Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think that, since Menzies has now authored a new book, 1434, and plans another, his books should be merged into this article, not this article into the book article.

TuckerResearch (talk) 18:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

• The fact that he has written another book does not endorse this hypothesis - the test for me is - is the hypothesis mentioned by a reliable source outside of a reference to Menzies' book? --Matilda ^talk 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. And I wonder if he actually wrote this one? The first one seems to have been actually a team effort. I don't think we should have 3 articles in any case. Doug Weller (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

If the books are notable, they should have articles, regardless of the intellectual integrity of the content. We have articles on books that are of much more minor import or popularity than these two books. You just need to add sourced rebuttal material to the articles, if you feel like it. On the other hand, this hypothesis could be incorporated into the pre-columbian discovery article, or build a new article on world exploration voyages before the age of exploration or non-European ones during the age. 70.55.85.123 (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

 --Matilda ^talk 23:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Merger proposal (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I appreciate a merger has been discussed before (Talk:1421 hypothesis#Merge with book article but it was some time ago. I am reopening the discussion as there are no alternative major sources supporting the 1421 hypothesis and the material is duplicated between the two articles.--Matilda ^talk 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. There is no supporting evidence in the article and there has been plenty of time to provide it. Chris55 (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as the hypothesis and whatever supporting material is available, is more than that documented in the book, so merging it would mean adding material that is not part of the book into the book article. And it's garnered popular press, and references to it elsewhere, which don't always talk about the book at all. So the book documents the hypothesis, but not all its claims. If you reversed the merge, it'd make more sense in terms of content. 70.51.9.9 (talk) 06:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I do not believe that the hypothesis has any credibility in the mainstream press at all and that there are any references to material that is not part of the book . Could you please provide some references that support the assertion the theory has garnered popular press, and references to it elsewhere, which don't always talk about the book at all. The references should meet our guideline of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Thanks --Matilda ^talk 06:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact ; this is also not the only merge target anyways. It could be argued the theory should be merged there. 70.51.11.169 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you read the second book? It uses material not in the first book 70.51.9.69 (talk) 05:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I am looking for another source other than Menzies. I assume that the new book does indeed include material not in the first. I also assume it covers a different hypothesis. Again I am seeking references that support the assertion the theory has garnered popular press, and references to it [the theory] elsewhere, which don't always talk about either book at all.--Matilda ^talk 06:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Ah, but the second book talks about the theory the first book is based on.
        • If you watch The History Channel program "Chinese Superships", it does not talk about the book at all, but it does talk about Galvin Menzies, and his conjecture/hypothesis/theory/idea. Mr. Menzies also revealed his viewpoint before the book's publication, antedating the pre-release book stuff. [1] [2] [3]
        • There probably should be another article for the other Chinese discovering America theory (450AD one featured in press from 1880's onward in such things as the NYT) 70.51.11.169 (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, we already have Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact for stuff like that. And I don't see what Menzies' PR has to do with our decisions. Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Support merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why should Menzies' ideas get 3 articles? They are all basically the same - Zheng He went to the Americas and Europe (and Australia). Doug Weller (talk) 15:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And New Zealand, and Antarctica, and to the North Pole. I'm eagerly awaiting his next book, "1444: The Year China Sailed to Outer Space." I support the merger of the content from 1421 Hypothesis to this article, and possibly an article on the new book. There is really no need for a separate article on Menzies' ideas, in addition to the ones on his books. ClovisPt (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Menzies gets a book article, because the book itself is notable. I doubt you can argue that 1421 book is not notable. The 1434 book also seems to be notable, so that gets to be an article. Piltdown man gets to be an article, even if Piltdown Man is a hoax, because it is a notable hoax. The theory is used in both books, so merging it into a book article seems backwards. But you could merge the theory article into an article about non-European global exploration (along with other such theories and conjectures). Since his theory of Chinese world travel is used in two books, it would be good to have an overview article, thus you get to three articles. Personally, I think that if two fiction books have each an article, an overview article should also exist (ie. WP:NOTPAPER), or an overview should exist somewhere (such as an agglomerated article about global exploration theories) 70.51.8.234 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We can discuss what he says about the hypothesis (not theory) in the books. I can't see any reason why not and that avoids duplication.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 2 July 2008

• Merger has been done --Matilda ^talk 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

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

Removal of content

I removed two sections, 'Detailed Claims' and 'Other Evidence' , which covered roughly the same topic - this article doesn't benefit from lists of Menzies claims, of which there are hundreds and hundreds made in the book. The 'Synopsis' and 'Methods' sections adequately summarize this material. ClovisPt (talk) 18:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Criticism requires expansion

The sentences below were removed from the criticism section. I believe that additional information would clarify their meaning and aid in an appropriate placement in the article. 65.54.154.154 (talk) 03:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

DNA project has indicated that natives in Latin America bear same common origin back 100,000 years ago. The diversion could not be possibly completed within 600 years.

