, given that (1) he spent at least 11 years at sea out of 27 served in the Royal Navy and(2) said navy is one of only three in the world that projects power worldwide?

Are we qualify his submarine as "diesel" as a subtle way of implying he wasn't quite good enough to command a nuclear equivalent?

If we mention his wife, why are we leaving out his two daughters?

Finally, who here has read either book?

I read there is a separate entry for his book 1421. After this entry, I fear to read it but it should certainly be merged. His book 1434, also published by Bantam/Random House/Transworld, deserves inclusion and treatment as well.

--Arthur Borges (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Where to from here?
AS User:Gun Powder Ma has pointed out, there are essenitally three article we need to consider: this one; 1421: The Year China Discovered the World; and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance.

Now, I've managed to avoid reading either book so far, so I have no real opinion on their worth, and only came to this article becasue of the posts on various noticeboards about sourcing.

Now it seems to me that the reactino and media coverage makes each notable in it's own right, their are plenty of third party reliable sources out there. User:Borock has said "He does not seem to be so notable beyond the attention his book has attracted": but surely that's true of virtually all authors, as authors they are notable because of the books they haev written, and the attention those have received? Menzies himself claims that the experience he gained as a naval officer has helped him to reach his conclusions, so it certainly seems encyclopaedic to me to examine that career to some extent. In addition to the sources I've emntioned above, there's also a Times report of the graduation of his class from Britannia Royal Naval College, where all the members of his term are listed by initials and surname, his basic career can also be traced, as mentioned, through the Navy List and London Gazette (see where you can see the official notifications of his commissioniing, promotions and retirement). Having looked through the Lists again, there are actually some slight contradictions, the Spring 69 list actually has him down on HMS Neptune, the stone frigate associated with HMNB Clyde, Spring 70 then had him with HMS Resolution (as I recall, I forgot to write the details down, but I can check again easily enough) and then the Spring 71 (by which time he had retired) finally lists him on HMS Rorqual and says he was appointed to that ship in March 68! I note from the Royal Navy Submarine Museum website that the navy was switching to a computerised records system at this time (not without problems), which may explain matters. It seems to me that he actually had a pretty good career, you don't get selected to serve on the first British Polaris submarine, and then selected for The Perisher and command of a sub without being a pretty good officer. Perhaps the collision with Endurance did cast a pall over things, and I think we need to be careful how we present this, the information about the enquiry is essentially from a self-published source and we need to bear that in mind (if you search on The National Archives' website for "Rorqual" you will see that her log for the period is open to the public (i.e. unclassified) but it has not been published, and would also be a primary source. We then know he stood for election in 1970, and then nothing until his legal troubles in 1996.  User:Bencherlite may be able to dig out some more stuff on whether he actually practised as a barrister during this period (but he's on a wiki-break, so this may take a while), but without it we nalso need to be very careful how we present the stuff about vexatious litigation - at the moment there's no context to it at all.  Bencherlite has provided us with a better link to the transcript of the court's judgment than was previously in the article (web forums are not a good source). After that we again don't know a huge amount until publication of 1421. The article on that seems fairly well-developed, that on 1434 less so. As I say there's a reasonable case that both books are notable, as well as Menzies himself, certainly that on 1421 is already pretty long. It seems to me that individual criticisms of each book's thesis belong in the article on each book, more general criticisms of the author's methods in general probably belong in this article (provided they are sufficiently well-sourced of course). David Underdown (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You did an admirable research job, hats off for that, but what you propose seems to be basically what has been opposed by other editors so strongly, namely that we should keep all three articles and remove from this bio article all things which might tarnish his reputation even if they are factual (on the contentious assumption that just these bits happen to be inadequately sourced). Then we would have three articles on what most consider a crack-pot theory in what should be a self-respecting encyclopedia. I have followed the article for nearly two years, and I can easily see that this solution won't hold for long. Redaing through the other two talk pages, I believe that we should move this discussion to another place where all users can participate on the question of mergers. Let's be honest, we three or four users can't decide much here on our own. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ultimately WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable. If it can't be properly sourced, then it can't go in.  I forgot to say last night that I did find a brief contemporary Times report of the collision between Rorqual and Endurance (Menzies is not mentioned by name).  Rorqual seems to have had an eventful career,  (even before Menzies took command) whilst it was fitting out there was a fire in which two ratings were injured (one of whom later died) and in 1966 two ratings died after an explosion on board - so the collision was actually fairly minor in that there were no injuries on either vessel.  Like his theories or not (and they do seem extremely dubious), they have garnered a huge amount of attention, much of it driven by his opponenets.  Notability is largely driven by source availability, and there do seem to be plenty of sources on the books at least.  A centralised discussion perhaps would be best, but I'm not really sure what the best venue would be, a triple nomination at WP:AFD could be made, but runs the risk of being seen as WP:POINTy.  Since most of the discussion seems to be here, perhaps just add notes to the talkpages of the book pages to get more people involved, perhaps with some judicious trimming it would be possible to get it all into one article, in which case "Gavin Menzies" would probably be the best title in my view, and redirect the book titles here.  David Underdown (talk) 08:28, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP, WP:V and WP:RS are non-negotiable, but their interpretation certainly is, and I for one don't agree with your interpretation that the said pieces of information are not properly sourced. As for the other articles, you may just do that, adding notes to the talkpages of the book pages to point people here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was never clear why stuff sourced from here was removed with a comment on the source. And we can use primary sources, so long as we use them properly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)

Crackpot? The paperback edition of 1421 runs to 629 pages, with 351 endnotes. There's a whole period of his life where we know nothing about him? Um, my guess is that he was doing his homework for the two books. The second is just as fat. When you read the book, the level of detail is such that he went out to everywhere he mentions, saw the evidence, spoke to people and names the names. His theory may be bold and inconvenient to our worldview but to attack him as "one given to eccentric or lunatic notions" is sloppy labeling.

My own assessment of the book is that he's got a strong case. Obviously, it evaporates the cherished notions that Christianity discovered the world and gave birth to the Renaissance like a virgin mother. And he is doing so in an era where China's rise is generating enormous emotional insecurity in the West. China gave the world gunpowder, civil service exams, and even ketchup: we may well have to get used to the idea that it gave humanity its first maps of the world too. --Arthur Borges (talk) 20:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't help but ask what the length of the book (which he didn't write himself I hope you realise) is relevant? Ah, you think he did. Isn't that covered in the link here? []. He didn't go out and do all that research you assume he did. And he doesn't claim he did. Dougweller (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Menzies book "1421" should perhaps be considered as a 'scientific fantasy' rather than 'psuedohistory'(because the author uses aspects of nautical science and oceanography in a rather fantastic way to explain the achievements of the characters in the book.) If fifteenth century Chinese seafarers had been ordered to explore and survey large regions of the world it's beyond credibility that they would have undertaken the task in the daft ways which are described in the book. All the available evidence suggests that fifteenth century mariners were much more adept in their methods. The controversy surrounding Menzies and his publishers lies in their claim that the book is a factual account of an historic event supported by verifiable research and the author's experience. That is what is questionable.Norloch (talk) 20:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
I have been updating Royal Navy submarine commanders with Infoboxes. Gavin Menzies is in that category, and I have made him an Infobox which you can see Here. But because this page already has an Infobox, and he is known as an author as well as a submariner, I haven't edited it in. So, the question is, shall I edit it in? Or do you prefer the one he already has? Or? --Alchemist Jack (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Added Infobox. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 13:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The major problem with this article
It is set up to debunk Menzies and there is no reasonable attempt to summarise his theory. Talk about punching a man down before he has spoken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.115.184 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Menzies' theory could be summarised by saying that it is unecessarily complex and inept. His main premise - that fifteenth century Chinese seafarers could have, or would have, surveyed large parts of the world by drifting around on ocean currents - doesn't stand up to detailed examination. That would be bad seamanship and bad organisation. There is no historical evidence that Chinese mariners were incompetent in their methods. Norloch (talk) 10:11, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And in any case, this is a biography, not the appropriate place to discuss his books, their articles are the appropriate place for that. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Instead of being happy that Menzies crackpot theory is included in an encyclopedia which is outrageous enough (imagine an entry in the EB...), the guy even starts complaining. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This whole biased article on Gavin Menzies violates the official policy Biographies of living persons, that they must not be libelious against the person. It seems as if this small group of misfits vandals are trying all they can to discredit and destroy Gavin Menzies and his books! There is virtually no neutrality on these articles whatsoever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 01:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Burke's adage might well be paraphrased here. - The only thing necessary for hokum to flourish is for good folk to do nothing about it.Norloch (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

IP socking & pov editing
, 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)

Forthcoming book on Atlantis
An announcement here that a book is to be published next year revealing the 'truth' about Atlantis and its "trading empire that spanned from the Great Lakes in North America to Kerala in India." Now as this won't be published until August a year from now, I don't think it should be in the article. BUT -- the link says "Gavin Menzies will be presenting the book at the Royal Geographical Society on 16 April 2010" and we can use that when it occurs. A change from 'to the Royal Geographical Society' which was the false claim made when his first book was launched, he simply hires the venue, as can anyone. Dougweller (talk) 11:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh good grief, does the man's insanity know no limits? John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Merger?

 * Can't we just group all his pseudo-historical pamphlets into one single article? Just by opening up an article of its own for each of his fantasy stories, I feel, Wikipedia plays unwillingly his market agent. Not even Shakespeare has separate articles for each of his plays !!! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any other opinions from regular editors of these three articles on some kind of a general merger? If we were to merge these articles, it seems to me that the two books (1421 and 1434) should be merged into this article. ClovisPt (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The suggestion is certainly worth considering. There might be some difficulty with such a merger if Menzies ever did publish something which had genuine merit. I'll leave it to other editors to judge whether that is a likely possibility!Norloch (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So, for which merge should we go: Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
 * 2) 1421 & 1434 ?

I agree that 1421 and 1434 should be merged. They cover the same topic, it's just that he milked it to get another book out of his "research". 1434 should just be considered a follow-on.

As for this Atlantis book, maybe it should not have its own article. If one is created it could just have a redirect to this page with a brief mention of the book when it's published. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would suggest merging 1421 and 1434 to Menzies. Atlantis definitely shouldn't get its own article before publication, and probably not afterwards.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added merge templates to those articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I somehow did not think of this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Since the templates have added a week ago and it's been something like three weeks, since the idea has been floating here on talk page, allow me a brief vote count: Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * John Smith&#39;s (talk): 1421 & 1434
 * ClovisPt (talk): Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
 * SarekOfVulcan (talk): Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
 * Gun Powder Ma: Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434
 * Nickm57 (below): supports unspecified merger
 * Norloch (talk): "suggestion is certainly worth considering"
 * PericlesofAthens: at the least, 1421 & 1434, but would not object to merging with Menzies

Merge Gavin Menzies & 1421 & 1434. I think time will show his books are just a passing fad. The more books he publishes the more each one will be seen for what it is, so let's start combining them all here now. Joja lozzo  22:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with merging all three articles. I intend to contribute to the descriptions of the books; having a unified Menzies article will be more convenient. --Other Choices (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the merger, but I am afraid half of the contents got somehow lost in the process. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Merging doesn't mean to copy everything over. However, if there's more material you think belongs in this article, you can do into the history of the redirect and get it from there, like I did.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone think that this article would benefit from a paragraph on 1434? ClovisPt (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I believe so. If we're going to redirect the page to this article, we might as well include some summary of the work and responses to it by relevant scholars and academics.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 16:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just added a little section on 1434, which I believe is sufficient.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking care of that. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. I actually wrote the English Wiki article on the Chinese official Wang Zhen, so I am surprised indeed to find that Menzies is using his Nong Shu (農書) as some sort of holy grail book of knowledge scoured by everyone from Taccola to da Vinci. I'll let the serious scholars speak for themselves, but it's kind of hard not to share an opinion about this on the talk page: it's laughable! This in consideration that direct Chinese-European exchanges of scholarly knowledge did not occur until the hard work of Matteo Ricci, who visited the Ming court at the beginning of the 17th century. His work with the Chinese official Xu Guangqi paved the way for others like Johann Schreck, who, alongside Wang Zheng (王徵), published the Diagrams and explanations of the wonderful machines of the Far West. This is the real history of the beginning of direct Chinese-European scholarly exchanges, although Geoff Wade, in that Reuters article I just cited, does note that certain technologies were earlier transferred along the Silk Road between the Chinese and European spheres.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 18:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Pericles of Athens, the printing press and firearms were invented in China and then transfered to Europe along the Silk Road. Don't even try to dispute this fact because you KNOW it's true!!!

This merging is actually a deletion of the previous two articles masquerading as a so-called "merger." UNACCEPTABLE! --71.68.249.69 (talk)


 * ??? The spread of the formula for gunpowder, along with the use of the very earliest gunpowder weapons is one thing, but the printing press proper is another matter entirely. I've seen that you were trying to use Joseph Needham's work to support your claims (without an inline citation I might add). I actually own his very extensive works, and am quite familiar with the early movable type printing process as pioneered by the 11th-century Chinese craftsman Bi Sheng; perhaps you've even seen my work at Shen Kuo about this very same topic. If you were familiar with both the Song-era Chinese movable type invention and the European movable type printing press as developed by Johannes Gutenberg in the 15th century, you would certainly be aware that Gutenberg's method was very different from the Chinese, especially with its use of the screw press; the screw was not used in ancient or even Middle-Imperial China until introduced by European travelers in the 17th century. It seems that, despite the presence of Europeans in Medieval China, including Marco Polo, the technology of movable type was not directly transferred, although woodblock printing, a Chinese innovation of the 9th century AD (and perhaps earlier in the 7th century), is somewhat debatable. In either case, none of this has anything to do with Zheng He or the Ming treasure fleet sailing into the Mediterranean and docking along the shores of the Italian peninsula. Please, let's stay focused on the article and discuss this someplace else. Thank you.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The thing that concerns me about the merger is that 90% of the material in 1421 article has been removed. What is left is an unsatisfactory article. Let me take one point: the only thing the current section says about the writing style of the book is that it is "informally written". True in itself, but the presentation of the book is as a scholarly work, complete with copious references, notes and acknowledgements. For example, there are plenty of valid references to the documented life of Zheng He. It's only when you look carefully you realise that these stop dead when he gets to the meat of the book: the voyages beyond the Indian Ocean. Another issue is that the work of the publishers in rewriting the book has presented Menzies as a far more coherent and polished writer than he evidently is.

When I read the book I was taken in by it, and it was only after reading the Wiki article and contacting one or two scholars that I was able to see why it was such an elaborate fantasy and make a few additions to the article. I think we owe it to Wiki readers to restore a proper discussion of the book so that they can see for themselves why the academic opinion of the book is as it is. It's part of a blurring of fact and fiction in our world which is very lucrative for those concerned. Chris55 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the retention/removal of material, I am willing to go by whatever the community thinks best, but I remember clearly that only several months ago, there have been a number of editors busy for while with expanding the analysis section of 1421. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"unanimously discounted by professional historians"
This is my first post at wikipedia, so please bear with me as I progress up the learning curve for communicating on this site. The claim that Menzies has been "unanimously discounted by professional historians" flies in the face of Menzies' account of of his 2002 participation as keynote speaker at the biennial conferences of two Associations of Zheng He Studies in Nanjing and Kunming, China. According to his account, Menzies was treated with the greatest respect by a large number of professional historians who accepted his central thesis (providing abundant corroborative evidence) that Zheng He's fleets did indeed explore and map the world in the 1420s. This is summarized on pages 475-79 of the 2008 reissue of his book 1421.

In addition, the Chinese Heritage Newsletter acknowledges that Menzies is "exhaustively cited in Chinese popular writings." See footnote 3 at http://www.chinaheritagenewsletter.org/articles.php?searchterm=002_zhenghe.inc&issue=002

It seems to me that either Menzies totally fabricated his account of his Chinese scholarly reception (which I don't believe for a minute -- the guy's reputation would have been instantly demolished by his many detractors) or the claim that Menzies has been "universally discounted by professional historians" is horribly ignorant and should be changed quickly.