Wiki standards

Color me bad, but in my opinion this article doesn't match the general standards and guidelines for Wikipedia.

I read the book and came to wiki to view discussion as to the veracity of the claims. Unfortunately there is very little, and absolutely none at all until half way down the page; above this is unsubstantiated invective only. Why?

The opinion of the discussion page (and the archived ones) is that the claims are false and unverified, and from what I can see this is because

1. there are no sources for the claims in the book, and
2. there are hundreds of claims.

Neither of these reasons are valid, and are not used elsewhere on wiki for less contentious or better written subjects.

The background information for the claims in the book are referenced both in the text and in the appendix, so they can be found and checked.

The volume of supporting evidence shouldn’t matter; if they are false, breaking down the biggest planks of the argument, as for claims on other wild theories, is sufficient to refute the theory. These planks, I would suggest, are alternative explanation, or invalidation of claims regarding:

• DNA
• Flora and fauna spread
• Physical evidence, such as wrecks, monuments and votive offerings
• Meaning and dating of referenced map
• written documents such as diaries and letters from European expeditions, e.g. those from Columbus and Magellan's voyages.

For those who strongly oppose the hypothesis, if it's so wildly incorrect then invalidating at least some of these claims shouldn't be too difficult. Just ignoring them is not scientific, and not good enough for wiki.

As it stands, this article leads myself and no doubt others to feel that the claims are irrefutable. Furthermore, the article as it stands damages the reputability of wiki as a whole.

Don't get me wrong, as although I am a scientist I am no historian, and cannot claim great insight to the facts so offer no opinion. This is why I came to wiki as a starting point. But the article as it stands does no-one any credit, and requires serious consensus replanning and amendment IMO.

I won't post again as it seems clear that this is a subject that generates great passion, and my involvement won't help a calm discussion. Davini994 (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The book is an entertaining read all right, but go back and see whether he has really proved any of his points. Take the central one: that the three admirals set out to circumnavigate in different ways. Does he quote any sources? No. It's the same with most of it. All the evidence is circumstantial. It may be consistent with his story but it in no way proves it. Check up with other sources about individual episodes. You'll find he's either presuming or has got the wrong end of the stick, or his hypothesis has been considered in the past and rejected for perfectly good reasons. Without giving it far more space than it deserves, I think the article is ok. Chris55 (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Davini994's comments might be useful in rearranging the article and punching up the text. In places it reads like a jotted list of objections to specific assertions in the book. On the other hand, I'd point out to Davini that the object here is to write a neutral, reliably sourced article, not an essay either in support or refutation of the book. Our job is to describe the book's thesis and to report the consensus of qualified scholars, which is uniformly against Menzies. The article does this pretty well, but it could do it even better, i.e., in a way that demands less work from the reader. (There's an unexplained parenthetical reference to "de las Casas," for instance. Who or what?) — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the problem is that academic reviews are few (since the book is widely dismissed), but those that exist (such as "How not to (re)write World History" by Finlay in the Journal of World History) will attack the central arguments/claims of Menzies instead of addressing minor details. Of course, there are many problems with the claims in the book besides those addressed by Finlay, so it seems that other discerning minds have included refutation of specific or minor details without explicitly citing a source. Perhaps these should be tagged until reliable sources are dug up (if they exist), or removed if they were in fact original research. It does not seem too urgent, though, considering that the points included against the book generally line up with the academic consensus quite well. Chedorlaomer (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In my view, the general criticism by experts the book has received should be included in the lead. That academic reviews are not numerous is not important - for such an outlandish thesis one can hardly expect all experts in the field giving their views - what is important that no expert yet has voiced disagreement with Finlay's strong criticism of the book. Hence, this is how scientific debates generally works, Finlay's review and other expert's opinion going into the same direction currently presents the last word of scholarship on the subject. It is not a quantitative question of how much critical reviews are enough, in fact one solid one is enough, until someone else comes and refutes him in turn. Which has yet to happen, therefore the scholary criticism should be placed prominently enough in the lead. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that seems like the best approach. The little attention that this fringe theory has received from experts should be given a prominent position in this article, as it regards a historical matter. That laypeople may have heard relatively uncritical endorsement of this book from non-experts makes it even more important that Wikipedia emphasize the position of genuinely reliable sources on this matter, for the benefit of the people. Chedorlaomer (talk) 05:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

The authors' intent to discredit Menzies' theory is pretty obvious from the start and there are a number of places where negative criticism is quite bold. Once these most glaring deviations from policy have been repaired the less obvious instances that permeate the writing should be addressed.

The last paragraph of the Synopsis is devoted to criticism - nothing to do with a synopsis. I get the feeling that the author felt that a simple synopsis should not be allowed to stand without pointing out its flaws.

The last paragraph of the Method section lapses into bald criticism of the method. I think it should be possible to present Menzies' method neutrally and leave the criticism for the Criticism section.

Unless a neutral point of view can be achieved, this article does not belong in Wikipedia. Save the negativity for the Criticism section and even there the point of view is subject to Wikipedia policy. Sreed888 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

• I have to agree, while I doubt that what the author of this book says is true due to the lack of truth, and while I have many reasons to criticize his work, this is a wikipedia article nonetheless and should be NPOV. The whole article is almost utterly POV against the book and its author no matter how unbelievable it might seem that the Chinese visited America before Columbus. It needs to be rewritten and revised. Save the negative POV for the criticism section and even then, it shouldn't be going all-out with the opinions and views. 99.23.83.58 (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • For instance, I'm going to be removing this following paragraph from the "Synopis" section b/c it has nothing to do with the actually synopis and is a complaint already stated in the Criticism section.

"The 1421 hypothesis has been dismissed by sinologists and professional historians.[1][2][3][4] Menzies has been criticized for his "reckless manner of dealing with evidence" that led him to propose hypotheses "without a shred of proof".[4] Critics have also questioned the extent of Menzies' nautical knowledge.[6]" 99.23.83.58 (talk) 10:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Have a glance at the guideline Wikipedia:Fringe theories which applies to this article. The lack of academic acceptance of Menzies' claims is essential to a proper encyclopedia article on this book. That said, there clearly are flaws of structure and organization which could be worked on. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Also read carefully our NPOV policy at WP:NPOV. You should expect most of the article to be critical. dougweller (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an article about Menzies' book, not about the fringe theory that the Chinese conducted a vast program of exploration during a certain period of history. I think the best solution to this problem is to start a new article on the theory (or revise and rename this article) and present appropriate published alternate POVs on that theory. Then this article and other articles on Menzies' conjectures can be merged in. Sreed888 (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

"The negativity for the Criticism section" is certainly a function of a lot of people being annoyed that such a crackpot theory has a place altogether at Wikipedia. The fact that Mr Menzies is allowed to present here his outlandish 'theories' at all, should be viewed as a lenient gesture of gigantic proportions, that where any analysis of the 'article' should begin with. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article has been tagged fro NPOV, due to the excessive focus on criticism and discreding of the theories, rather than presenting a neutral summation of reception about the book, both positive and negative. The bias displayed by the editors above is also inappropriate. Whether you agree or disagree with this author, editing needs to be done from a neutral stand point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, prior to doing some secondary research I found Menzie's argument convincing. Then I read more and found that his argument was based on a very selective read of the evidence. Our current version of the article is fair. Did Zheng He's fleet cross the pacific? Dunno. Did they circumnavigate the globe? Almost certainly no. Is this article fair and balanced according to WP:DUE and WP:NPOV? Absolutely yes. Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, I fully agree about the need for neutrality. But being neutral does not mean that those who deny the holocaust are right to 50%. Neutrality rather means that a theory has to be completely and thoroughly refuted in no unequal terms when the facts are such that they warrant the theory to be completely and thoroughly refuted in no unequal terms. Anything less would be in fact a grave violation of the neutral point of view. The article as it is now is NPOV. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This article doesn't even come close to neutrality. There is a different between "50%" and using unsourced OR in a blatantly unneutral manner to attack a book you clearly disagree with rather than neutrally. No positive reception is included at all, it is purely critical and an attack piece, which is also a violation of WP:BLP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So if you have a reliable source that positively received this book put it in. With that said what do you believe, in the criticism section, violates WP:OR? Simonm223 (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The second contains numerous unsourced statements, and relies heavily one just one or two sources. There appear to be thousands of reliable sources for this book - those claiming they have been neutral, have you actually even looked for positive reviews or anything criticism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