Other Choices (talk) 11:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Other Choices


 * Erich von Däniken is thrice as popular, has sold ten times as many books and probably appeared fifty times as much as keynote speaker. Do we therefore remove the category "pseudohistory"? Perhaps the two cranks can confer on their newest hypotheses on Atlantis. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Gun Powder Ma, for your witty response. I take it that you accept my point that Menzies is not "unanimously" discounted by professional historians. Before I edit that phrase, I would like to share my proposed language, for feedback from you and anyone else who is interested. I think we should say something like, "Menzies' work is routinely discounted by English-speaking professional historians, but his work is popular in China, where he has been enthusiastically received by professional historians." Other Choices (talk) 02:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Given Menzies willingness to fabricate and bend the truth in most other parts of the book there is little reason we should believe his version of his reception at the Chinese conferences. We need independent evidence. I recall his mention of presenting the book at the Royal Geographical Society but not including the fact that he simply hired the room. There was also the conference he convinced someone at the Smithsonian to organize which was well into the planning stages before it was discovered that his work had no professional support. He may have been able to pull off in China what he failed to do in the US. His being cited in the popular press has no bearing on his reception in professional circles. Joja lozzo  02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I too remember his claim that he had presented to the RGS. Not just 'at'. There is no way we can include such a comment without reliable sources, see WP:RS, and certainly not from the subject himself no matter who he is. Dougweller (talk) 07:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * From my experience, Menzies is viewed at least as critically by people in China than in English-speaking world. But anyway, it's only one world, so why should we promote two truthes on it? I guess people who find Menzies' hypotheses fascinating have to live up to the same expectations we have for every hypothesis: evidence, logical reasoning, rationality and intellectual honesty – all of which is demonstrably absent from Menzies' book. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My thanks for the replies. This whole situation has gotten me very curious...  Clearly, my immediate task is to try to find some independent Chinese corroboration for Gavin Menzies' four-page description of his 2002 visit to the Chinese scholarly conferences.  Gun Powder Ma, regarding your statement about evidence, logical reasoning, and intellectual honesty:  I have found plenty of well-respected scholarly literature that is much less than perfect in that regard.  It's generally not an all-or-nothing deal, although of course sometimes the blatant propaganda factor of a work overwhelms any intellectual merit.  My assessment is that Menzies is not in that extreme category, although I recognize that he is capable of stretching specific arguments beyond the available evidence.  However, I think it is undeniable that he and his many collaborators have amassed a considerable body of evidence that supports his general theses. Other Choices (talk) 10:37, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That they claim support his general theses, like supporters of Atlantis or UFOs. Often looking very scientific until it is closely scrutinised, and usually built on the flimsiest of evidence, sometimes even non-existent. Dougweller (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Amassing" is fine as long as each addition is based on more than conjecture. With Menzies' project so much of the evidence is either hearsay or inconclusive but presented as solid. This is most insidious and very difficult for the layperson to detect when such unsupported evidence is claimed to support the next glob of stuff added to the mass. When that happens (and it happens much of the time with Menzies and his crew) "amassing" gets quite ugly. Joja  lozzo  12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be honestly interested in GM's hypothesis, Other Choices. Drop me an email and I cand send you along Finlay, Robert (2004). "How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America". Journal of World History 15 (2). There you will find that there is not even a trace element of evidence in Menzies' thesis. What GM actually does is inventing a complete journey of Zheng He for which no record exists, and in which Menzies lets Zheng He discover the whole world west of the Cape of Good Hope in the span of just several months. It's comically absurd. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:47, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I dont claim to be an expert on Zheng He or in contact with many Chinese scholars. However, I visit China almost every year, and have yet to come across a Chinese History teacher who is impressed by Gavin Menzies, indeed most I have asked have never heard of him. Most Chinese academics do not support Menzies, of that there just isn't any doubt. The official (English language) voice from China is probably reflected in the recently constructed exhibitions on Zheng He in one of the Ming Tomb halls (at Changling? - I can't remember off hand). It seems to have been designed to educate english speaking tourists about Zheng He's real voyages and makes no mention of Menzies. The saddest dimension of Gavin Menzies books is that the amazing story of Zheng He and his real achievements is actually belittled. I support the merger idea too--Nickm57 (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I changed "unanimously" to "routinely," because many (if not most) professional historians have been publicly silent concerning Menzies' work, so it is impossible to know what they really think. Perhaps "routinely" isn't the best word -- I'm open to alternatives -- but I think "unanimously" is too strong. Other Choices (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "Routinely" works for me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Since there is no dispute among historians about Menzies claims, I propose we refer a "consensus among professional historians". Joja  lozzo  01:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" makes sense to me.--Other Choices (talk) 08:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Book on Atlantis and WP:CRYSTAL
This book, by Menzies and what he describes as his team, is not to be published until August 2011. In other words, it isn't written yet. The announcement received almost zero news coverage. Google News turns up only the announcement in booktrade.com. It isn't part of our role to publicise forthcoming books, and until this one is starts to be discussed extensively in reliable sources, mention of it doesn't belong in this article. We mustn't let ourselves get sucked into being part of anyone's PR machine. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The Links to the 1421 and 1434 articles have been deleted by vandals who are trying to suppress this information from public
The links to 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance have been deleted without any just cause. Those articles are entitled to be here on Wikipedia and must be restored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It doesn't appear to me that they have been deleted - they appear to have been merged with the Gavin Menzies article itself. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  22:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Those two articles have been redirected, meaning that they each link to a relevant section of this article. The content of those two articles has been merged into this article. These mergers did not include the entire content of each of those articles but rather involved two summaries. If you look at this article you can see that there are sections devoted to each book, about three or four paragraphs long - for the most part, these came directly from the merged articles. ClovisPt (talk) 22:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the articles have not been merged, that's a lie. The is no reason to merge two separate articles detailing two separate books into a biography page about Gavin Menzies. This page is his biography and not the actual pages relating to his books. If you wanted to do something ridiculous like this why don't you go merge all Harry Potter books with the biography page of the author J.K. Rowling. Using the Harry Potter articles as a model since these articles are well written, each different book has its' own page and article and that it has not been merged with the article of the author which is separate. Take a look at the pages here:


 * J.K. Rowling
 * Harry Potter
 * Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone
 * Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets
 * Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban
 * Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire
 * Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
 * Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
 * Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

The Gavin Menzies page should be a separate biography just like the page of J.K. Rowling, while the the articles for the books 1421 and 1434 should also have their own individual separate pages. This current episode of deletion and so-called merger just doesn't contribute to a good article.

Go read a different book about Ming Chinese naval explorations:

When China Ruled the Seas: Treasure Fleets of the Dragon Throne by Louise Levathes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Levathe's history is much more restrained than Menzies. It says little or nothing on the areas where Menzies makes the most absurd claims. Therefore it does little to support Menzies; whose claims were, and are, discredited.
 * We can find other sources which say there are statues on Easter Island, or that there's a particular arrangement of stones at Stonehenge - but it still doesn't make Erich von Daniken's books any less fictional.
 * bobrayner (talk) 02:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RFC regarding the recent merger
An RFC regarding the recent merger has been opened at Talk:1421:_The_Year_China_Discovered_the_World, in case anyone was unaware. ClovisPt (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SPA using at least 2 IP addresses and canvassing
and are clearly the same editor. Edits overlap so it isn't IP hopping. They have also been canvassing. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been staring at those two IP addresses for a while now. Aren't they, well, identical?  I don't see any other IPs currently active in this discussion.  Favonian (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing he means, who opened the RFC. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually no, it's something to do with the new UI changes. I found two contribution pages with different numbers of contributions and assumed they were different IPs, ie and . Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * is, however, the same as, just in case anyone didn't know. ClovisPt (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * And also seemingly the same as, , and - these have been inactive for a while, but a couple of them have been blocked before. ClovisPt (talk) 21:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

? Another IP from Columbia SC with a similar style... Joja lozzo  21:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Same editing style, same problems - edit warring, personal attacks, unhelpful edits to articles, etc. Hopefully a block will be quickly forthcoming. ClovisPt (talk) 19:45, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Now we have and her colleague "Dr." operating in striking similarity. These sock puppet schemes belie the legitimacy of 's neutrality campaign. Joja lozzo  14:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there administrative action that can/should be taken given the disruption occuring here due to and now ? It's not clear from the sock investigations that any action will be taken nor is it definitive (though implied?) that 68.156.95.225 is the master. Perhaps some editors with more authority and administrative savvy than I might chime in there regarding that process. Joja lozzo  22:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The accounts are blocked for sock-puppetry. The IP address hasn't been used for a week, let me know if it gets used again. Dougweller (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * has been active for the last week or so, earning a final warning today for something completely unrelated to this article. There may be more puppetry in that controversy involving  (also in SC but not near Columbia). Both IPs (as well as 71.68.249.69, same location as 71.68.249.98) have a penchant for edit warring and blanking their talk pages when they receive warnings.  Joja  lozzo  19:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality
Is the neutrality tag really necessary? Although there's been an IP editor very unhappy with the article, I haven't seen much other complaint about neutrality, and it's broadly in line with the sources... is there a consensus? bobrayner (talk) 19:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No tag: Neutrality is always a problem with articles about pseudo-academics and their work. 1) Most pseudo-academic work is original research and is notable only because mass market publishers can sell it. 2) Adherence to Wikipedia policy requires we state the nature of notable pseudo-work but be clear that it is not supported in the academic world. 3) Mass market consumers without academic background to evaluate the work may not agree with this policy and perceive our adherence to policy as a problem with neutrality. The neutrality tag reinforces this misperception. Joja  lozzo  21:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No tag, as long as all criticisms are cited to reliable sources.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No tag - Until someone can make a coherent argument as to why their should be one. I'm removing it for the moment, although I will return it if anyone would like to speak up in support of keeping the tag.  ClovisPt (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

*Support for Tag- It seems the article could be edited better to reflect a more neutral point of view. Thanks! :) VictorFlaushenstein (talk
 * Please offer some evidence of academic support for Menzies' theories before taking action. If there is a peer reviewed support we should reference it in the article but if there is none we should not imply that any exists. Without academic support there is no need for the neutrality tag. Joja  lozzo  20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not really a matter of providing scholarly support for his theories. The page has neutrality issues because not enough space is given for Menzies' own theories. Take for example the section on his book 1421, the second sentence of the first paragraph immediately begins trying to dismiss his research (as "speculation") before any of his own theories are presented. The second paragraph only mentions the people who are believed to have gone on the voyage with the eunuch Zheng He. Then it says "Menzies produces what he calls "indisputable evidence" that the Chinese ..." Where is a description of this evidence? A paragraph or two would not hurt. The rest of the section is devoted to presenting information from detractors. Look, I know the book is a bunch of bullocks, however, policy demands that both sides of the debate must be given adequate space. Until that information is provided, a neutrality tag is warranted.


 * And might I point out the fact that the first neutrality tag was deleted a mere 4 hours after it was put it is ridiculous. Just because the editor didn't discuss anything about it doesn't mean the deleter could not have invited the person to debate the matter on the article's talk page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, policy doesn't require "adequate space" -- how much space does "moon missions were filmed on a soundstage" get compared to Apollo 11, Apollo 12, etc.? If a debate is as lopsided as whether the Earth is flat or not, it doesn't need to be terribly-well-balanced -- or rather, the balance needs to be weighted toward reality. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag was placed there by an editor who had established a history of unsupported edits and unwillingness to engage in civil discussion here on the talk page. I supported immediate removal of the tag since that editor will not or cannot offer specific reasons for it. Joja  lozzo  02:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No tag, per Joja, Sarek and Clovis. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for Tag, but I would like to suggest two improvements that would cause me to withdraw support for the tag. First of all, remove the sentence at footnote #6, because it is well-documented that Menzies' work is a group effort, and Menzies' collaborators include Chinese people that obviously have command of the Chinese language.  Secondly, remove the extended quote from Robert Finley at footnote #17.  There are suitable references from Finlay immediately preceding, as well as other references to academic opposition to Menzies.  In my opinion, the extended Finlay quotation is overkill -- unbalanced and inappropriate for a wikipedia article.--Other Choices (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Be bold: I greatly appreciate those of you who are here participating constructively and pointing out specifically how we might improve this article. I'd encourage those who see ways to fix it to be bold and make changes, as long as they are not original research and have valid support. We don't need a tag or this discussion really if folks would make constructive contributions.  Joja  lozzo  02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to make the two deletions I mentioned above, and we'll just have to see if that is acceptable to people on both sides of this question. I originally started at wikipedia because I thought the Gavin Menzies article was biased, but my core interest is elsewhere, so I'm not going to get too upset either way. --Other Choices (talk) 05:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If neutrality is a problem (I do not see that so far), then I we need additions that improve neutrality not deletions. In my view most of the "negative" information about Menzies is well supported and should not be removed. If someone here feels that the article is unfairly biased then I encourage them to provide some supported balance. Joja  lozzo  23:16, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point in deleting these two points. Menzies' lack of command of Chinese has been explicitly pointed out by Ptak as a major drawback of his research, and to allude to some unknown "team" which must "include Chinese people that obviously have command of the Chinese language" is OR. The Finlay quote which has been part of the article for two years or so has been found inoffensive by many revamps in the past, so a removal would IMHO clearly need a major discussion with a vote. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that Menzies' lack of Chinese language skills is important in someone who purports to be a scholar of Chinese history and presents translations of Chinese documents without attributing those translations to anyone but himself. In general I don't see any point in sugar coating Menzies' lack of academic standing or his willingness to bend facts to fit his theories but if there is academic support for his work let's include it. Joja  lozzo  12:13, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I found a reference to limited Chinese support for Menzies and added it to the article. Perhaps "limited" isn't the correct word -- please feel free to improve it.
 * I don't see any support for Menzies here from an academic stand point: "We [the society] don't regard it as an historical book, but as a narrative one." It's basically saying that the mass appeal of Menzies books has helped the society's aims to promote Zheng He studies. It's a stretch to call that academic support. I don't think it deserves a quote in the main text, but perhaps in the references section. Joja  lozzo  12:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would agree with Jojalozzo - the New York Times article could perhaps be linked in the external links section, but I don't see what it adds to the article. If a Zheng He society won't accept the book as historical, how is that any kind of support? ClovisPt (talk) 18:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the extended Finlay quote, I think it is a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. If anybody disagrees with this, please say so here.--Other Choices (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no time at all for Gavin Menzies and his books. However, I think the Findlay quote is just too long for Wikipedia. The first two sentences are the key, possibly also the sentence beginning "The reasoning of 1421..." Nickm57 (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC) I should have added - my deeply felt opinion about Menzies is the reason I don't actively contribute to this topic.Nickm57 (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know how long quotes should be on Wikipedia, however, I've trimmed the quote down a little bit. I'm fine with the original wording if anyone wants to revert back to that, but maybe this way the point of the quote is more easily conveyed to the reader. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The trimming was done expertly, and has made some room for more rebuttals. It should not be given the impression that only Finlay severely critizices the hypothesis, other experts have also bothered to comment on it.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would there be a way of summing up the expertise of the authors of the recent quote your contributed to the article? I was thinking of something along the lines of "a group of Sinologists, historians, and nautical experts" but I'm not sure how that sounds. Any thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd find something along the lines "joint statement of a group of historians" absolutely ok, as long as the individual names appear in the footnote, as they in fact do now. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:52, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

*Support for Tag Dzien dobry everyone! This article is very biased toward anti-Menzie organization, it must be processed to be neutral based on principle of official Wikipedia policy. Thank you! Dziekuje Bardzo! Pozdrawiam, MagdalenaPudzianowski —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC).


 * 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. Dougweller (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No tag and spot on, Dougweller. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No tag. Neutrality issues shouldn't blur the distinction between talented amateur researchers - ( such as Michael Ventris, for example) and eccentric amateur researchers. Norloch (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No tag Per Dougweller.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, OK, I think we have consensus now. ;-)

I didn't expect many reactions! Thanks, all, for your sage comments. bobrayner (talk) 01:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

THE 1421 MAP
Not sure who to believe, if Menzies is Chinese illiterate, Geoff Wade is same or worst, an ignorant of Chinese history, how can he assert that Shang Di was a term brought on to China by European missionary or by Ricci? the term Shang Di had been in use in Chinese folklore and Taoism for millenia, he should have checked some Daoist literature, or even the chinese novel "Journey to the West" should have the term. Here is The "Jade Emperor’s Mind Seal Classic"-- A Translation of The Jade Emperor’s Mind Seal Classic by Stuart Alve Olson:

The Supreme Medicine has three distinctions: Ching [Essence], Qi [Vitality], and Shen [Spirit], Which are elusive and obscure.

Keep to non-being, yet hold on to being And perfection is yours in an instant.

When distant winds blend together, In one hundred days of spiritual work

And morning recitation to Shang Di,  < mentioned here, to mean the most hight Emperor who rules the heavens.

Then in one year will soar as an immortal.

The sages awaken through self-cultivation; Deep, profound, their practices require great effort.

Fulfilling vows illumines the Heavens.

Breathing nourishes youthfulness.