When I went through the criticism section I found one valid criticism which is a common one for which a citation is needed. I found one criticism for which a citation was needed that may have not been valid (which I removed). I found one incorrectly placed citation needed tag for which the appropriate reference was already included. I removed that tag. That should resolve those problems. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complaint about references in the criticism is factually inaccurate. The criticism depends on refs: 1,2,3,4,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 15. That is 1211 (as 1 and 9 actually point to the same place) distinct sources and not just one or two as you state. As for the "thousands of reliable sources" what are they? Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) No, it is not factually inaccurate. The bulk of the section uses only a few of those. There are still unsourced contents in that section, and it is still lacking neutrality as is the article overall. Took me less than a minute to find them. If you need to ask "where are they" then it seems clear that no actual attempt was done to find a full coverage of sources. There are a ton of links in ELs to reliable sources as well, none of which are used in this article. The openly non-neutral POV of the main editors is clearly reflected in this article (and its talk page). Please do not remove the tags again, as you yourself are not neutral in this issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, if you want sourced statements, check out the only scholarly review of Menzies thesis: Robert Finlay: How (not) to rewrite World History. Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America, Journal of World History, Vol. 15, No. 2 (2004), S.229–242. There you find a point by point refutation of all major claims by Menzies. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:46, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) That is a single point of view, a single source, and it is not the only reliable source in the world. Your view on this work is clear and I'm curious as to why you would be active in this article when you dislike it so? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, we won't get in the business of counting opinions, because we are not at the ballot box here. Finlay's is not a single point of view, because he presents no point of view at all, but a rational and scholarly argument contra Menzies' thesis. And since no serious scholar has to date voiced in an equally factual manner his disagreement to Finlay, his criticism represents the collective scientific consensus until someone does so. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the NPoV tag as no valid argument about neutrality has been raised. Tagging clearly inappropriate. Simonm223 (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument is valid, and the tagging is not inappropriate. Your lack of neutrality is. Per guidelines "The [NPOV] label is meant to indicate that a discussion is ongoing, and hence that the article contents are disputed, and volatile." This discussion has NOT concluded and consensus is NOT needed to tag the article that a discussion is on-going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Article neutrality

Are the three tags added to this article valid, and does the article reflect a neutral point of view towards the work 1421: The Year China Discovered the World and its author. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The editor who posted the tags is claiming one or two sources depended heavily on for criticism when there are in fact eleven. He is claiming significant OR when there is ONE valid citation needed tag in current version. Propose speedy close. Simonm223 (talk) 17:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no "speedy close" to an RfC. I have brought up valid points which you have dismissed while showing you clearly agree with the criticsm, which reflects a lack of neutrality, and that no attempt was even made to balance this article. You removed all three tags without valid reason, falsely claiming there was no discussion and blatantly ignoring my concerns as "invalid" purely because of your own personal disagreement. The two short tag is obviously valid - the lead is two whole sentences and does not summarize the whole article, it only indicates its a book and indicates it was dismissed by all historians (how do you know when you clearly did not look beyond what you wanted to see)? The article clearly does not show ALL view points. No response from the author is given, none of the many reviews and positive remarks from the EL section and other available sources are included at all. The article is unbalanced, and non-neutral. These ARE valid claims and not something you can dismiss just because you agree with the prevailing point of view. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, here we go again. I won't waste too much time on this, because this is neither the first nor the last controversy surrounding the whole article and its entertaining thesis, but you should have made more clear, AnmaFinotera, on what ground you suddenly put three tags on an article which was calm for the better half of the year. Are you suggesting that thousands of other readers missed for so long the bias you detected right away? Please read Finlay first instead of shrugging it off as just one criticism. After all, Finlay should get credit for being the only scholar who really cared to adress Menzies absurd hypothesis. The others did rightly not even care so outlandish it is. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I did make clear. The tags are validly, and looking above and at the history, its clear this article is not "calm" unless by calm you mean no one dares to point out its problem. Most casual readers will just go "man, what a bad article, figures its just Wikipedia" and move on. You are basically stating that because ONE scholar refused Menzies, this is somehow enough to warrant the entire article being purely criticism and worth failing to be neutral. Sorry, but no, that is wrong. I don't need to read Finlay, because his is one view and right or wrong, it has nothing to do with this article's neutrality. It is clear from your post that lead me here and above that you firmly agree with Finlay and think Menzies is a quack. Fine, you have the right to your personal opinion. That does NOT however give you the right to impose and force that opinion in this article without regard for other view points (nor your attempt to try to find a way to get rid of both articles). That is not neutrality and that is not how Wikipedia works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Make this editor an Administrator. :p Per WP:NPOV: "The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints."

Also: "Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be removed or repaired."