Departing from the Mysterious, entering the female. It appears to have perished, yet appears to exist. Unmovable, its origin is mysterious. .................. .................... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.215.202 (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the article is not clear. By my reading, Wade's journal article (which is referenced in the article and has a link so you can read it online here and make your own interpretation) says that Shang-di was borrowed to denote the Christian god by Jesuits in the 16th century from its then existing Chinese usage. I assume that before that there may have been others terms or no term for the Christian god in the Chinese language and until then Shang-di only meant "most high Emperor who rules the heavens".
 * (I moved this section to the bottom of the talk page since it is the custom to add onto the bottom so as to help with chronology. Also, please sign your talk page entries with ~ . Wiki technology will translate that into a signature like mine here.) Joja  lozzo  02:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

--- I see your point but in 1763 the time when the map was allegedly made or rather re-made, new words and place-names have been replaced and adapted as explained by the map maker himself. Ricci was dead for 150years, China was partly Christianized not entirely Christianized per se, the term might be popularized to mean the Christian's god but might not as popular as you'd like to think; at the least the Qing court and its members were not Christianized but more likely remained Buddhist/Daoist. At the time at least, most chinese wouldn't know that Christians had highjacked their chinese term of ShangDi to mean Abraham's god. Most chinese might still thought the Christians were worshipping the "most high Emperor" as prescribed in Daoist "the most high Emperor who rules the heaven" but not the Christian Monotheistic God-who also give manly decision to his adherent as what cities and people ought to be destroyed. Matteo Ricci had fooled the chinese of today that ShangDi means Abraham's god or the only god prescribed by the bible, but in the old day or Qing time, it might not necessarily meant Abraham's god only, it could meant the Daoist Supreme God who rules the Heavens also. If you know chinese, ShangDi just means "the Emperor [who sits and rules] up there," nohwere it says that the "Emperor up there" had converted to Christianity or had became Westernized. You have to understand that Ricci's life time strategy was to blend East and West, he was rejected by the chinese and failed miserably, he had to dress up as a mandarin to make people think he was a chinese, and would make use chinese term to mean his god; that way Christianity can be more receptive to the general chinese population. But in reality Abraham's god would be more ruthless than a heavenly emperor, without using a chinese term his religion just wouldn't sell in china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.221.60 (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Note: "talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles; they are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article." (see not a forum). This discussion appears to be original research and doesn't have a place here. Joja lozzo  02:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC) --- The veracity of the map should be done through scientific testing and not by words and speculation used by incompetent person such as Geoff Wade, as Wikipedia tends to employ his sourcing, what Mr. Geoff Wade suspects does not preclude that the 1418 map is fake. Thus Geoff Wade's references shouldn't be include in this article to describe the map, because it will be unscientific and speculation at best. Christianity had been procelytised in China for 200 years when the map was re-made, the word ShangDi was adopted to mean the Christian mono-god, but it does not preclude that the map is fake, but only reflects the changing hand of religions and events. There are more reasons that the map is genuine than not, for example, France in Europe area is indicated as "Frank" in two Chinese words on the 1418map whereas on Ricci's map it's pronounced as "France" in three Chinese characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.221.60 (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)


 * We can only use what we call 'reliable sources'. See WP:RS for our criteria. That doesn't mean that they are always correct, even the best authorities sometimes contradict each other. Wade qualifies. Please don't use this page for your own ideas. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you try to be fair, Mono-god or monotheism is not my sole idea, it's a religion or belief system Ricci tried to import to China. "ShangDi" is traditionally not designated to mean a mono-god, there were countless emperors in the history of China, any emperor or emperors could be canonized to be a ruler in heaven, it all depend on what sect one chose to believe in. Quite the contrary, for Shang-Di(Upper Emperor)to mean the Judeo-Christian Abrahamic god is exactly the Jesuits or the Chritians' idea, and that's what I tried to point out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.221.60 (talk) 17:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Removed unnecessary statement
I just removed the statement: "It has also been pointed out that he has no command of the Chinese language, which would prevent him from understanding original source material relevant to his thesis.[7]" and moved reference [7] to the others on the line before. ("...have received no support as of this writing.") Reason. This is an unnecessarily negative statement devoid of any significance. As a researcher/scholar of any rank and level can do significant work in any other language of their choice, not their own. In fact it may even be more likely that one get the correct (in this case ancient) translations from a secondary person, rather than after having taken a course in that language themselves. Jahibadkaret (talk) 09:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It is highly significant, especially if Menzies draws such a different conclusion from primary sources, compared to the rest of the historical community which includes people who understand those sources.
 * Sources are the cornerstone of history. If you don't understand what the sources say - or are dependent on somebody else to tell you what the sources say - that can have very serious effects.
 * bobrayner (talk) 10:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bobrayner. Since Menzies claims to base his hypothesis on his reading of relevant ancient Chinese literary sources and maps, the fact that he has no actual command of Chinese is pretty significant. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bobrayener: The text as it is written definitely violates NPOV. (Please, have a look at that if you have forgotten what that means.) The main reasons being: (1) Again, it is a very negative statement, devoid of significance, contrary to your opinion. What you are saying can be summarized by taking an analogous statement by saying that a musician cannot play music because he cannot read notes. Which is is obviously absurd, hopefully even to you. In addition there are several other statements throughout the article that would also violate NPOV under closer scrutiny. However, this was the first one which was so blatantly violating NPOV, even without inspecting the references. (2) Reference [7] is to another book (in German), written by other non-native Chinese speakers. How do you expect to backup that statement, using circular logic reasoning? Also since the book is in German, how do you expect the ENG Wikipedia readers to be able to verify those statements without an interpreter? (This would be great for the German Wikipedia version, but probably not the English.) In addition, the reference is to a mere 24 pages. Do I really need to read 24 pages in another book to understand that Menzies isn't a native (ancient) Chinese speaker/reader? (3) Several other references refers to various anti-1421 articles and blogs, e.g. ref. [9,19,23,25]. These definitely doesn't qualify as a professional article in any way, and should be removed as they violate other criteria. There are likely still others that I haven't checked yet. (4) Can you backup your own claim that Menzies draws such a different conclusion from primary sources, compared to the rest of the historical community which includes people who understand those sources.? Here you seem to say that Menzies is alone having these ideas, and that the entire historical community are native readers of Chinese! Which is interesting in it self, as if he was truly alone, there wouldn't be much of a controversy would it? The entire article is missing a substantial deal of neutrality including references to material supporting his ideas, which can be found in several places. In the light of this, I see no other explanation than that, you and several other article contributors are strongly biased against 1421 and thus violates NPOV along with several other criteria POL. Please remove sentence and blog references or rewrite/rephrase article. Or at least mark it as NPOV violating. Jahibadkaret (talk) 12:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your analogy fails. Menzies claims to made a great new interpretation of something that he does not understand. Other scholars do understand it. Let me correct your analogy; suppose a musician could not read sheet music but she claims to have found a remarkable new interpretation of a publication of Beethoven's 5th symphony. Musicologists familiar with Beethoven's work in general, and able to read this work in particular, disagree with her. Would you believe her?
 * History is based on sources. Menzies does not understand the sources. Experts in the field, who understand the sources, disagree with Menzies. Menzies' claims are incompatible with available evidence in multiple fields. I can only draw one conclusion from those points: that Menzies' work is the product of wishful thinking, severe confusion, or outright fiction (I don't really care which). If you can't see any reliable sources that agree with Menzies, there is a very simple explanation for this. Much simpler than bias and NPOV-violation.
 * As with history, encyclopaedia articles should be based on reliable sources. Not on personal conflict and insults. I am not happy that you accuse me and others of bias; please try to rein that in.
 * Personally, I can read German as well as English. If you are unable to read reference 7, I can only suggest that you try one of the twenty-four references. However, your inability to read one of the references does not mean that Menzies' bizarre claims are somehow correct.
 * Can you find any reliable sources that support Menzies' claims? Or any evidence that other sources are "violate NPOV" apart from the fact that they disagree with Menzies? Such contributions would be very welcome. If you could find some sources that support your position, that would be a good way forward.
 * bobrayner (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not making any claims on who's right or wrong here. I am only claiming that there is a definite bias in the article which have to be resolved. As your strong reaction is clearly showing, this is an article you should probably not be editing. Please, note that I just happened to check this article, with little interest in the general controversy of these authors, to find it very non-NPOV. As such I am marking this article as POV, until other top level editors can have a second look at its neutrality. Jahibadkaret (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * NPOV does not mean that the article is neutral, but that the article is presented from a neutral point of view, which is not quite the same thing. The nutshell says "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." What part of that, or any other specific part of our policy, is being violated? Are our science articles biased because they clearly are not 'neutral' towards, say, creationism? Dougweller (talk) 15:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I've raised this at WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I saw this at NPOVN, and after looking at the article, I don't see any issue here. The article is written well within the boundaries of WP:FRINGE, and 1421 is most definitely a fringe theory.  See also WP:FLAT.  The observation about Menzies' lack of fluency in Chinese is wholly relevant to his works, which claim to be novel scholarship of Chinese history.  The article would fail to be neutral if it did not point out that fact, given that it is sourced and of direct relevance to the credibility of Menzies' work. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the view that his complete lack of Chinese is relevant. Saying that it's "excessively negative" as a reason for removing it is in of itself POV. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The pertinent line (p. 12) runs: Menzies, ehemals Offizier der britischen Marine, also kein Wissenschaftler und auch nicht der chinesischen Sprache mächtig, stellt darin wagemutige Thesen auf, deren geschickte Präsentation an den Stil Erich von Dänikens und anderer erinnert. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This page have been clearly hijacked by a anti-1421 junta that I do not wish to waste more of my time with. I have now posted my final comment on WP:NPOVN and will leave this discussion in hope that I will find a neutral article about the author, and not an anti-1421-discussion-blog, in the future. Jahibadkaret (talk) 12:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Proof
More than once Gavin says he can't provide proof yet and his narrative is meant to facilitate discussion, spur investigations by others, and help uncover evidence from sources he may not know exist. The book 1421 whether accurate or not in any respect should be accepted as how one person interprets the data they have available to them. The more people who rationally discuss this topic the better, for every time it is discussed new questions are asked and must be answered either by the pro or con crowd.

For those who criticize Gavin's theories as reckless and irresponsible, yet can't disprove his theory, it must be asked whether there are other motivations behind such criticism. Academia is a place where people make and stake their personal and professional reputation on very strict cosmological interpretations of narrow data sets, and no professional academic, in any field, but especially history, likes an amateur assuming that the given wisdom from on high is anything less than flawless and divinely inspired. If Gavin Menzies is right in any part of his book and can eventually prove it, many professional historians are not only going to have to eat crow, but will find the work they have done over the years called into question, and they know it, so it is only natural they refute, attack, and downplay Menzie's work.

If proof based on hard evidence rather than just drawn conclusions that are well spelled out with the methodology of how they were arrived at is necessary going to be necessary, before a theory can be taken seriously, then it is time the bulk of historians give up their assertion of a historical Jesus. There is absolutely no proof of his existence, and obvious forgeries claiming it (i.e. Josephus) yet the bulk of historians, even those who are not Christians, non westerners, and non-believers believe there was a historical Jesus even if they don't believe in his divine nature. It is likely that even the historians criticizing Menzie for lack of proof, accept Historical Jesus with even less evidence than they are demanding of him. BradleyHart (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Historical theories are turned upside down frequently and usually with excitement in the academic community. Because Menzies has no basis for his theory, there is no reason for people to spend time looking into it. If Menzies wants to gain support for his ideas he has to convince people there's merit in them. He has been unable to convince anyone with a background in historical research that his ideas are anything but unfounded conjecture. Most of us lay readers, when we started his book, were excited and curious about how Menzies had constructed his theory and then were quite disappointed to discover that it was all empty claims. I think most critics are motivated by a desire to minimize the waste of time and money that result from fabrications such as Menzies'. Joja lozzo  06:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an inappropriate discussion. This page is to discuss the article, not argue about the subject. Can we please stop here? Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Upsets in historical theory are only welcomed by those who have no stake in the subject. Those whose personal and professional reputations are threatened by new revelations vehemently oppose anyone even discussing competing ideas. The question of why there is so much controversy is germane to the discussion of the article, as it is being attacked with religious fervor usually reserved only for heresy. Menzies can't prove anything as of yet and he says so. Why is he, the article, the book, and the theory itself being attacked so viciously for lack of physical proof when he says he can't provide it? Could it be that this is a novel idea no one else is yet ready to endorse, because anyone who does so knows they too will be attacked by the same people attacking Menzies for the same reasons? If you think critics, of anything, but especially academia are motivated by "a desire to minimize the waste of time and money that result from fabrications such as Menzies" then you have obviously never met an academic critic as they are motivated only by self interest and won't waste their time on anything that doesn't threaten their personal cosmological view of the world. If you are going to call it a fabrication rather than an outlandish theory, where is your proof? If you you going to demand he provide physical proof before presenting his theory, they same standard must be applied to your assertion.

As it stands he provides a well reasoned theory based soley on conjecture and never claiming he has the hard evidence. The critics who counter his claim in this article do so without providing a single shred of physical proof themselves that he is wrong. This calls into question the motivation for the claims against the 1421 Theory. This isn't an assertion that you should try and prove a negative, but rather a call for you to put up or shut up when you denounce a theory for lack of physical as fabrication and a pack of lies, yet provide no physical evidence for your claim. If all you are going to provide us with is conventionally held wisdom counters his theory, therefore it is a lie, you stand on very weak ground. Attacking the theory only because it is new and novel is simply petty. In respect to the article itself it is important to call the 1421 Theory a theory, even if you use a dozen pejoratives before the word theory, otherwise provide the same level of proof you require of Menzies when you call it a fabrication or fantasy.BradleyHart (talk) 12:20, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The purpose of this Wikipedia article is to represent what notable commentaries exist concerning Mr Menzies' suggestions, and present them in a way which balances the real world balance of opinion. It is not our job to judge who has or has not justified their claims - and definitely not our job to insist that commentators "put up or shut up". I don't know if anyone is actually claiming that Mr Menzies' ideas are actually fraudulent or "lies" rather than just unsupported by evidence - but if they are, then it is the job of Wikipedia to report that they are, provided it can be suitably sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Reference lacks of neutrality
I had deleted the second footnote: "The 1421 myth exposed" which point out to this site http://www.1421exposed.com/ Since the site has been set up only to refute Mr Menzies's theory, it lacks neutrality. The user: user:Boing! said Zebedee restored previous version claiming that the footnote has sound information. I still consider that this reference should be deleted.
 * I understand your point. However, Wikipedia's neutrality policy requires that an article be editorially neutral overall, not that every source be neutral. Providing we balance the article to reflect the real world balance of opinion, we can use both pro- and anti- sources to create it. And this source seems to be mainly a collection of other articles which themselves appear to be well written and well sourced, for example this one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If we couldn't use sources that were critical, we couldn't have an article that would meet our basic policies. The reference should stay. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you don’t understand my point. I am not criticizing the use of sources which may be critical, but the use of a source which has been created ad hoc to refute a theory jeopardizes precisely the editorial neutrality you claim Wikipedia is aimed to. For were the same theory published by a tierce party news organization they would be no problem.Hiphopmast3r (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So we couldn't use books or articles specifically written to criticise something? No, that's not the way we work. Dougweller (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it depends. Somebody started a brand new site "exposing" Freemasonry and then trotted over to Talk:Freemasonry to get it added, where it was rightly pointed out that personal websites that don't explain their author's credentials shouldn't be added to articles. 1421exposed.com, on the other hand, prominently lists its contributors' names and affiliations. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Too negative to be unbiased
I'm trying to find some intelligent, rationale fact-based disputations with some of Menzies' findings and barrels of evidence in the book, and even here all there is but attacks on the man's character and methods. . . There is quite a lot of evidence in the book - if he's wrong it should be possible to attack the evidence and not him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.74.20 (talk) 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many, many criticisms of his evidence. I don't understand why you can't find them. Dougweller (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not Wikipedia's role to support or refute Menzies' evidence. Our role is to present support and criticism from reliable sources. There are a number of sources listed in the article that you may find helpful in getting details on problems with Menzies' evidence reported by notable historians. I think you may have a point in that we should avoid reporting overmuch on criticism of Menzies' character. However, I disagree that we should avoid reporting criticism of his methods. His methods seem to be a major source of error in his findings and a cause of much confusion among his readers. Joja  lozzo  21:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that this article is too negative to be unbiased, and I think that the obvious bias in the article isn't going to help educate people who have read Menzies but not his critics. I think that part of this is because many  wikipedia editors on this page share the scholarly attitude of contempt for Menzies, in some cases without actually reading Menzies' books.  I think it is unfortunate that the old 1421 article's links to the wikipedia pages for the maps were not included in the merger.  I'd like to suggest that we bring them back.  Menzies' discussion of the various maps was, in my opinion, the most interesting part of 1421, and also the area where his authority arguably exceeds that of most of his critics, who only lightly touched this area or ignored it completely.--Other Choices (talk) 07:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You don't have to read the books to edit the article. Why? Because the article should be based on what reliable sources say about Menzies and his books and not based upon our own opinions based on having read his books. Dougweller (talk) 09:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that, except that it isn't relevant to my previous statement. My point was that an attitude of "me too" contempt on the part of an ignorant editor contributes to a bad article.  I've suggested bringing back the links to the old maps from the old 1421 page.  Do you have any objection to that?  --Other Choices (talk) 10:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What links specifically? And how are you going to use them? If you show the edit here that you would like to make, it would help people know what you want to do (and avert an early revert) so they can provide feedback. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe 'Other Choices' proposal for links to "1421" maps might be contentious, if the links were selective. To achieve some balance, it would be necessary to make reference also to the misleading maps which are included in the book. As examples, in the first edition (Bantam press) - the comparative maps of the Falkland Islands on page 122 (map 9) - and also the ocean current maps which show only a superficial representation of the actual currents. Norloch (talk) 22:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The heart and soul of 1421, which should be (but isn't) noted in the current article, is a number of old European maps showing areas of the world that European explorers supposedly hadn't been to yet. The whole thrust of 1421 is to provide an answer to the riddle of how this information got onto these old maps. Menzies' solution to this riddle is his fantasy of globe-trotting fleets of Chinese treasure ships on a map-making expedition in the year 1421. But the final third of his book also contains extensive analysis of these old European maps, which is all but ignored by the "professional" critics.