Where is the RFC? Sephiroth storm (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::::I'm going to make a general comment - Menzies' view is a badly sourced fringe view and if we follow our NPOV policy that should be clear in the article. The article is not supposed to be 'neutral' in the sense that it is somehow equally pro and against Menzies. See also WP:UNDUE. Virtually every scholar who has bothered to comment has been critical. Dougweller (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And given what Sephiroth has written above, NPOV 'in a nutshell' says "Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.". Later it says "The Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that we must "give equal validity" to minority views such as pseudoscience, the claim that the Earth is flat, or the claim that the Apollo moon landings never occurred. If that were the case, the result would be to legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers; but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such; from fairly explaining the strong arguments against the pseudoscientific theory; from describing the strong moral repugnance that many people feel toward some morally repugnant views; and so forth." The article can be a better article, there's no question about that, but I doubt that anyone who feels strongly that Menzies is correct will be happy with a good article that follows our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Very true, Dougweller. Exactly my sentiments. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias." - all significant views are NOT represented. It seems folks are focusing purely on "scholarly views" when this article is about the book, which was published primarily for the mainstream readers and not scholars, which was reviewed in a variety of other outlets, and which is NOT about the science itself. No one is saying give validity to Menzies claims, I am and continue to argue that this article is not a neutral article on the BOOK itself, not Menzies. I doubt anyone who feels strongly that Menzies is wrong would allow anyone to properly overhaul this article to neutrally cover the book itself, without giving WP:UNDUE wait to personal criticisms against Menzies and his ideas, or to allow proper reorganization and expansion to include multiple views, not just the critics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My view is that the article is insufficiently critical of a book which is basically fiction. Making clear an overhwhelming consensus is not "editorial bias" but responsible policy. ch (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept these tags in good faith.

1. The book promotes a fringe historical theory that to my knowledge has little (no) academic or mainstream, informed support. The article needs to make that clear and in doing so remains NPOV.
2. I don't understand what the "too few opinions" tag is supposed to accomplish. If an editor can cite academic support for the book then it's a welcome addition. We don't need a tag to invite editing help.
3. The article seems to have a reasonable length compared to many without the tag. If an editor has more fact-based material to add, again it's welcome, but the "too short" tag doesn't seem necessary.

I don't feel the tags support the spirit of the project. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic support is not the only valid opinion nor the only reliable source in the world. Nor can you validly discount any reliable source as somehow being "uninformed" as it is not your call to make. FYI, too short is not about the article length, it is about the length of the lead, as was explained above. It helps if the tag is read before discounting it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

For a fringe historical opinion Academic opinion is the one we should be reporting. Simonm223 (talk) 18:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see evidence that valid support for Menzies book is being suppressed here.

1. As I said, if an editor has informed support they are welcome to post it. The tag seems to be an attempt to invalidate the criticism of the book without bringing forward any support for it.
2. I apologize, but I didn't see the too short tag, I just looked up it's definition in the template page. Even so, I think the lead is fine. I don't see why we need a long lead. I think the best leads are short and simple. Let the reader know what the article is about and leave the details for the body of the article.

Jojalozzo (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • as with fringe science, it is possible to present the evidence neutrally, and the reader will reach his own conclusions. The material in the article is not presented neutrally. The reader does not have to be informed once per paragraph that the view is not generally accepted. In the lede, there should be at most, one fairly neutral summary word-- my favorite for the circumstances is "unconventional" In the subsequent discussion, his views must be presented in a connected manner, without inserted criticism after every point. The reader comes here for information about the book, and a key part of this is to give some idea of what the book actually says, no matter how wrong it may be. The particular sentence that i find most objectionable is the unsourced judgement: "Beyond this, the evidence in the book changes character." Most important, if there are any favorable reviews oft his book, from whatever sources, the most respectable one or two at least must be referred to--if they come from fringe sources, it is appropriate to give some relatively neutral indication of the nature of the source. We rely on academic opinion primarily, but we do not pretend that it is the only opinion. Both need to be given, making sure that the nature is specified. AnmaFinotera's position is in my opinion exactly right. there is such a thing as overkill. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that if there are favorable reviews (and there are, even if written by people with little knowledge of the subject we have to represent any positive reception)), there should be some representation as described by you. And definitely that it should be clear what the book says. Are you saying that all the criticism should be in a separate criticism section? Dougweller (talk) 06:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DGG, would you look at the Australia section, which I've just edited, and comment? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV Redux

After recent clarifications and major edits to improve neutrality and the allocation of due weight, are we ready to remove the NPOV tag? Jojalozzo (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I support. I don't understand, given all the criticisms and the clear, coherent opinions of relevant experts, how it could be seen as NPOV to base large amounts of the page on criticisms. It's not quite creationism, but it's close - it's pseudohistory. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure

The section on Criticism should be further broken down so it is easier to dip in and out as the reader wishes. That one long chunk of text is likely to ward off casual readership. The subsection on Australia (not a very illuminating section title) is a good example of what I am suggesting, but having a single subsection is a clear sign to me of a lack of necessary structure. I'm just a new comer to this page, haven't finished the book, and will leave implementation of these ideas to those with more experience and background. Sreed888 (talk) 20:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Criticism tag

The Criticism section is tagged {{Criticism}} which is normally used to discourage ghetto-izing criticism of the "facts" in the main part of the article. In this article, the Criticism section (which could be a place for informed analysis in support of Menzies book if there were any) currently just amplifies on the foregoing material. I propose we change the title of the section ("Critical analysis" perhaps?) and remove the tag. Jojalozzo (talk) 19:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Better: Merge the content into the article. I can't support the characterization of "used to discourage ghetto-izing criticism of the "facts" in the main part of the article" statement.- Sinneed 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article is missing a Reception section, which might well need part of the "criticism" content.- Sinneed 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Tag removed. I restored it. I won't war over this but... calling a sow's ear a silk purse won't change what it is.- Sinneed 03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I related above the tag is normally used to signify that the main part of the article is biased in a certain way and then a criticism section is added to display "balance". If there's any valid claim of bias in this article it's that the main part of the article is not critical enough and the Criticism section balances that by adding the necessary criticism. The tag does not apply in this case. Restoring the tag rather than discussing it here strikes me as war-like but if I re-remove it I take it you won't object. Jojalozzo (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I related above, that understanding is flawed. I strongly object to its removal, but I will not edit war with you over it. The article is flagged for serious problems. This flag points out one. Please do not remove it.- Sinneed 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Also worth noting Wikipedia:Criticism sections is only an essay... it isn't even a guideline. It need not be followed at all... and wp:IAR is always important anyway... but I think it is pretty clear that wp:consensus is that the article is not neutral at the moment.- Sinneed 04:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Without reading the section mentioned above, I agree with Sinneed. We are here to fix the article, to an agreeable state. let the tag stay until everything is resolved and fixed. Otherwise, noone will try to fix it. Sephiroth storm (talk) 11:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm willing to give you some slack to fix this, but if to you an "agreeable state" means eliminating the "Critical analysis" section and moving all the criticism into the main part of the article (which is the purpose of the tag), then there will be many others who will see the presence of so much criticism in the main article as non-neutral. As I understand it, the main purpose of the Critical analysis section is to provide a place for valid and valuable criticism and allow the main article to be an straight forward presentation of Menzies' theory without pointing out each of the many flaws as we go along. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, flooding the simplest of outlines of the book with criticism would be very much wp:POV. Happily no one I see talking is proposing that.- Sinneed 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see your restructuring proposals below before entering the comment above. If we're going to revamp the structure, then this talk section is moot. Jojalozzo (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not moot, as I see it. I have no idea if anyone is willing to do this or even vaguely interested. It would require a great deal of sourcing work to keep the content that is in the article currently, as it is woefully undersourced.- Sinneed 21:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) - Unless someone objects, I am going to remove the criticism tag, as this section now seems to rather neatly fit into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article guidance. Any objections to removing the tag?- Sinneed 03:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose merge with 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance

Since we are in full swing...what do you think of merging the article on the 1434 hypothesis with this one? Because both hypotheses are actually variations of one and the same theme, that of Zheng Hes fleet travelling around the world and paying visits to every continent, and to be honest, I don't see why we should give so much space to a fringe theory in three different articles (including Gavin Menzies). If there is enough support, I would be willing to set up an official request for merge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Disagree Menzies's two books may be associated historical revisionism but each book appears to meet the criteria for independent notability under WP:BOOK

A further little bit of searching turned up this: [4] there is clearly academic commentary on the 1434 book... none of it favorable... but commentary nonetheless. Simonm223 (talk)

• Willing to Consider I think there may be a place for a separate article on the fringe theory that subsumes most of these articles. There is a lot of material in both articles that addresses the theory and not the books themselves. These notable book articles could them be short synopses with links to the theory article. The problem with that is that the theory is independent research and thus is not appropriate for an article! Jojalozzo (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree - two books and an author equals three articles, ie. WP:BOOK. But "due weight" concept could lead us to reduce the length of articles. WBardwin (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Disagree, the second work is notable. Merging would again be NPOV and has nothing to do with "fringe theory", but simply articles on a book, something people here seem to keep forgetting. Perhaps having a separate article on the fringe theory, seemingly suggested above, would be a better way to address the NPOV issues rampant in both articles. These articles could then be appropirate articles giving a neutral synopsis of the books, while the article on the theory would be more appropriate for all the criticism about Menzie's views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose the second book is itself a well known widely reviewed and popular book. An overview article about the author's studies in the area might be in order though. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment should this discussion be really going on without a merge tag at 1434 or even this article? I bet we'd lose many editors because they don't see any notice 76.66.197.30 (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Structure idea

• Synopsis
• Basis (what is now called method)
• Reception

• Reviews, pro and con, presented neutrally

• Factual evidence

• tower, language, pyramid, etc. Each with SOURCED counter-arguments.