The old 1421 article, before it got eviscerated when merged with the current article, contained a section that consisted solely of links to the wikipedia articles concerning each and every old map that Menzies discussed. Of course the wikipedia articles contain links to images of the actual maps, so people could check out for themselves what the hell Menzies was talking about. Apart from anything Menzies said, this was a really cool resource, and I think it deserves to be part of the current article, together with a summary of Menzies' claims (with any scholarly refutation, of course) concerning especially the series of pre-Columbian Portuguese maps allegedly showing Puerto Rico and his fascinating theory about the Columbus map with its curious southward exaggerations of Africa and the Thai peninsula. It's all about the maps! --Other Choices (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think 'Other Choices' is being a little unfair to " professional critics ". Given the author's casual approach to sources, citations and references plus his rather eccentric views on basic navigation, seamanship and oceanography - it takes considerable time to separate the meagre facts from all the dross. Is the effort really going to be worthwhile in regard to an author who appears to believe the equator can move - or that it would've been feasible to navigate by Canopus in the overcast conditions of the Southern Ocean - or that magnetic variation can be 'eliminated' - etc. etc.? Perhaps there would be no real harm in restoring links to old maps and portolans but the 'negativity' in the article pertains to the quality of the work. Norloch (talk) 12:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a general comment: I haven't read the book, but I have read a lot of reviews and other commentary on the book - I had reason to want to find out about it before I came to this Wikipedia article. And the balance of opinion in academic and professional circles really does seem to me to be overwhelmingly negative. And if that's what reviewers/peers say, that's what this article should reflect. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that the article should reflect the overwhelming negativity of the scholarly reaction to this book. However, I think the article overdoes it, and the result is a slap in the face to people who first read the book uncritically and then come to wikipedia to learn more.  Furthermore, the reviewers (and the article) don't mention Menzies' extensive discussion of the pre-Columbian Iberian maps that allegedly show Puerto Rico, and his discussion of the Columbus map.  (As time permits, I will prepare brief descriptions and post them in a new section on the talk page  for other editors' consideration.)  Furthermore, Menzies gives extensive discussion to the (long-standing) general claim of Chinese contact and cultural influence in western Mexico.  When dismissing the "1421 hypothesis," the academic reviewers generally skip over this part of the book, which deserves mention in the article.  Here's a negative review of Menzies' book that actually discusses the Chinese in Mexico: The Chinese in Pre-Columbian Mexico
 * To make the article less negative, I have the following suggestions:
 * 1) In the lede, change "Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious" to "Menzies' theories about Chinese sea voyages are dismissed as fictitious." The reason for this is that, as far as I have seen, no reviewer has dismissed his theories about the Columbus map and the Portuguese maps as fictitious, so this qualification seems to be in order.
 * 2) Move the statement about Menzies' lack of command of Chinese from the lede to the 1434 section, because specific Chinese documents are important to 1434 but not 1421.
 * 3) Either explain or delete the bald statement about Menzies being a "vexatious litigant." As it currently stands, it just seems mean-spirited.  The linked court document in the footnote tells part of Menzies' side of the story; it seems fair to briefly summarize the situation in the article.
 * 4) Revise the phrase "scholarly failings" in regard to the Tan Ta Sen quote. Perhaps "scholarly insufficiency" fits the spirit of the quote better.
 * 5) It seems to me that the Finlay quote is simply overkill, and Finlay's statement that "Chinese information never reached Prince Henry and Columbus" is illogical: Just because Menzies failed to prove this point doesn't mean that it's necessarily false.  The appearance of this illogical statement in the article makes it appear that wikipedia editors are stupid and biased.  Furthermore, Finlay's review failed to discuss Menzies' claims about the Portuguese maps and the Columbus map (other than, if I remember correctly, a snide remark about Menzies turning Columbus into a thief).  Perhaps he thought these didn't qualify as "central claims," and perhaps he didn't consider Menzies' discussion of the evidence for pre-Columbian Chinese contact with Mexico to qualify as even a "shred" of proof.  Finlay's hyperbolic language is incompatible with any pretense of neutrality.  Finlay's review is already mentioned as a citation; I think the quote should be removed.
 * 6) Remove the statement about Menzies' propensity for making claims of dramatic evidence from the 1421 section because, even if it is true, it has nothing to do with the book.
 * 7) And, of course, add back the section with all the links to the various maps mentioned in 1421.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your link about the Chinese in Mexico reflects the views of a scholar writing almost a century ago. Such views weren't that unusual then. Now they are unusual in academia - does Mike Xu say anything about Menzies? We could use that if he does. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the most effective way to reduce the negativity in the article would be a comprehensive re-write of the books which eliminated all the errors, misleading claims and unverifiable speculation. It really isn't the responsibility of readers, or academics, or critics to be neutral, or to grant the author some extra leeway, solely on the basis that there are speculative notions in a book which make it interestingly controversial. It's the author's responsibility to make sure everything is watertight. When a book is full of holes - it sinks. Norloch (talk) 15:39, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If the article appears "negative", it is no its fault but Menzies' who presents such historical fantasies without a shred of proof. The article merely reflects that and is thus neutral. Personally, I hope that he soon publishes his revolutionary findings on the global trade empire of Atlantis, so that the cranks move on. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added numbers to my suggestions to improve the article (see above) for ease of reference. So far nobody has disagreed with any specific suggestion, although Gun Powder Ma's comment could be taken as a disagreement with #5. I am going to move slowly and carefully as I make changes to the article; I am still waiting for more feedback from other editors. --Other Choices (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I strongly disagree with every single of your proposals, not only with #5. The article as it now stands is the result of a long continuing discussion among many users and changes should aim at improving it, not just trying to move tids and bids around or delete them altogether in what seems to me an effort to polish up Menzies's hypothesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest slowing down. Perhaps start a section for each proposal. Joja  lozzo  16:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Starting to implement them when you clearly don't have agreement from anyone was not a good idea. I thought we were still having a discussion, Norloch's response not only doesn't show agreement but to me shows disagreement, Gun Powder Ma has made his feelings clear and now another editor has asked you to slow down. I agree, start a new section for each proposal, wait until there is consensus. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's fine. Sometimes silence implies consent, but it looks like I was too hasty.  I will introduce separate sections for each of my proposals.  Regarding Gun Powder Ma's impression about my motivation:  I don't think that Menzies' hypotheses of (1) an imperially mandated Chinese global exploration in 1421, and (2) a visit to Europe by Chinese junks in 1434, are viable, and I don't think that they are supported by any but the most tenuous shreds of evidence.  Unfortuantely, the critics (such as Robert Finlay, for example) focus on these "easy pickings," paying little attention to other elements in Menzies' books that are arguably better-researched and perhaps worth mentioning in the article.  Gun Powder Ma seems to be offended by what he regards as Menzies' intellectual dishonesty, and I have no objection to that type of view being strongly represented in the article.  However, it seems to me that this general attitude of scholarly outrage against Menzies strongly colors the article right now.  When I was first reading 1421, I was inclined to suspend disbelief and enjoy the story as I waited expectantly to get to his key evidence about the voyages (which, of course, never arrived).  Then I got to the part about the Newport Tower and said, "uh, wait a minute," and came here to wikipedia to check a few things, and so I became an editor.  A few of the editors on this page are familiar with how I handled myself in the controversy on the Newport Tower page last spring; I think it should be clear that I am not a Menzies partisan.  I realize that Menzies promo guys show up here from time to time and try to change the article.  Of course this annoys and frustrates the regular editors, which can be another source of anti-Menzies bias if we're not careful.
 * --Other Choices (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious"
A sentence in the lede currently reads, "In the community of professional historians Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious..."

I propose that this be changed to "In the community of professional historians Menzies' theories about Chinese ocean voyages are dismissed as fictitious..."

The reason for this is because Menzies' books contain other theories that, as far as I have seen, are not addressed by professional historians. I have in mind three such areas in 1421:

1) Menzies' extended discussion of different types of evidence for Chinese presence and cultural influence in western Mexico, apart from his "1421 hypothesis."

2) Menzies' theory that "Atilia" on pre-Columbian European maps refers to Puerto Rico.

3) Menzies' theory that the Columbus brothers "stole" and tampered with a map in order to bamboozle the Spanish monarchs into believing that a westward voyage to the Orient was more practical than an eastward voyage.

Does anybody know of published scholarly dismissal of these three theories? If so, then obviously this proposed change is not in order.

--Other Choices (talk) 03:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If the non-voyage theories are not disputed that doesn't mean they are supported. Unless we can find such support for one or two of his theories, how about: "In the community of professional historians Menzies' theories have received no support and are often generally dismissed as fictitious..." Joja lozzo  05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

To 'Open Choices' ; If I've understood your proposal correctly - you're suggesting that, although Menzies' main theory lacks credibility, some of the 'evidence' he uses to support  that main theory could have relevance to something. ( for the moment I'm not sure what that something might be.) If you judge that Menzies has done some original research and has discovered compelling evidence that would give us a better understanding of some historical event - then by all means check the primary sources and list your findings on this page for discussion. (However, I think it would be essential to make the clear distinction between "theory", "evidence" and speculative "guessing", before modifying the article.  We already have numerous guesses about puzzling features on ancient maps and portolans - Hapgood and Von Daniken  speculated about ancient civilisations, or extra-terrestial visitations. Menzies' narrow guess  is that those features could only be the result of an improbable worldwide survey by 15th. century Chinese fleets. We've also been blessed with several nebulous theories about Columbus acquiring amazing maps before his first voyage.)   Interesting stuff for the credulous but, without the hard evidence, maybe not so useful for developing a better understanding of history. Norloch (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jojalozzo's suggestion about rewording the phrase makes sense to me. Regarding Norloch's post, I'm going to post one-at-a-time regarding the three areas I mentioned at the beginning of this section (so my posts don't get too long), proposing that some of this material be mentioned in the article.  Regarding the general theory of Chinese cultural influence in Mexico and elsewhere, Menzies devotes Chapter 10 to this subject.  Here's a quote from pages 267 and 273:

A mountain of evidence -- wrecks, blood groups, architecture, painting, customs, linguistics, clothes, technology, artifacts, dye-stuffs, plants and animals transferred between China and South America -- points to a pervasive Chinese influence the length of the Pacific coast of Central and South America, and inland. So broad and deep is the influence that one may almost call the continent of that era 'Chinese America.'... To my amazement, I discovered that there were more than a thousand books providing overwhelming evidence of pre-Columbian Chinese journeys to the Americas. This literature has even been summarized in a two-volume bibliography.
 * For this last statement, Menzies cites J.L. Sorenson and M.H. Raish, Pre-Columbian Contact with the Americas across the Oceans: An Annotated Bibliography, 1990. In his footnotes he also mentions George F. Carter, "Fusang: Chinese Contact with America," in Anthropological Journal of Canada, 14, no. 1, 1976; and the less scholarly Gods from the Far East: How the Chinese Discovered America by Henriette Mertz, 1972.  --Other Choices (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt any of those references suggest Zheng He's expedition contributed to those cross-Pacific encounters. Unless they do, they are just more "mountains" of B.S. with respect to Menzies' theories and don't have anything to contribute to this article. Joja  lozzo  02:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you are right about those references not saying anything about Zheng He. There is a related question of how much the article should say about the contents of the books.  I'm going to save that one for later.  Moving on to my second area:  Menzies devotes Chapter 17 of 1421 to his solution to the riddle of Antillia, the legendary "island of the seven cities," which appears on the 1428 Pizzigano map and on a number of other pre-Columbian charts (listed on page 626 of 1421 in note 5).  The names of the "seven cities" on these maps varied considerably, and Menzies devotes much of the chapter to a description of his efforts to decode the meanings of these names.  Then, as he writes on pages 408:
 * "I checked the names against a modern map of Puerto Rico and within half an hour I had found the solution: the names were not of the seven cities but descriptions of natural and man-made features, and the descriptions on the 1448-89 charts put it beyond argument that Antilia was Puerto Rico. Mountains, rain-forests, harbours, rivers and salt-pans were described on Antilia exactly where they are found on Puerto Rico."
 * Menzies then goes on to offer an explanation of why "Antilia" was depicted on these maps in the Atlantic Ocean, not the Caribbean Sea. As far as I can tell, no academic critic has challenged Menzie's identification of Antillia with Puerto Rico, which seems to be an impressive piece of well-documented detective work.  Of course with Menzies, things are not always as they appear.  Perhaps Gun Powder Ma can share his thoughts on this one, and maybe we should consider adding a summary to the Antillia article. --Other Choices (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * To "Open Choices" - The following is offered as an analogy. If you were to check a modern Atlas, you'd see that the cities of St.Petersburg, Cairo, Entebbe and Durban are all "aligned". They are,  near enough, all on the same meridian about thirty degrees East.  In addition, each of those  four cities is separated from the next in line, by thirty degrees of latitude.   As well as that, St. Petersburg is thirty degrees from the North Pole and Cairo is positioned thirty degrees from the equator. It all sounds quite intriguing - as long as you don't examine the data too closely.  Despite that "evidence" of symmetry, it's unlikely that many of us would try to deduce any historical or cartographical significance from the coincidence. In reality, none of it is particularly remarkable - you'd be surprised at the number of world cities that can be linked together, by plotting them along the same loxodromic curve on a map. Obviously, the results  depend on your personal criteria for precision and your own selectivity with regard to what defines a "city".  - The point in all of this, is that many improbable things can be deduced from maps if you're so inclined.  It's really quite easy if your analysis is superficial and you choose to ignore any data that conflicts with your "theory".   Returning to the specifics of  "1421";  - At the risk of losing the will to live, I've trudged, again, through chapter 17 - using all the objectivity that I can muster. What I still see, there, is a large amount of speculation linked to much the same kind of superficial methodology that I've  noted above. Norloch (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's all keep in mind that our job is not to verify or discuss Menzies' theories. (I know I am not the model editor for this but I am trying.) Our job is to find reliable sources that support or point out errors in those theories. If there is no reliable support nor criticism for claims in Menzies' books then there is little we can add to the article about them. Furthermore, please remember that these talk pages are for discussing the article not its subject. Joja  lozzo  21:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * In this section, my focus is on the article's sweeping claim that "Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious," which I think needs to be qualified. In chapter 18 of 1421, online at, Menzies presents his theory that the Columbus brothers stole and tampered with Portuguese maps and data, resulting in the deliberately inaccurate 1489 Martellus map that decieved the Spanish monarchs into thinking that sailing west to China was more viable than sailing east.  My point is that here we have one more Menzies theory that (to my knowledge) has not been condemned in the academic community.  --Other Choices (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree we need to take care with generalizations. As I understand it the statement we have now implies that all of Menzies theories have been reviewed and found wanting by professional historians but some of his theories have not been reviewed and we do not know how they have been received by reliable experts. How about: "When Menzies' theories have received attention in the community of professional historians they have been dismissed as unfounded."?  Joja  lozzo  03:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to lose sleep over the following, but I'm going to mention a quote from p. 232 of Finlay's review where he parenthetically summarizes Menzies' portrayal of Columbus as "a thief and a fraud" without any commentary. Of course the tone throughout Finlay's review is dismissive, but Finlay does make a point of noticing Menzies' Columbus theory without overtly dismissing it as unfounded.  For that reason, your suggestion might not be completely accurate, but I think it's better than the current statement.  --Other Choices (talk) 11:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "When Menzies' theories have received attention in the community of professional historians they have been dismissed as unfounded or addressed with sarcasm and ridicule."? Joja  lozzo  14:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see any problem with the current wording. We should be careful not to lose sight of the wood for the trees. Menzies' theories are that 1. Chinese fleets sailed past the Cape of Good Hope to the Americas (1421: The Year China Discovered the World) and 2. later to Europe (1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance). These two theories have been dismissed as fictitious. The maps and all that, this is only ancillary to the subject, intended as supporting evidence which we do not need to refute or refer to point by point in the lead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think Other Choices' point is that Menzies has many minor theories and conjectures that have not received any attention. Thus the proposal to amend what we have now to clarify that it applies only to the two theories concerning the expeditions. Joja  lozzo  15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understood just as much and I believe we don't need to give room to these pieces and bits in the lead. As you may remember, before the merge, there has been such a detailed point by point discussion of minor theses included in the article for an extended time period. It was finally removed altogether last year and AFAIK no one really objected to it. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do recall that and I appreciate your reminder about the forest and the trees. Yet it seems reasonable to amend what we have to say something like "...Menzies' theories concerning early fifteenth century Chinese expeditions..." Joja  lozzo  19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright with me. I do envision people though sooner or later requesting yet another addition "...Menzies' theories concerning early fifteenth century Chinese expeditions beyond the Cape of Good Hope to the Americas and Europe... I think we are wasting our time with such oversensitiveness for secondary details, the average reader is not stupid, he is very much capable of grasping a concise "Menzies' theories" and relating it to the ocean voyages. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You probably think I'm either an idiot or neurotic, maybe both, but I really like your version. It says what it means without being overly verbose. Joja  lozzo  21:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You must joking, right. I never thought about you that way. :-) Just happen to think that the average reader knows how to put an introductory statement into the wider context. But, hey, whatever, I am fine with all three versions, you two decide which one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also like GPM's phrase, "...Menzies' theories concerning early fifteenth century Chinese expeditions beyond the Cape of Good Hope to the Americas and Europe..."