• Reasoning

• arguments, with SOURCED counters

• Concerns

• SOURCED arguments against, such as the reasoning about disease, and any response from the author

Right now, Reception, bits of factual evidence, reasoning, and concerns are all mashed together with much OR in the renamed criticism section. This won't generate a balanced article.- Sinneed 04:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Risking wp:talk - I thought about diving in and trying to drive a stake through the heart of this wp:fringe book, but I find it is so ludicrous that I can't see the point. Those who believe in it will believe no matter what, and those of us who read it and laugh are at small risk of being misled.- Sinneed 04:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be better to organize the article following the normal Book article structure, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article, rather than still contiuing to overly focus on attack his personal theory when this is an article on the book not his research. Also, keep in mind that any sourced counters/arguments must specifically indicate they they are refuting this book, and not be purely about teh theory or, the man. Otherwise its still WP:SYNTH. As I've noted above, this article should be about the book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But this is a wp:fringe book... treating it as serious literature begins with a false premise. Yes that is POV but this is a talk page, not the article, and I am explaining the flaw in the approach to the content. And no, you are not interpreting wp:SYNTH correctly. That *MIGHT* be off-topic, but I doubt you will find much support for that position.- Sinneed 21:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a book, period. Whether the theory it is based on is "fringe" or not, it is still a book (and it is not literature). It is not neutral to presume to treat it differently from any other book. It should be neutrally summarized, with a neutral reception section that notes overall criticisms and not an excessively detailed blow-by-blow refutation of the book. And yes, it is synthesis to claim that a source is criticizing or refuting this book if it does not mention the book by name. Again, this article is about the book, not the writer and not the theory as a whole, but this particular book. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this article should simply summarize the premise of the book and state that it's a fringe theory with little or no support in academic circles, referencing the critical articles. Since the theory itself is non-notable this makes a lot of sense to me. Why waste all this time disputing it. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the suggestions for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Books/Non-fiction article criticism section:

• Reviews / Commercial and critical reception / Criticism / Analysis

• include facts (with a cited source), and the opinions of notable people that have been published in some form. The section should be reserved for critical analysis of the book by notable, published critics.
• no personal opinions, views i.e. a subjective book review
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

The criticism section mainly references reviews and criticism by notable reviewers. There is no place for project editors to mount a case against the book's theory. Jojalozzo (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessarily a case of "mounting a case". If there's an objective fact he simply gets wrong there's nothing wrong about calling him out on it. And I think it's very important to have a criticism section given the amount of coverage it has - people will want to know why it has been dismissed so widely. John Smith's (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As I understand it, the idea is to use notable critics' writings to mount the case, not to refer to unnamed "many critics" or "some critics" (and certainly not editors' own original research). This won't be hard and will make a good NPOV case against the theory. Jojalozzo (talk) 23:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Notable support

I have spent some time looking for support for the book among academics with no success. I have also not been able to find any writings or quotes by Menzies addressing any of the criticism of the book. The positive press reviews mainly address the emotional impact of the book. Perhaps that is all we can do here as well. Any ideas or references I missed? Jojalozzo (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "perhaps that is all we can do here as well"? If you mean that we can only refer to positive reviews as being by non-academics/in regards to the story, I agree. If you mean that we cannot spend lots of time detailing academic criticism because there's nothing to weigh it out from the other side, I disagree. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian quote should be removed as the reviewer makes demonstrably several assumptions about both Menzies language and nautical skills which were subsequently proven wrong. At Wikipedia, we don't include facts generally proven to be outdated, so why should we make an exception to reviewer's opinions?? Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There are three reasons for including the Guardian quote: 1) as you say, it is primarily opinion, not statements of fact and 2) it is the only written material I can find that addresses the critics, albeit in future-looking way, and 3) it's an example of the early reviewers that got bamboozled. Jojalozzo 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And 4) the Guardian is definitely notable. Jojalozzo 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts at looking for solid sources, but there is one but all-overriding reason against the use of the Guardian source: The reviewer makes demonstrably false factual claims (GM' language skills) and is close to untruth when praising GM's nautical skills (who in fact, after ramming a moored US submarine, retired from the Royal Navy). Since WP is primarily an encyclopedia, concerned with things how they are and not an archive (which is content collecting things how they were said or written), I can't see how we could include such a problematic quote against our better insight and knowledge. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I detected a third (!!) error in the Guardian quote: the HMS Rorqual (S02) Menzies commanded, was a diesel submarine, not powered by nuclear energy! The Guardian writer appears to be totally fooled by Menzies' boastful self-description. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I restored the content, and it was deleted. The book itself has been "thoroughly discredited". Does the argument apply to it? Shall we suggest a change to the wp:AfD process that includes "thoroughly discredited" to the reasons for deletion? I would oppose that.
• wp:BALANCE rather than wp:Censorship, please. I won't revert this again, but it should be restored. "Errors" should be balanced by other sources. Deleting them may be wp:OR/wp:POV. If the argument is that the source is not a generally wp:reliable source, the source board would be a good place to seek support for that view. I have never read an error-free press item of any actual content. The only question is how glaring the errors will be. I find myself introducing text like "Press reports conflicted but blah blah blah..." way too much.- Sinneed 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's hardly WP:Censorship to remove a paragraph on a reference that is so thoroughly inaccurate that a second paragraph is required delineating the inaccuracies nearly as long as the material actually from the source. Although the Guardian would usually constitute a WP:RS I would posit that if the critique of the article, included with it, is accurate it is not a WP:RS for this context and so should not be there.Simonm223 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I support Simonm223's change. There's no point in quoting an article that makes so many "factual" statements yet gets them all wrong. John Smith's (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My intention in including the quote was not to create balance but to help document the initial irrational reception the book received. I hoped my modifications after Gun Powder Ma's deletion made that clear. I see the quote as almost a parody of support since it was so poorly researched and coming from an anti-academic viewpoint. I will try one more time to make that more explicit. Jojalozzo 00:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed888 (talk • contribs)