 * Regarding the merger last year, I strongly objected to the removal of content, which was done without discussion, let alone consensus. I wrote at the time, "A consensus to merge was NOT a consensus to mutilate the content of the articles discussing the books." --Other Choices (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I am fine with the phrase, "...Menzies' theories concerning early fifteenth century Chinese expeditions..." without further detail.--Other Choices (talk) 06:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On a second thought: Why don't we just write "In the community of professional historians these theories are dismissed as fictitious." Now it is a bit awkward with the text recurring three times in three consecutive sentences to the same set of hypotheses. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, so I went ahead and changed it. If anyone thinks that was too hasty, then please go ahead and revert.  Other Choices (talk) 10:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Map image displayed twice
Let's have one image with a short caption that is neutral. Joja lozzo  18:57, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nicely done, except that I wonder if the image of the map wouldn't be slightly more useful if placed in the "Map" section. Thoughts? ClovisPt (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the map image should be placed in the "Map" section, not in the "1421" section, because 1421 never mentions this particular map.--Other Choices (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

"scholarly failings"
I don't think that "scholarly failings" is an accurate summary of Tan Ta Sen's comment about Menzies. In my opinion, insufficient evidence for a hypothesis isn't a "scholarly failing." The quote clearly implies that there is SOME evidence for Menzies' hypothesis. In addition, Tan Ta Sen's quote seems to be supportive of Menzies, which doesn't fit the critical phrase "scholarly failings." I propose that the phrase "scholarly failings" be deleted. --Other Choices (talk) 00:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You think that it implies some evidence, but "insufficient" can mean almost as much as is required or so little as to mean it's worthless. In any event, the part of the article you are referring to is not quoting him. It is referring to the book's scholarly failings, as evidenced by the comment that (according to TTS) more evidence is needed. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 01:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "More evidence is needed" refers to a lack of evidence, not to a defect in scholarship.--Other Choices (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Insufficient evidence shows a lack of scholarship. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all; insufficient evidence simply means that a hypothesis hasn't been proven. By itself, it is not a "scholarly failing."  One does not have to prove a hypothesis to advance it in the community of ideas.--Other Choices (talk) 22:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

claims of "dramatic forthcoming evidence"
At the end of the 1421 section there is the statement that "Wade also pointed out Menzies had a propensity for making claims of dramatic, forthcoming evidence that never arrived"  The citation seems to be defective; what is "Wade 2007"? Furthermore, this claim, even if true, is irrelevent to the book 1421, so it shouldn't be in this section. Furthermore, WP:BLP says that wikipedia articles shouldn't serve to spread scraps of derogatory information. I think this sentence should be deleted. --Other Choices (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That ref got dropped from the external criticism section somewhere along the way. I replaced it from an old version. That source does refer to the 1421 book so is probably in the right place. The statement you are questioning looks like a summary of the first paragraph of the introduction. Joja  lozzo  03:18, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You restored the link to the "external links" section, but not to footnote 15 (first appearing in the box under the image of the map), which currently has a dead hyper-link to the Wade article. I'll try to fix that  myself (I'm not very tech-savvy) if nobody else does.  But beyond that, the source (Wade) simply doesn't support the article's later statement that also cites footnote 15 .  Wade never claims or implies that Menzies has a "propensity for making claims of dramatic, forthcoming evidence that never arrived."  That sentence has no basis in fact, so I deleted it.--Other Choices (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Wade's criticism is much more scathing than that when he criticizes Menzies for fabricating evidence. To maintain WP:NPOV I have introduced this criticism from a WP:RS. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wade's tone is also scolarly, unlike Finlay's hyperbolic vitriol, which in my opinion has no place in an encyclopedia.Other Choices (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Other Choices. No offense intended but I'm wondering whether you've read either of Professor Finlay's articles - one from (2008) on Zheng He's voyages and the other (2004) on Menzies? If not I highly recommend them. I think part of the problem with WP articles about fringe theorists like Menzies is that there is always a tension between acknowledging the fringe theory (by writing about it in the first place) and providing adequate opposing view/s to balance it from reliable sources. In my view, the Finlay quote serves this balance function and while scathing, is not illogical or exaggerated. Nickm57 (talk) 11:09, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Finlay has written several peer-reviewed articles on Zheng He and his explorations since the 1990s. All this qualifies him to speak expertedly about Menzies' hypothesis. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have read Finlay's 1992 article comparing Portuguese and Chinese imperialism, and his review of Menzies' 1421. Finlay clearly is familiar with the general era of maritime exploration in which Menzies' books are set, which qualifies him to speak knowledgeably about important aspects of Menzies' books.  Finlay's review in general is witty and clever, even if a bit "over the top"; and its criticism of the circular reasoning embedded in Menzie's expounding of his central "1421 hypothesis" is well-taken, even if Finlay's peroration overstated.  I will elaborate further on my objection to the article's Finlay quote (from the overstated peroration) in the section above.--Other Choices (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

the Finlay quote is illogical
It seems to me that the Finlay quote is simply overkill, and Finlay's statement that "Chinese information never reached Prince Henry and Columbus" is illogical: Just because Menzies failed to prove this point doesn't mean that it's necessarily false. Furthermore, Finlay's hyperbolic language is incompatible with any pretense of neutrality. Finlay's review is already mentioned as a citation; I think the quote should be removed.--Other Choices (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I can't agree with you at all on this. It's certainly not illogical, as it's clearly a criticism within a context, appearing after the introductory sentence - "Within the academic world, the book (and Menzies "1421 hypothesis") is dismissed by sinologists and professional historians." Do any historians suggest that Chinese information DID reach Prince Henry or Columbus ? I'm in favour of more professional historians views in WP, not fewer- so if any do actively support this contention, including them might possibly improve the article. Nickm57 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Finlay is the only professional historians who bothered to refute Menzies' hypothesis in a peer-reviewed journal and his quotes have already been curtailed in the past. I agree with Nickm57 that we should rather think of giving him more instead of less space in the article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Finlay is probably worth expanding on, not reducing. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In striving for neutrality we need to present the professional community's disdain without bias. Playing down the intensity of the criticism introduces POV. Joja  lozzo  11:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree with keeping Finlay. ( P.S. Is there a corresponding appellation for the term "vexatious litigant" - within the WP framework ? ) regards Norloch (talk) 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm astonished that other editors fail to see the illogic of the Finlay quote in the article. Finlay essentially states the following:  "Menzies fails to prove A; therefore A is false."  A logical statement, by contrast, would be:  "Menzies fails to prove A; therefore A might be false."  (Finlay's reasoning would seem to be the same as the reasoning used by the Catholic Church in condemning Galileo's hypothesis that the Earth moved.  Galileo got his supporting evidence wrong, even if later science proved his basic thesis to be correct.  In the case of Menzies, solid evidence may eventually emerge of transfer of knowledge from China to proto-Renaissance Europe by means other than what Menzies proposed.)  Furthermore, Finlay's statement that Menzies' reasoning is "inexorably" circular is a gross exaggeration and therefore unscholarly.  This particular statement goes hand in glove with Finlay's failure to address Menzies' three significant arguments which I have already mentioned in the "Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious" section (see above).  Perhaps, in Finlay's defense, it can be argued that this statement about Menzies' inexorable circularity was made in the context of Finlay's limiting his argument to Menzies' central "1421 hypothesis."  Even if this defense is accepted, such an explanation isn't clear to the article's average reader who doesn't have access to the "History Cooperative" website (hosting Finlay's article) and therefore has no way of examining the full argument in Finlay's article.  For that reason, the Finlay quote, as it now stands in the article, is not only illogical but also misleading and should be removed.  Perhaps a suitable solution would be to summarize Finlay's basic argument about Menzies' circular reasoning, avoiding the pitfalls associated with including the direct quote.--Other Choices (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything wrong with Finlay's verdict of Menzies reasoning being circular as Menzies does presuppose what he needs to prove. This is the general structure of his argument and he does it all the time. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "therefore" in Finlay's statement. He is simply stating two things: (a) Menzies is reckless (b) he is wrong. If he used a therefore in some fashion I'd agree with your criticism but he doesn't. And whatever the interpretation of the maps might be doesn't excuse his invention of a fictitious narrative sending the Chinese ships to quarters of the globe for which the only evidence is that "there's something we don't understand so it must be the Chinese". Chris55 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma: Menzies does NOT use circular reasoning all the time; as I mentioned earlier, I gave three specific examples where Menzies doesn't use circular reasoning, which you continue to ignore. If you care to dispute my claim that Menzies does NOT use circular reasoning in these examples, then please state your case.
 * Not sure about the exact semantics but "all the time" doesn't necessarily imply circular reasoning in each and every case, does it? But Menzies does it most of the time and as much in details as in the general thrust of his argument. Therefore, I don't see any more need to shield Menzies from Finlay's criticism than I would see the need to defend Erich von Daeniken just because he got two or three facts right. It's the larger picture what counts and even if Menzies happened to get two or three premises right, he is still terribly wrong on the large majority of them, so it is very logical to say that his whole argument is flawed. Finlay is WP:reliable, he is unbiased and he nicely sums up the flaws in Menzies' reasoning. I am for strong keep. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Chris55: Finlay's "therefore" is implied in the combination of his use of the word "vitiate" and the bald statement that "Chinese information never reached Prince Henry and Columbus." Finlay states that Menzies failed to prove his claims, paired (using a colon) with an explicit denial of specific claims.  I suppose one could argue that Finlay is not being illogical here, but rather reckless in his denial.  In either case, I think that the quote is inappropriate, and a paraphrase is better.--Other Choices (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

We shouldn't be discussing whether or not Menzies uses circular reasoning or whether Finlay is illogical. That's original research and irrelevant to the article unless we are using reliable sources making the claims. Use the quote, that avoids original research. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. Editors are not robots, and we don't simply follow cut-and-dried rules for writing articles.  Deciding whether to paraphrase or use a quote involves questions of style, balance, and neutrality.  Applying the "OR" criterion to such a decision process seems to be illogical.  To disagree with my point is different from saying that I shouldn't bring it up.--Other Choices (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't resist...1859...
Sorry, couldn't resist but this vital contribution, of the utmost importance for an enlightened, progressive and open-minded understanding of American history as it really happened, is still bringing a smile to my face...lol. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, that's so funny. That guy deserves a prize! John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol. Here, let me try one. 1789: The Year a Mysterious Chinese Taoist Hermit Stormed the Bastille and Ignited the French Revolution. Eh, not as good, but I gave it a shot. I just need to channel the ghost of George Carlin, or someone of equal comedic stature.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 12:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Fictional, Conspiracy category
Is there any fictional tag available to classify the book? It's clearly crackpot, unfounded, material as he was clearly illiterate of the matters he claims to be studying... Parts of the article actually look like book-selling material, which seems to be what this guy's all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.152.105.102 (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything fictitious about his book thus no need of such tag, it's far from a sci-fi book; new data are pouring in everyday. The existence of a 1428 world map is very real, showing the Caribbean and Americas with the rest of the world. His book reveals more things than any academia can give you today. Think of the bible got translated into English from Latin, over the struggle thousands were burnt in stake just because people refused to let "the blind leading the blind." So by all means go form your own independent research; I first was jealous of Menzie's new found wealth, but then found out he also has big overheads, he has to pay for a large staff of researchers, there is nothing sci-fi about it. Archeology in china now have dug up writings in stones in Hong Bao 's tomb mentioning places that "few of the people of the Middle Kingdom had been before, locating on the other edge of the sky..."

The main wikipedia article needs to explore more on Fu-San(California) and Australia, these places are still visible on the 1602 map of Matteo Ricci's, a lot of chinese villages and cities names were preserved, the huge bulge on the 1602 map above california is Fu-San, even mal-intention missionary like Matteo Ricci changed the wordings it still reads Fou-San-na, the "Nah" ending in Italian proves that it was a sovereign state, populated with Chinese villages, because many names are still in Chinese-names in original Chinese characters, preserved on the 1602 map. Matteo Ricci was admitted into the Royal Ming Palace and lived there to research on maps with the Ming Emperor's approval. The original location of Fu-San is the whole of California, but as Baja South California was mapped by Europeans, Fu-San got bumped up a little bit, shown on the Ricci's map as a huge bulge, this bulge was the California bulge originally. It(Fu-San) still includes North California on the Ricci map.

Over-skeptical and critical on a book is good but make sure it's not because of jealousy instead of based on fact. Over the centuries, Western powers have destroyed countless civilizations,including their writing and pertinent data when they landed on new places, the ruthless in destruction is also the very fact. The trend was to destroy, not to construct or re-construct, nor give any appreciation of anything foreign to them, this trend has to change. A voice is needed for the minority, Wikipeida is controled mainly by White people thus conforms to the majority and the powerful thus it also needs a lot of changes. Main article should contains links to more maps that show the world in various kinds of maps so readers can search for clues for themself. 75.60.187.20 (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Observer.
 * Hi. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to research anything, or explore anything new, or offer any original analysis or thinking at all. The purpose is to echo the balance of what independent reliable sources say about a topic. So if you can find such independent reliable sources supporting your reasoning, then it can be added to the article - you should discuss the sources here on the Talk page first to get consensus. But without such sources, I'm afraid your reasoning cannot be used. (Oh, and Wikipedia editors come in all sorts of colors - I was talking to some brown ones recently - but that is utterly irrelevant). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The main article features just TOO MUCH negativities, they need to be lessened, they are opinions based on autorities who are either still ignorant about the subject or not keeping up with the subject matter, forming their own opinion, you are using just too much of their citations and criticism on Menzies, they are not fact either but just opinions, so why do you keep using their opinions? is it an obcession to post something when someone write some paper?. When someone post something on their website or write some paper doesn't mean they are credible SOURCES at all, they are purely opinions. clearly there needs to be removal of incompetent sources. The real facts and true sources are readily searchable on Wikipedia itself, like the Matteo Ricci's 1602 map, it's availabe to everyone, one can look it up and read the writings on wood print, it is the closest to writings carved on stone!; Ricci even wrote on the map that "sea route and relationship with china had been established since the Papal legation first formed contact with China(Yuan Dynasty), the original map is made 70 yeas after that(which coincides with Zheng He's time)." So the Ricci map is a "re-work" of a original Zheng He map. The Ricci map, its place names and map picture and all is on Wikipedia; "a picture worths a thousand words" so they say.

People have ulterior motive to blindly attacking his book. Menzies' critics prohibit and discourage independent research.

Who put wordings like "North America", "South America", "Small Venice" on Americas, and words like "Magellanica". A lot of names were add on and made up later on by Westerners and missionary, those names were not present on the original Chinese maps. A chronological of events can readily be traced, it's all available on Wikipedia. A lot of facts are on maps, that's what Wikipedia is for- Free access of information for everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.187.20 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, it's not up to us to decide what is "not enough", "too much", or "enough" positivity or negativity, and we really can't make any progress with lengthy "It's all so unfair" diatribes like this asking all sorts of questions and offering all sorts of analysis. What I think you should do if you think some of the sources should not be used is pick one and explain on this page why you think so - start a section below about just one source that you think is problematic - and see what consensus you can get. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, if you think there is academic work that is omitted, just pick one and present the sources that we would need in order to include it - but remember, it must include no original research or synthesis of our own. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and one last point. Other people's opinions are *exactly* what Wikipedia is supposed to use, and we should not use our own analysis from primary sources themselves, like maps. We need secondary sources, as explained at WP:RS. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The section immediately needs removal is that of Geoff Wade see here:

[On the map the American continent is labeled "Jin Ming Bei Yamolijia" (今名北亞墨利加, "Now named Northern Yamolijia"). This translation was unknown in Ming Dynasty, and is known to be a borrowing from the West.[citation needed] Geoff Wade of the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore has strongly disputed the authenticity of the map and has suggested that it is either an 18th or 21st-century fake. Wade has pointed out a number of anachronisms that appear in the map and its text annotations. For example, in the text next to Eastern Europe, which has been translated as "People here mostly believe in God and their religion is called 'Jing' (景, referring to Nestorianism)", Wade notes that the Chinese word for the Christian God is given as "Shang-di" (上帝), which is a usage that was first borrowed from Chinese medieval text by Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci in the 16th century.[15]]

His writings is purely diatribe confusing the readers, since the map is a re-work of the 1418 map of course it can contain all the words and terminology available in the Qing dynasty which was in 1763 as the contextual year as when the map was re-made. so Geoff Wades' complaint is fabrication and irrelevant. In 1763, a map maker could use wordings like "Now the place is called/changed-to North America" to clarify that the naming has changed, no conflict there. The map maker can also use "Shang-Di", the use of Shang Di is wide spread in Qing period to mean Christian God, there should be no conflict there, all consistent with the 1763 period parlance, when the map was indicated as re-made, but with newer namings.

Secondly: [Also mentioned is the depiction of the erroneous Island of California, a mistake commonly repeated in European maps from the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries.]--this is totally not true, au contraire, a good, authentic map should have Fu-San as California and "island-like" depiction. In original chinese map, the ink brush stroke could be so heavy, thick and in blue to delineate Fu-San as a sovereign state that Europeans map makers/map-copiers mistakenly read it as an island.

Thirdly: the refusal to test the ink on the map is very reasonable, because it was and remains a collector's item, passed through and safeguarded by several collectors, each one collector added their own personal seal, shop-seal and personal writing of authentication and so forth, all of this is not condusive to the test, so the carbon dating of paper would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.187.20 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As Wikipedia editors we don't get to decide what would be sufficient testing for a map or why one interpretation of a source document is more valid than another. Our job is to report the findings of reliable experts. These discussions of the validity or lack of validity of evidence don't help us and are do not belong on this talk page. This talk page is for discussing the article and how it can be improved. Discussions of the evidence for and against Menzies' theories belong on other web sites. Joja  lozzo  03:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yep, I agree - the above is original analysis of a source, which is not something we can do here. If anyone can find a good source that challenges Mr Wade in those terms, we could include reference to that - but what we cannot do is apply our own judgment of the validity of any of the sources or take issue with their arguments. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wade's journal article says that Shang-di was borrowed to denote the Christian god by Jesuits in the 16th century from its then existing Chinese usage." --- Don't you see that Wade's article has no contribution what so ever to your main article? he made a non-issue into an issue which is confusing to the readers, the readers would thing that you are encouraging people to think that the map is fake, thus Menzies' theory must be fake, thus not worth further study. The term "Shang-Di" was to meant God attributed to Matteo Ricci who coined the term to mean God in Chinese, assuming that's true. so what? it doesn't mean the map is fake! it only means it was the correct parlance in the Qing dynasty in 1763, every Chinese in that period were using it, until this day in fact, Shang-Di means God in Chinese, so what?. But Goeff Wade using his bogus logic, saying that using the term "Shang-Di" on the map, the map must be fake! isn't that ridiculous? His argument is ofcourse nonsense, his nonsense runs for an untire page in the main article, it should be removed. Because it's NOT SCIENTIFIC NOR LOGICAL argument- his ramblings are unfounded and total nonsense, don't you see that?. In the contrary, using "Shang-Di" only proves it was the correct parlance in the period, thus proving the map is rather genuine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.187.20 (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Geoof Wades goes on to say: "(今名北亞墨利加, "Now named Northern Yamolijia"). This translation was unknown in Ming Dynasty, and is known to be a borrowing from the West" --- It's now clear that Mr. Wades is a very confused, He didn't even know that Matteo Ricci landed in China almost one hundred years before Ming Dynasty's end. That section and related photo picture needs to be removed also. I suggest the picture should be replaced with a blow up picture on Europe area, reason is France is not named France on the map nor Franza(like Ricci would use on his 1602 map)but "Frank", only two charaters!, a rare find, a rather antiquated name of Frank is used, also in Europe area a couple place names are in Mongolian language phonetically rather than in Chinese! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.60.187.20 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

It does not appear that the role of editors in this project is being understood or accepted by some of us. I propose we stop fueling the discussion. Joja lozzo  16:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Analogy is like to say Andy Warhol can not put CocaCola bottles in his famous paintings because Coca Cola did not exist at the time, that is of course bogus. The name ShangDi existed to mean God in 1763, but it didn't mean the Imperial court knew about it, because Emperor just didn't have any contact with outsiders, they have to be educated or re-educated by courtiers, Ming maps were rare as they were either destroyed or hidden away from the Qing Court. the 1418 map was presented like a geography lesson in picture showing the changes in countries names and religious practice in various regions-to the Emperor.


 * Whether or not the editor's criticism of Wade's criticism of the Liu Gang map is on point, there is the additional issue of the space devoted to debunking the Liu Gang map in the article. As it stands, the article doesn't say anything about what Menzies says about the map, aside from a misleading, unsourced throwaway comment.  Shouldn't this map have an article of its own? --Other Choices (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

"vexatious litigant"
The article now states: "In 1996 Menzies was declared a vexatious litigant by HM Courts Service which prohibits him from taking legal action in England and Wales without prior judicial permission." I propose that this sentence be amended to read something like this: "In 1996 Menzies was declared a vexatious litigant by HM Courts Service in a legal action stemming from Menzies' status as the major creditor in a corporate bankruptcy.  This ruling prohibits him from taking legal action in England and Wales without prior judicial permission." --Other Choices (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not - although I happen to believe the longer the text elaborates on his status as VL, the more detrimental it will actually be for his reputation. I am eager to know what others think. But we need a WP:Reliable source stating that he was in fact the major creditor and that this case and only this case was what prompted him to sue all the world. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * More importantly, even with a source we need to indicate why he became a vexatious litigant. I doubt he was made a v.l. simply because he was a creditor. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My source is the court document in footnote #14, which clearly shows that the "vexatious litigant" ruling stemmed solely from the the Ayala Holdings bankruptcy, of which Menzies was the major creditor. Of course inclusion of this material, per WP:BLP, depends on whether the recently-added footnote 12 (which I have not seen) actually mentions this court document.  In response to John Smith's, the court document doesn't clearly answer the question of "why," other than the obvious statement that Menzies was trying to get his money back.  I think that trying to answer "why" would be OR.  In light of WP:BLP's admonition that the article "must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy," I would favor total removal of the reference to Menzies as a vexatious litigant, because "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives." --Other Choices (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As I work my way through WP:BLP for the first time, I notice the following at WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." The more I think about it, the more I think that the article's "vexatious litigant" reference violates the spirit and possibly the letter of the WP:BLP policy.  Could other editors please comment.--Other Choices (talk) 22:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This bit about the VL had been actually for quite a while removed, since only primary sources were cited then. Now that, however, has changed after the The Pacific Review was added and thus the requierement of a secondary source was met. Now in my view there is nothing to say against also including the link to the hmcourts-service.gov.uk, since the identification of GM in this document is supported by the secondary source. It may be debatable though whether the less official http://bbs.omnitalk.org/alumni/messages/28843.html should remain or be removed. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the policy is clear in that it refers to "assertions", i.e. things that might be difficult to prove or otherwise be matters of opinion. It is a fact that he is a vexatious litigant. The judgment would also be a matter of public record in explaining that. However, I think the point is moot because it's on a forum. I would say, delete that citation but leave the other two. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I feel that this subject provides useful information for readers. The precise circumstances of the cases and judgements aren't relevant but the years involved in the proceeding are notable. It raises the question of how the author also found the time and resources to engage in thorough research and evidence gathering for the manuscript of his first book. Norloch (talk) 14:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A better source for the Judgment is Attorney-General v Menzies [1996] EWHC Admin 157. This is a primary source but BAILII is semi-official. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The list of vexatious litigants is clearly barred under WP:BLPPRIMARY and should be removed. The court decision itself is controversial as a source. I have personally argued that court decisions are more like secondary sources because the judge evaluates the evidence, but this is not a universally accepted view. Also, if a court decision is used it should be referenced to an official source as someone else mentioned, not a blog. I could not evaluate the Pacific Review reference because it is offline. Offline references are acceptable if it otherwise is WP:RS and confirms the vexatious litigant status. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * - note - BLPN Gavin Menzies - Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a little concerned about the Pacific Review citation. While the publication itself is probably RS, the use of an offline source to support a contentious assertion about a living individual bothers me here. Since the article is not (judging by the title) about vexatious litigation, it is important to evaluate it to determine 1. that it makes the assertion and 2. that the assertion is not sourced to this Wikipedia article and therefore circular. A Google search on "Pacific Review Menzies" turns up only mirrors of and cites to our biography. Jonathanwallace (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Johnathon there, also I don't think this should be in the article - http://bbs.omnitalk.org/alumni/messages/28843.html imo it s not reliable and looks like a chat post or cut any copy alumni/message and imo shouldn't be used to support anything either. Off2riorob (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is from, so we can source it. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

@OtherChoices: I think deleting the sentence was premature. I don't see any proposals for deleting the whole sentence here or on the BLP board, just suggestions that we delete some of the citations. I propose it be put back with just the http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/vexatious_litigant/index.htm#m and/or http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1996/157.html refs. the Pacific Review citation:Goodman, David S. G. (2006): "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History", The Pacific Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 359–384 (371f.) http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757572630~frm=titlelink. Joja lozzo  14:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Doug as I understand it, this http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/1996/157.html looks like the type of primary legal document that we are not supposed to use to support any content. Off2riorob (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Has this fact been reported in any secondary WP:RS ? Off2riorob (talk) 14:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * note - if this factiod is removed from here it should also be removed from Vexatious litigant - where it has also been added using the same sourcing. Personally if he was a notable V-lit I would have expected it to be quite widely reported in wiki reliable secondary sources. Off2riorob (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * To correct a couple of misunderstandings. 1. The assertion he is a vexatious litigant SHOULD be deleted unless we can source it to a reliable secondary source. 2. The only possibly reliable source anyone has cited so far is Pacific Review, which is behind a paywall. While this does not automatically put it out of bounds, as a matter of common sense we should not source contentious statements about living people to articles none of us have seen. I am somewhat skeptical that an article of that title (""Mao and The Da Vinci Code") supports the statement he is a vexatious litigant, unless its a throwaway statement possibly sourced right back here to Wikipedia, which would again make it useless. So I am voting that the whole business come out unless someone can personally confirm Pacific Review or find another source. Jonathanwallace (talk) 16:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. It is reliably sourced, The Pacific Review is reliable. I'll provide the reference later this day, but I am a bit surprised how people who concede not having read the journal can come to the conclusion it isn't. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The second thing is, Jonathanwallace, half a year ago you argued let's remove the bit altogether because there is no reliable secondary source. I agreed then. But now the situation is different: the Pacific Review, as a WP:RS, also supports the official primary source of the Royal Courts, since the identification of "Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies as our Rowan Gavin Paton Menzies is now proven beyond any reasonable doubt. To talk in terms of WP guidelines this is the one which I think applies most: Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BLPPRIMARY#Misuse_of_primary_sources. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Also - if the only place you can find it is in this off-line single source, then wikipedia would become the primary vehicle for this controversial content about a living person which is also an issue as regards WP:BLP. Off2riorob (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * BLP asks for NPOV, V and NOR, The Pacific Review is NPOV, V and NOR. For your contention that one WP:RS is not enough, I'd like to see some basis in the guidelines. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * - note - I removed him from here, Vexatious litigation as with this level of sourcing he clearly is not a notable  Vex lit. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this the reference you are presenting to support this content ? http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a757572630~frm=titlelink] ? Off2riorob (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Gunpowder--do you have the article? What does it say (can you quote the relevant wording)? What source does it get the information from? I am not arguing it is not RS, but before it is used to support a contentious statement, someone has to verify it. Jonathanwallace (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Pacific Review and the HMCS List of vexatious litigants
Here it is: Goodman, David S. G. (2006): "Mao and The Da Vinci Code: Conspiracy, Narrative and History", The Pacific Review, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 359–384 (371f.):
 * Menzies is (also) a qualified barrister but became so mired in litigation during the 1990s that the British legal system designated him as a ‘vexatious litigant’, essentially stopping him from issuing further writs against anyone (including opponents to the narrative of 1421) at least in that country.(7)
 * Footnote 7 links to: HMCS List of vexatious litigants

Now BLPPRIMARY explicitly stipulates that where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. In our case, the "primary-source material" discussed by The Pacific Review, our "reliable secondary source", is the HMCS List of vexatious litigants which has been linked to in the WP article until today. Hence, it is perfectly clear that WP guidelines require us to reinstate the HMCS link, with no ifs and buts. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how may be acceptable can be interpreted to require us...no ifs ands buts. Please explain. Joja  lozzo  02:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah. Perhaps your joke went over my head? Sorry, I have to lighten up. Joja  lozzo  03:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not anal about keeping the link to HMCS List of vexatious litigants, but given that Goodman himself cites it, I fail to see why we shouldn't. Wouldn't it be absurd to refer to a reliable secondary source but refrain deliberately from taking the next logical step and cite its primary source when it is available online to all of us? As a primary source, the HMCS is as solid, neutral and reliable as any. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied now we have verified the Pacific Review source. I would still be in favor of deleting the list, which contains the names of numerous other non-notable people, many of whom are presumably still living, and doesn't really add anything to the article beyond what Pacific Review established. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * We're not publishing the list, just referencing it. Joja  lozzo  12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am fine with keeping the HMCS ref. I was thrown off by your little joke.  Joja  lozzo  12:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

We seem to be missing the forest for the trees here. The Pacific Review article, as quoted by Gun Powder Ma, indicates that Menzies is a "qualified barrister." Why wasn't that added to the article? It seems like the "vexatious litigant" reference was selectively added as part of an effort to portray Menzies in as negative a light as possible. To quote the part of WP:BLP that I think is most relevant: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives "

--Other Choices (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The main thrust of the passage is clearly that GM is a VL. If you feel that his status as barrister also warrants inclusion, please discuss this with other editors, I am no expert in the English legal system. :-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Any more opinions on the restoration of the HMCS ref.? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again: Isn't it absurd to refer to a reliable secondary source but not cite the primary source it cites? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Balanced and sourced facts
I reworded the conclusive, but not accurate: "In the community of professional historians Menzies' theories are dismissed as fictitious and have received no support as of this writing" to the more balanced and sourced: "Although his research has earned Mr. Menzies to lecture at Harvard University, to become honorary professor of Yunnan University, in Southwest China, and even the Freedom of the city of Kunming, China (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3557568/Gavin-Menzies-mad-as-a-snake-or-a-visionary.html, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126593477531544685.html ) professional western historians dismisse his theories as fictitious and have received no support from them as of this writing."

The claim is awkward as there is no "one community of professional historians" as history's interpretation depends on political factors and as a matter of fact some chinese historians do support Mr Menzies claims, and at least one University granted him a professorship.

Although this individual user:Boing! said Zebedee reverted the change claiming that it needs more discussion when in fact, it is evident that the rewording could not be more neutral.

If there is someone above user:Boing! said Zebedee please examine her/his reverting habits as it seems to me that this individual doesn't take the time to analyse the content, by fear of change, which may endanger Wikipedia's quality improvement and discourage bona fides contributors.Hiphopmast3r (talk) 00:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Your proposed edit was biased and not NPOV. You were effectively saying "despite these reasons why Menzies is to be given respect, some people dismiss his works". At best you were introducing irrelevencies.
 * Perhaps you would be willing to name the Chinese historians who support his works and give us some sources that we can look into? Thanks. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This source says " Few Chinese scholars accept Gavin Menzies' claim " while acknowledging his popular appeal. And please read WP:AGF. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Still need to know who they are. "Chinese scholar" isn't defined. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hiphopmast3r: I'm actually already quite familiar with this article, its subject, and its sources, and I know a blatantly biased POV change when I see one. So instead of complaining about me, how about you stop trying to remove perfectly good sources from this article which contain plenty of scholarly material but which don't suit your own POV, and stop adding your own unsupported claims? When I reverted your change and asked you to discuss it here, I was acting perfectly properly. And the discussion here should be about your actual change and what sources support it, etc, not about me. Please have a read of WP:AGF before you start throwing any more accusations around -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * First of all, I repeat that you should check this individual's (Boing! said Zebedee) reverting habits, he states: 'I know a blatantly biased POV change when I see one' Such a comment is quite subjective, he continues and says: 'stop adding your own unsupported claims' the two 'claims' I added were sourced : Menzies being granted a professorship by the Yunnan University and the Freedom of the city of Kunming. Even if the source is a UK newspaper I assume it’s serious, right?
 * @John Smith&#39;s I think my proposed edit was NPOV, it meant, "despite these facts why Menzies is indeed given respect by a Chinese university, western scholars dismiss his works". This is not irrelevant as it show different receptions of his work, as I stated before history as a science depends on political factors.
 * @John Smith&#39;s This page of the Ship Museum of the Shanghai Jiao Tong University dedicated to Menzies' work resumes very well the views of Chinese scholars who support Menzies' work: Qio Xinbo Xiabon an expert of The Chinese Society of Histories of China’s Foreign Relations, supports Menzies' theory and explicitly ask the academic community to corroborate it: "他呼吁，中国的学术界应关注、帮助、推动孟席斯来完善他的学说". Another scholar, namely Mr. Song Zhenghai of the Institute for the History of Natural Sciences stated that “Menzies' work was serious and accurate." 孟席斯的研究是认真而有成效的. ". Also, a prominent member of The Chinese Society on Ming Dynasty History, Zhang Xianqing, stated that “Menzies' study should be taken seriously, and that his research method was commendable and earnest.”"中国明史学会会长张显清说："任何新的学术创造，都需要在学术探讨中得到新的印证和发现. 孟席斯研究郑和新发现的观点是值得重视的. 他对郑和研究的执着和科学求证的方法、态度，以及对中国人民的友好，令人敬佩！". These points of view and more by the elite of Chinese scholars can be found on this official website:
 * I hope that the individual who claims to have an expertise 'on this article, its subject, and its sources' could confirm what the mentioned page states in chinese.
 * Should all that evidence not suffice to add some balance to your Wikipedia Article, and counter its anti-scientific eurocentrism; there is also an article in Menzies' website which claims that among all the Chinese Scholars aware of Menzies' theories, 80% support them [] Dougweller stated before "So we couldn't use books or articles specifically written to criticise something? No, that's not the way we work." So, this article should also be accepted as evidence.
 * Let me finish by mentioning that following the publication of ‘1421’ by Mr. Menzies the Honk Kong Museum of History organized the lecture Series:"Sailing West: Admiral Zheng He's Voyages" among these one was conducted by a supporter of Menzies' theories, Dr Lau Chi-pang  "Zheng He's Voyages and the Discovery of the World”. http://www.lcsd.gov.hk/CE/Museum/History/en/lecture2.php Hiphopmast3r (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In an article in Sun2Surf (Malaysia) Menzies is quoted as saying he was "elected a visiting professor at Yunnan University" (my emphasis). Both his honorary professorship and the "freedom of the city" are political awards, not academic ones and should not be interpreted as academic approval for his ideas. We need to be careful not to buy into Menzies' self-aggrandizing POV. There is also evidence that many of the academics that Menzies claims support him are dead, unknown, or have not published support for his ideas. Nothing that Menzies claims may be taken at face value - it must all be independently sourced before we include it here. Joja lozzo  00:24, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * We certainly cannot use his website for these claims, we need to find the original ones. As for http://shipmuseum.sjtu.edu.cn/zhanping_zx.asp?zpid=7179, who wrote that page? What makes it a reliable source by our standards at WP:RS? Dougweller (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good find, Jojalozzo. We shouldn't take anything Menzies says at face value. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 08:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Hiphopmast3r: You really would be better off addressing the content issues rather than attacking me personally, you know. Anyway...
 * The "Menzies being granted a professorship by the Yunnan University and the Freedom of the city of Kunming" thing has been addressed by User:Jojalozzo, above - they do not amount to academic recognition for his claims.
 * I have no idea what that Chinese website says, but I think we'd need a neutral appraisal of it before we use it to make factual and/or academic claims. If it does indeed provide evidence of academic support from Chinese experts, then yes indeed, that should be mentioned in the article - I'd be very interested in what it says if anyone can translate.
 * Re the Hong Kong lecture. That source really isn't much use, as it doesn't say anything about the content of the lecture. Of course Menzies has supporters, both in the West and in China - all fringe theorists do. But what we need for this article, if we want to claim any significant academic support, is reliable independent references.
 * You should leave this "anti-scientific eurocentrism" stuff aside, because this isn't about Europe vs China at all (and you'll find plenty of great coverage in Wikipedia of the historic scientific and cultural achievements of China from the days when Europeans were still banging rocks together and painting themselves with dung). It's about Menzies and about coverage by reliable sources, not about China. And as has been said, we can't use Menzies' own site as a factual/academic source, as it is his own academic competence/honesty which is at the heart of the dispute - we can use it to say what he claims, but not as evidence of academic support.
 * -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We would need citations from original published writings of notable academics that support Menzies, not quotes of such support by journalists or other third parties (and certainly nothing from Menzies' project itself). Joja  lozzo  23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * @Boing! said Zebedee; you write: and you'll find plenty of great coverage in Wikipedia of the historic scientific and cultural achievements of China from the days when Europeans were still banging rocks together and painting themselves with dung... Well, the ancient Celtic and Germanic tribes were arguably primitive in comparison to contemporary Chinese civilization (Zhou, Qin, Han dynasties, etc.), but the ancient Greeks and Romans were certainly on par with the Chinese, especially in the fields of mathematics and astronomy, to say nothing of visual art, literature, architecture, etc. But I get your overall meaning here, and agree that this article is not being eurocentric but fact-centric. ;) -- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just a bit of Brit-centric exaggeration on my part there, to try to counter charges of anti-China bias [[Image:Wink.png|16px]] -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Jojalozzo's point that Menzies received honorary awards in China: even if that doesn't qualify as scholarly endorsement for his ideas, it is notable and should mentioned in the biographical section of the article.--Other Choices (talk) 01:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that would be misleading and add undue weight - possibly giving an impression of an acceptance of the fringe theory in the PRC. Menzies does not have academic or popular support in China, and the honourary awards he may possibly have been given on a visit there some years ago say more about Chinese courtesy than anything else. I do not believe they are notable, but then in my opinion neither is his status as a VL.Nickm57 (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that Menzies was an honored guest at two Chinese academic conferences in 2002, devoted to discussing the life of Admiral Zheng He; and at the second one he was made a "visiting" professor at Yunnan University. How can that NOT be a notable event in the life of this person?  And if that suggests Chinese acceptance of his theories, what's the problem with that?  From his own account (acceptable to use in a BLP), his ideas were well received at these two Chinese conferences.--Other Choices (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think your understanding might be based on what is ultimately, one web based source, that's been widely copied, going back to Menzies' own well oiled publicity machine! However, if you can find some non-Menzies related sources that verify this, Im sure you could argue the case for inclusion successfully here. I must say I admire your single handed efforts to rehabilitate Menzies as a writer of a fringe history, a stark alternative to the proud history of Zheng He as currently exhibited by Chinese authorities at Changling and the city of Nanjing. One of the downsides of having combined the articles on 1421 and 1434 is that the quite woeful writing and absurd errors of his books is no longer the focus of this talk page or our discussion for improvement to the article. To reverse what you have written on your talk page - its not a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, its a matter of seeing the baby wasn't in the bath at all!. Nickm57 (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Nickm57, you admitted your bias concerning Menzies here: []. Perhaps for that reason you should follow your own stated principle of not actively contributing to discussion here.  Aside from that, your sneer about my "single handed efforts to rehabilitate Menzies as a writer of a fringe history" is unhelpful and best left unsaid.  Your speculation that my understanding of Menzies' reception in China is based on a web source is dead wrong.  My source is the post-script at the end of the 2008 re-issue of 1421 (pp. 475-78), in which Menzies gives a published account of his reception in China.  If you intend to continue contributing to this discussion (despite your admitted bias), please let me know if you disagree that Menzies' published work is an acceptable source on the events of his own life. --Other Choices (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry to have so obviously offended you, it wasnt my intention. To repeat my objection, on the matter of his reception in China, I think if there is a supporting non-Menzies based source to verify it, please raise it here. (I read the first edition of 1421, which made no such claim).Nickm57 (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the civil tone of your reply. I was indeed offended, but I am more than willing to drop it. I share your disappointment that much of the earlier article was excised without discussion.  I think that a neutral, concise summary of Menzies' basic points, together with neutral, concise summaries of relevant rebuttals, would make for a thought-provoking article that could serve as a portal into wikipedia, because Menzies discusses so many topics that have their own wikipedia articles.  This article has the potential to expand the minds of curious readers of Menzies' books, but right now it just gives people a bad impression of wikipedia.--Other Choices (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Menzies' lack of command of Chinese
A sentence in the lede currently states: "It has also been pointed out that he has no command of the Chinese language, which would prevent him from understanding original source material relevant to his thesis.[7]"  The source for this statement is in German. WP:V states: "When quoting a source in a different language, provide both the original-language text and an English translation in the text or a footnote." Does this also apply to paraphrases?

I propose that this sentence be either moved from the lede to the 1434 section or deleted entirely for the following reasons:

1) This sentence gives the impression that Menzies might have been hiding his lack of Chinese from his readers.

2) In 1421, when citing Chinese sources, Menzies generally gives the name of the translator.

3) In 1421, there is no Chinese document immediately relevant to Menzies' "1421 hypothesis" except for the I Yu Thu Chi. (Menzies conveniently "destroyed" all the Chinese records relevant to the imagined expedition to the Americas, which lowers the language barrier considerably.)  In Footnote 14 (for Chapter 10) on p. 621 (U.S. paperback ed.), Menzies expresses his gratitude to Vivianna Wong for translating the I Yu Thu Chi's statement that South American mylodons can be found "two years and nine months' journey west of China."  It seems to me that Menzies' statement of gratitude clearly implies his lack of command of Chinese.  (I suppose that, instead of using that German source for the statement in the lede, we could use Menzies' 1421 as the source, rewording the statement to read, "Menzies has implicitly acknowledged that he has no command of the Chinese language...)

4) In 1434, specific Chinese documents (encyclopedias) are immediately relevant to his argument. For that reason, it seems to make sense to move the statement to the 1434 section.

--Other Choices (talk) 09:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am strictly for keeping it for the same reasons given when you raised the question the first time. For the reader it is of fundamental importance to know whether an author who purports to have been sifting through Chinese-language texts and maps to arrive at his theory, does have the neccessary command of this language or not. I can provide a translation if that is required. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to include a translation of the relevant phrase/sentence in the footnote. My point is that, for his "1421 hypothesis," Menzies didn't "purport to have been sifting through Chinese-language texts and maps."  In Chapter 10 he relates how he did a lot of correspondence and came up with exactly one relevant document.  The argument he derived from this document is based on its drawings; and he named his translator for the brief explanatory phrase from the document that appears in the book.  For the 1763 (1418??) map, you might be able to prove me wrong about this, but if I remember correctly his argument is based solely on the drawing, not on any text included on the map.  Furthermore, in his acknowledgments at the beginning of 1421, Menzies fills two-thirds of a page with the names of Chinese scholars, including Professor Zhu Jianqu "for ancient Chinese maps."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Other Choices (talk • contribs) 10:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would probably be better to say "no knowledge of written Chinese". Menzies was brought up in China and probably has some smattering of the spoken language, but of course that is entirely different from learning the written language. It's been pretty well established that most of his 'acknowledgements' are pretty spurious - many of the individuals cited in the preface have never communicated with Menzies or at most met him at a party. One of the many things that I believe got dropped when the original 1421 article was incorporated into this was the fact that the book was rewritten by the publishers - evidently Menzies' own style is atrocious - who I see as entirely cynical. Chris55 (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would be best to wait for somebody to supply a translation and the original statement in German, and then consider how to phrase it for the article, if it is appropriate at all. The statement as it now stands seems to violate WP:V, so I suggest that we remove it for the time being and consider adding it back later.  Even if many (or most) of Menzies' acknowledgments are pretty spurious (as Chris55 says), Menzies has gotten a welcome reception at some Chinese scholarly events, which suggests that some of his acknowledgments are genuine; and even spurious acknowledgments of Chinese scholarly assistance vitiate the groundless claim that Menzies purported to do personal research in Chinese-language sources.  But once again, I'd like to see what language Ptak actually used. --Other Choices (talk) 23:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is pretty irrelevant whether Menzies claimed to have a command of Chinese or not, the average unsuspecting reader expects him to have one when he cites from Chinese texts and maps to support his theory - and rightfully so. If there is a self-declared expert who offers groundbreaking, revolutionary, previously overlooked material which would overturn the conventional history as taught in school, the reader has absolutely a right to know that this person actually cannot even read the sources he constantly cites and uses.
 * The relevant sentence is: Menzies, ehemals Offizier der britischen Marine, also kein Wissenschaftler und auch nicht der chinesischen Sprache mächtig, stellt darin wagemutige Thesen auf, deren geschickte Präsentation an den Stil Erich von Dänikens und anderer erinnert.
 * This roughly reads: "Menzies, once an officer of the Royal Navy, hence no scientist and not even having a command of Chinese, presents daring hypotheses the skillful representation of which is reminiscent of the style of Erich von Däniken and others." Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, GPM. I'd like to suggest that "scholar" is a closer translation of "Wissenschaftler" in this particular case.  I agree that the average reader should be aware that Menzies does not have a command of Chinese.  The question is how to present this information in the article.  Perhaps a statement like "Menzies has no command of the Chinese language, and acknowledges the assistance of others in handling Chinese documents" would be better, citing both Ptak and Menzies' acknowledgments and statement of gratitude to his translator. Other Choices (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Rather than attempting to micro-manage the semantics of various sentences in the article, it might be more useful just to direct the attention of readers to the interview noted in Reference number 8. The verbatim transcripts of the author's own words, - plus the related answers given by his 'team' -  should be more than enough to allow the majority of readers to a make an accurate assessment.Norloch (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * That would seem to defeat the purpose of having an article in the first place. "Micro-manage the semantics of various sentences" seems to be another way of saying "edit."  My point is that the sentence in question is misleading and should be changed.--Other Choices (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Gun Powder Ma referred to "the sources he [Menzies] constantly cites and uses." This is perhaps relevant to 1434, but not to 1421, where Menzies doesn't constantly cite and use any Chinese source.  (Rather, 1421 constantly cites and uses a bunch of western maps, hypothesizing that they were derived from a Chinese original.)  That is why I proposed moving the reference to Menzies' lack of command of Chinese from the lede to the 1434 section.  I would appreciate getting other editors' opinions on this specific issue.--Other Choices (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

With respect to 'Other Choices'; - An edit has to be something meaningful. There's considerable uncertainty about the extent of the author's work in the original book. ( this is apparent from his own words in the interview - reference nbr.8 ). Although centred on the 15th. century, Menzies' conjectures appear to range across many hundred years of history - so which of the Chinese languages are you referring to, in regard to your proposed edit ? Which translators assisted with the range of documentation and do they all continue to be in full agreement with the author's interpretation of their translation work ? (another question which is posed by the content of the interview.) The sentence, in it's present form, isn't misleading - it just cites an opinion from a referable source. Readers can judge the validity of that opinion for themselves. Norloch (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The sentence, in its present form, falsely suggests that Menzies deceived his readers into thinking that he was proficient in reading Chinese documents. Gun Powder Ma, in defending the sentence in its present form, explicitly and wrongly stated that Menzies "purported" to sift through old Chinese documents.  I have pointed out Gun Powder Ma's error and I await his response. Other Choices (talk) 06:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I said above. The reader has a right to know that the author who cites and refers to Chinese material to the point that he bases his whole hypothesis on it, actually has no command of the language whatsoever these documents are written in. I judge this information to be of such an importance that I am for its continued inclusion in the lead. For the micro-management of sentences, as some user has nicely put it, see my sentiments above the danger of losing sight of the wood for the trees. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some good points there, GPM. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 12:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

To 'Other Choices' ;-  I can't see anything in the sentence which falsely suggests that Menzies attempted to deceive readers in regard to his expertise in Chinese languages. That seems to be your subjective interpretation of what it actually says. - Whether or not the author ever knowingly intended to deceive readers, in that regard, is something which would be difficult to assess because the wording in his first book is often vague or ambivalent and open to misinterpretation. Certainly, in the first edition of "1421"  the author states specifically that he was "educated" by a Chinese amah and also that he had made a number of visits to China, over the years. Whether intended, or not, that might well have given many readers the impression that the author had some degree of familiarity with Chinese languages. ( It is, after all, quite widely known that expatriate children can and do acquire fluency in foreign languages, most notably at pre-school ages.) Norloch (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that the language be changed to "Gavin Menzies has no command of the Chinese language, and has acknowledged the assistance of others in evaluating and interpreting Chinese maps and documents," keeping the Ptak reference (adding the quote in German and a translation) and adding a reference to Menzies' acknowledgments in 1421 as discussed above.Other Choices (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am against this amendment which strikes me a bit like SYN: Menzies' lack of command of the Chinese language needs no qualification and the Ptak source referred does not do this, either. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with GPM. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma's argument is based on the assertion that Menzies "cites and refers to Chinese material to the point that he bases his whole hypothesis on it." I think that is blatantly false.  I invite Gun Powder Ma to prove me wrong:  Go ahead and name the Chinese documents that are the basis of Menzies' whole hypothesis.  Menzies never mentions any such document or documents.  Even Finlay, in his review, claims that Menzies makes up his basic assumption that the Chinese emperor ordered a global mapping expedition "without a shred of proof."  (That means no Chinese documents.)  Menzies' basic evidence for his whole hypothesis is a group of NON-Chinese maps, supplemented by a seemingly plausible assumption (that only the Chinese could have been the ultimate source of these maps) and a mass of (often specious) non-documentary evidence, for all of which Menzies had no need of Chinese.--Other Choices (talk) 00:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where is the evidence that the Chinese emperor ordered a global mapping expedition? The original reason for Zheng He's expedition was to hunt down a pretender to the throne and it later got turned into some sort of flag waving enterprise. Other Choices, you're still taking Gavin Menzies' account far too literally. Check out all his claims from other sources. Chris55 (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Huh? Perhaps you should read what I wrote more carefully. I wasn't supporting Menzies' claims; I was summarizing Menzies' "evidence" to show that Gun Powder Ma's stated reason for rejecting my specific proposal to change the article was false.  If you care to address that particular issue, I'd be pleased to consider your thoughts.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You wanna examples? I cannot be arsed to sift through the whole of Menzies' junk history, but I don't know where you have looked so far, Other Choices. Go to pp. 8ff. of his 1434 book. There he extensively discusses the world map from Liu Gang, its inscription and its Chinese navigational terms relying exclusively on the translation by Liu. Isn't this pathetic, relying on the language skills of the map owner who has a vested interest in raising utmost attention to his treasure? And so on goes Menzies forever. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's cause for concern that an editor repeatedly makes the same false statement, here: [], and here:[], and here:[]. You contradict your quote from Finlay, which contends that Menzies put forth his hypothesis without a shred of evidence. Your sole example for your repeated claim is Menzies' discussion of a map in the book 1434. However, the map that Menzies discusses in 1434 allegedly confirms his earlier hypothesis, but this map obviously isn't the basis of a hypothesis that he presented in an earlier book. I can't ask you to sift through 1421 for evidence supporting the false claim that you repeatedly make, because I know that there isn't any such evidence. In the future, please be more careful in your choice of words. Earlier the issue came up of editors on this page who hadn't read Menzies' books. Such editors are likely to be misled when you make inaccurate pronouncements concerning what Menzies wrote. This will skew both opinions on this talk page and editorial decisions about what to include in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you expect from mounting ad hominem attacks, but I have 1434 on my desk, you apparently not. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're referring to, but Menzies put forth his "1421 hypothesis" in 1421, not 1434. His basic nugget of evidence for this hypothesis is a stone inscription, not a document or a map.  I suppose that should be mentioned in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 03:55, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The biographical article is about Gavin Menzies, hence its scope includes his 1434 book just as much as 1421. It would be absurd to differ between him citing from stone inscriptions in 1421 and him citing from maps in 1434, when in fact we are talking about one and the same person who remains in each and every case devoid of any understanding of Chinese. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "devoid" is overstated, but otherwise I can agree with that. However, your example doesn't refer to a map, but rather to Liu Gang's alternative translation of one of the stone inscriptions that Menzies mentions in 1421.  By the way, I think that Menzies' references to these inscriptions qualify as "shreds of evidence" in opposition to the quote from Finlay.  I think that balance demands that we give a summary of what evidence Menzies puts forth.  Of course, if reliable sources contest Menzies' use of these inscriptions, we should mention that, too.
 * I am still concerned about the wording of the "command of Chinese" sentence. I think that "it has been pointed out" is unnecessary, and I agree with Herostratus that "prevents" is too strong.--Other Choices (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RfC Result
I made a Request for Comment, regarding Menzies' lack of command of Chinese, here:  Here is what the commenter said: I looked at part of the article, and the biographical stuff is a bit biased against Menzies (and I made one small change). I'm not sure that the submarine accident needs to be covered in such detail, it's kind of peripheral to his story, and he must have a pretty distinguished career otherwise to rise to command a submarine, so it would be fairer to give at least equal time to the good parts of his service career. The "vexatious litigant" and "0.2% of the vote" things make him look like kind of a flake, but are germane if true. I agree that wording you speak of could be better, the "prevent him from understanding" seems a bit harsh, it wouldn't prevent him if he had a good translator. Your version is better. I'm not sure the "acknowledged" is necessary, unless it's contended that he didn't acknowledge and claimed fluency on his own, and if that's true that dispute could be covered somewhere deeper in the article. How about something like "Gavin Menzies has no command of the Chinese language and worked with translators in interpreting Chinese source maps and documents" maybe? But if it's between the present wording and yours, I would say: yours. Herostratus (talk) 06:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Request_board"

I would like to suggest that we use Herostratus's proposed language: "Gavin Menzies has no command of the Chinese language and worked with translators in interpreting Chinese maps and documents."--Other Choices (talk) 23:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:SYN as the scholarly source cited clearly makes no such connection. And I have cited above from Menzies' work where his lack of command of Chinese clearly undermines his argument. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I trimmed down the sentence to remove OR, but other wording might be better. Other Choices (talk) 07:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * There is no WP:OR. When Ptak states "[He is] hence no scholar and does not even have a command of Chinese", he makes two things clear, namely that Menzies lacks academic training and that he lacks language skills to deal with the material he deals with. Instead of curtailing the second part, we may better think of introducing the first one, too. After all, Ptak is WP:reliable and this is an important information for the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The use of the phrase "it has been pointed out" implies wikipedia endorsement of Ptak's view, which is POV. The claim that Menzies' lack of Chinese prevents him from understanding Chinese material is OR, going beyond what the source says.  As has been pointed out by another editor, Menzies' lack of Chinese wouldn't prevent him from understanding the document if he has a good translator, so this extra bit is inappropriate.--Other Choices (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

"Menzies has academic supporters in China and in America"
Really now. And who might that be? The article source makes this claim, but then immediately changes topic and fails to mention a single name among these supposed supporters in Chinese and American academia. Perhaps it was referring to the honorary title given to him by Yunnan University? (As pointed out later in the article.) If so, that hardly warrants a prominent sentence right in the lead of this article, which is supposed to summarize the content of the article's main body. Which part of the article's main body speaks of his scholarly supporters (if any exist)? I don't think Yunnan University giving Menzies a free parking spot and ability to peruse their library is anything worth mentioning, and shouldn't validate such a sentence in the introduction of this article.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 02:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The only evidence in the mad as a snake article about Menzies' academic support comes from Menzies' own quotes. Not reliable. The honorary degree is political not academic. Joja lozzo  03:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @Pericles of Athens: Of course you're right about the lede and the main body. I got sidetracked and couldn't finish the edit to the main body, which I have now done, so I'm going to put back that sentence into the lede, too.  If people want to revert, then I look forward to further discussion.  In the article I didn't name the names of supportive Chinese professors in the interest of brevity, but Menzies lists Professor Yingsheng Liu of Nanjing University and Professors Yao Jide and Fayuan Gao of Yunnan University as those who extended the invitations.
 * @Jojalozzo: An honorary degree is prima facie evidence of academic support. Regarding the reliability of the "mad as a snake" article, I think you're reading a typo as a quotation mark.  The sentence, as written, makes no sense as a quotation.  I don't have to be right here, but if we disagree, perhaps the best thing is to ask the folks at the BLP noticeboard to share their thoughts.--Other Choices (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Other Choices, should we also quote the article that Menzies is wild as a snake? Because that is much more the focus of the article than the statement you singled out. By the way, a "visiting professor" is no academic title, anybody could be one. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @OC: I understand that's not a quote. The honorary degree was awarded by a political appointee. I have been unable to discover evidence of support from the Yunnan University faculty. Joja  lozzo  12:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * @GPM: It seems silly to claim that "anybody" could be a visiting professor.
 * @Jojalozzo: It is my understanding that your inability to discover evidence of support for Menzies from the Yunnan University faculty shouldn't influence the wording of a wikipedia article.--Other Choices (talk) 22:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Menzies has a history of turning contacts into support and listing professors and historians as working with him when they are dead or deny such collaboration. Because of that I think we need to verify any statements of academic support. You're claiming the honorary degree is academic support from Yunnan U. but I'm not finding evidence of that. The honorary degree was awarded to him by an administrator not an academic. Menzies refers to that degree as a "visiting professorship" but it is nothing of the sort. All I can find is political support and vague statements with no evidence other than Menzies statements in popular media. Let's verify the mad as a snake article's claims before we use it as a reliable source. Joja lozzo  00:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's the task of wikipedia editors to "verify" the statements of reliable sources.--Other Choices (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are wrong and sources do need to be verified if there is reasonable grounds for doubting their accuracy. This point has been made repeatedly on this talk page.Nickm57 (talk) 02:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it's The Daily Telegraph which published the article, so it is a legit news source at least.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 03:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The Daily Telegraph is a reliable source, but very many of the assertions made in the article are not reliable (like the outlandish claim that transatlantic voyages took place even before the Minoans [sic!]). This is a daily occurrence on Wikipedia, there is no easy solution to it, so it is best to deal with it point by point. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

"By his own account"
I feel these bits "By his own account" are getting overhand in the article making it move to a kind of double standard. While criticism, or any other form of statement, is expected, rightly so, to come from third-party, independent WP:reliable source, we accept Menzies' word if he says this and that. So he is "by his own account" a visiting professor. But there is no independent proof from this university. If someone else had said this, we would add it only on the condition that the souce complies to WP:reliable, and WP:verifiable, but when Menzies says something of himself, stuff is simply added by the way of "by his own account" as if Menzies's comments need to be less verifiable. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're wrong here: Menzies' accounts of his own life experiences, appearing in sources that are not self-published, are clearly acceptable for a BLP. The phrase "by his own account" alerts the reader to the source of the information.  Obviously, this should be employed sparingly, referring only to events that are noteworthy.  If you think that the genesis of Menzies' interest in Chinese navigation and his reception in China upon the publication of his book are not noteworthy elements of this biography, then please say so.--Other Choices (talk) 22:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * When we use "by his own account" statements we should include a reminder that he's well known for stretching the truth and telling falsehoods. Joja  lozzo  00:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statement seems to reflect your own strong bias against Menzies as well as being OR; I don't think that such a "reminder" would be consistent with wikipedia policy for BLPs.--Other Choices (talk) 01:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would rather you saw my statement as arising from my strong desire for the article to reflect the truth rather than falsehoods perpetrated by the subject. Joja  lozzo  04:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to find a more neutral way to discuss the point, which I think is important in general regarding this article. You and other editors seem to be disgusted by the way Menzies plays fast and loose with the "evidence" in his books.  This is understandable, but it seems to me that such feelings will inevitably color your approach to editing this article.  Perhaps we can agree that the part of the article that deals with Menzies' ideas should present them impartially, together with a neutral description of any rebuttals.  That is a delicate balance to achieve, and, for me, a big part of the attraction of working on this article.  Simply making the attempt is forcing me to become a better editor.--Other Choices (talk) 05:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Well put. It could be very effective to simply accompany "by his own account" statements with reliable sources that clarify or dispute the claims without synthesis or OR. Joja lozzo  15:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing the phrase "by his own account," which I used to alert the reader to the source of information for biographical details. As the sources used are "reliable sources" per wikipedia standards, and as the statements in question are not disputed (as far as I am aware), I think there is no real need to use the phrase, as well as no need to supplement the statements with other references.--Other Choices (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Apply fringe standards
I believe the consensus is that Menzies theories qualify as WP:Fringe and should be treated as such. That means a) "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources" and b) that an NPOV article will appear biased to those who support the theories and c) supporters are in violation of policy if they push for language that softens the required fringe treatment. Joja  lozzo  03:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that we should apply fringe standards to discussion of Menzies' theories, which are interesting but deeply flawed. I look forward to adding back discussion of what both Menzies and his detractors say about his theories.  However, I don't think that we should apply fringe standards to the biographical section of the article.  Rather, we should apply BLP standards there.--Other Choices (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but where the theories intersect with the biography, fringe treatment must prevail. Joja  lozzo  03:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but it would be helpful to discuss a specific example.--Other Choices (talk) 04:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the article on Erich von Däniken? The late Kenneth McIntyre and his theory is another similar case.Nickm57 (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't read either author, but the wikipedia articles on them don't bother me. Von Daniken comes across as a charlatan, but the article doesn't come across as having an ax to grind.  The McIntyre article led me to the article on the Theory of Portuguese discovery of Australia, which seems well-done: the tone seems neutral, allowing the readers to think for themselves about the various points at issue.  Perhaps that article is a good model for this one.  Just to use one example from Menzies, the mylodons: summarize his views and those of his detractors, and the reader can click the wiki-link and find out more.--Other Choices (talk) 08:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. The main difference is that the Portuguese discovery of Australia is a possibility, while the Chinese discovery of  is not. Thus the tone cannot be quite the same, too, unless we apply different standards of judgment. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The heroic transatlantic voyages of the Minoans
You guys are serious about keeping this bizarre claim from Carl Johanneson in the article? Yes, the Daily Telegraph is a WP:reliable source, but how formalistic one can be to keep a claim which every person who has ever floated a rubber duck in the bathtub finds to be absolutely outlandish. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to removing Johanneson's claim about the Minoans, but we should keep his supportive statement about Menzies.--Other Choices (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keeping one part of Johanneson's statement but dropping the other sounds to me like WP:SYN as both are in fact intrinsically linked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

map problems in the article
It seems illogical to have the map image at the beginning of the 1421 section, because 1421 never mentioned this particular map. Furthermore, it seems illogical to have the Geoff Wade quote about the map in the 1421 section for the same reason. --Other Choices (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

In addition, I would like to bring back the section with all the links to wikipedia articles discussing the various maps that Menzies does discuss in 1421. In the old 1421 article, this section just consisted of the names of maps as hyperlinks to the relevant wikipedia articles, with no discussion of what Menzies said about any particular map. So the content of such a section would not be controversial in any way. As discussion of the various maps is a central feature of 1421 from beginning to end, I think such a section would be relevant and informative. This section was deleted in the merger without any discussion, which I think was a mistake.--Other Choices (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * To Other Choices; you've mentioned previously that you were impressed by the author's analysis of certain maps but it's difficult to follow your reasoning. In regard to the Antilia - Puerto Rico comparisons there's little consideration given to differences in orientation, scale or geographical position. (The author's feeble explanation for position error has a couple of obvious flaws - it doesn't require any great expertise to detect them.) The analysis of other maps is similarly superficial. It's perhaps understandable that there is limited expert criticism of these aspects, simply because the errors in reasoning are fairly obvious. Experts might be justified in believing that these things would be readily apparent to the average reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norloch (talk • contribs) 10:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to disagree with part of what you say, and Antilla is definitely an interesting puzzle, but I don't think that's relevant to my suggestion here. Do you have any problem with restoring the section of links to the various maps?--Other Choices (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If the map is mentioned in this article, it should be linked where it is mentioned. Just linking to maps because they mentioned in his books isn't helpful, so no, we shouldn't have a section with links to maps. Dougweller (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Dougweller, if I understand you correctly, you are open to adding to the article brief summaries of how Menzies discusses the various maps in his books.--Other Choices (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you did understand him correctly. The point was that the article has to refer to a map for it to be linked. He didn't say anything about including a summary of Menzies' discussion of maps. If you want to add something to the article, please make the suggestion and I'm sure you'll get some feedback. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been busy, but yes. And this doesn't mean it's ok to add Menzies to every article about a map he mentions, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 07:51, 22 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)

23 March reversion
I removed the wedding anniversary reference - it has no relevance to the article. With regard to the invitation to conferences, the Telegraph article does not verify this from what I can see. And I thought that we had agreed we wouldn't use Menzies as a source for what recognition he has received, where he has been invited to, etc. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We have had Menzies circumnavigating the world "by his own account" (still have), getting interested in Chinese history on a wedding trip to China "by his own account", him having been a visiting professor somewhere in China "by his own account" and him having been invited to some Zheng He conferences "by his own account". Big trouble in little China, this string of unverified claims is. ;-) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to remove the wedding anniversary reference, so I reverted the deletion. However, perhaps it could be trimmed.  I think that the details of Menzies' "moment of inspiration" that led to the whole reason why he has a wikipedia biography are relevant and of interest to the reader.  Also, I never agreed not to use Menzies as source for biographical details.  The source is reliable and it refers to an important and relevant event in Menzies' life; and private or old agreements between a pair of wikipedia editors do not trump wikipedia policies or bind editors who were not party to such agreements.--Other Choices (talk) 22:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree that Menzies is a reliable source for biographical info. I'm no expert but I believe BLP policy recommends we avoid the subject as a source and that would especially apply with those who have been caught in many untruths about themselves. Joja  lozzo  22:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to have clarity on this. The Menzies sources weren't self-published, and it seems that your claim about Menzies habitual untruthfulness is OR, even if it is true.  That's another question for a BLP: if a reliable source discusses Menzies' habitual untruthfulness, how should that be handled in the article?  Should such claims affect editors' use of Menzies' own statements in his wikipedia biography?  I'm not a rules expert, so I'm going to make a post at the BLP noticeboard to get some input.--Other Choices (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The wedding anniversary is still not relevant. I have no problem of stating when he became interested. If you are unhappy with removing the text on the invitations, it should be changed to "Menzies claimed that". The Telegraph article does not confirm this so should not be used as a source. Moreover I do not accept that Credit Suisse is a reliable news source. Last time I heard they were a bank. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reorganized material
I added two subheadings and moved some of the text in an attempt to make the organization clearer. I did not delete any text-- just moved it around. This now puts the discussion into two parts, first a statement of what was said in the books, followed by a summary of the criticisms. Hope this makes the article a little more like an encyclopedia, and a less like an essay. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * D'accord. However, without the response of its critics in the caption anymore, I felt it is necessary to remove the Taccola image altogether. I wrote the Taccola article, so I think I know how bizarre Menzies' claim is. No scholar who has devoted time to the study Taccola's work has ever forwarded such a thesis, not in the remotest. I also removed the bit on the conference again, could not verify that in the cited Telegraph article and 1421 alone is not enough of a source (see above for Menzies' 'by his own accounteritis'). Also trimmed down the passage how exactly Menzies got interested in Chinese navigation, pretty much irrelevant. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1421 alone is enough of a source, per wikipedia policy, notwithstanding any private agreement that you might have had with another editor to the contrary.--Other Choices (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma, I would like to find another avenue to resolve our disagreement instead of the ongoing revert war. This seems to be a disagreement between you and myself over whether Menzies is an acceptable source for biographical information about himself.  I think that, at this point, some sort of dispute resolution is appropriate.  If you concur, then I would like to invite you to suggest an appropriate means.--Other Choices (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BOLD, if additions are disputed you shouldn't keep reinstating them. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It would help, Other Choices, if you would not undo my entire edit when you only disagree on one point with me. So which is it? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the deletion of the circumstances surrounding Menzies' new interest in Chinese history, and I disagree with the deletion of the mention of the Chinese conferences. I think that both are clearly relevant to Menzies' life story, and the conferences show that at least some Chinese academic professionals are inclined to take Menzies seriously, which balances the statements of academic rejection elswhere in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)