The book has received a fair amount of attention from historians. If positive reviews can be found, they should be included if they are of a similar calibre - third-party reviews in notable, mainstream sources. The reception doesn't seem irrational at all - the reactions from historians seem pretty rational and based on well-respected facts that directly contradict the story that Menzies is telling. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you consider the Guardian to be a notable source? The consensus is that their review is as flawed as the book and on that basis editors removed the quotes I had taken from it. Given the consensus that the book is wrong, then any notable support be equally wrong. Any ideas? Jojalozzo (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not the argument against the article. It's that it simply gets so many things wrong that it isn't worth including. The criticism is not that it's positive. John Smith's (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Commentary by experts who took the time to address individual claims and bits of evidence in the book make it obvious that the Guardian review is woefully flawed. It's also mostly a summary of factual claims without challenge or it's own confirming or denying evidence, meaning most of it is useless and secondary to the book itself. However, the claims and points it makes about Menzies himself are a potentially interesting and valuable segue into further criticisms - he was a commander of a submarine was he? Wasn't he responsible for crashing a submarine...he left colonists in the Americas? But there isn't any evidence...Familiar with Chinese language and culture? I thought he didn't speak any Chinese... And so it goes on. The review may be flawed, but it's also an opportunity to show how absurd specific claims are and therefore give due weight to criticisms. In this case presenting the review is not only tenable, it would actually help the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this idea has promise and would like to see how it comes out (my attempts in that direction were inadequate). However, if folks are going to shoot it down in any case, it's not worth your effort. Jojalozzo (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If support for the book that gets things wrong is unacceptable, then what forms of support will we accept (in addition to that which says good things about the writing style as we have allowed from the NYT review)? This is what prompted me to say "perhaps that is all we can do here as well" when I opened this section. Jojalozzo (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not that the support is "unacceptable", it's that the factual assertions are wrong and we can demonstrate this with other sources, that's of benefit to the reader. We shouldn't be covering up assertions made that things are right or wrong, but we should note inaccuracies. NPOV notes both. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

If you look back in this section a bit you'll find the reason an editor gave for removing (i.e. finding "unacceptable") the Guardian quote the second (or third?) time was "to remove a paragraph on a reference that is so thoroughly inaccurate that a second paragraph is required delineating the inaccuracies nearly as long as the material actually from the source. Although the Guardian would usually constitute a WP:RS I would posit that if the critique of the article, included with it, is accurate it is not a WP:RS for this context and so should not be there." At some point, I gave up trying to provide a context that made a quote from the review acceptable. However, I support you in your efforts in that area.Jojalozzo (talk) 20:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Role of the media in legitimizing Menzies' theories

I'm interested in showing how the book and Menzies' 1421 theory became the phenomenon that it is. Is that a good idea? If so, the response to the Guardian quote indicates that it may be difficult to do that and any suggestions or feedback would be welcome. If it's a bad idea then I'll be happy to move on other tasks. Jojalozzo 02:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sreed888 (talk • contribs)

That's problematic for WP:OR reasons. Simonm223 (talk) 02:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see. We'd need to find an reference that made that case. But how is it we can say "Menzies' 1421 hypothesis has been dismissed by sinologists and professional historians." which is the editor's interpretation of the critics but we can't say the media was initially enthusiastic? Jojalozzo (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to quote the Guardian article to show there was initial enthusiasm about the book. John Smith's (talk) 07:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I will just cite the article, no quote. Jojalozzo (talk) 12:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With a statement saying something along the lines of "the media was initially enthusiastic over the book [#] where the brackets reference a quote... that would work. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The current version after some edits by me looks fine to me, and does get across the idea that it was positively received. However, the vast number of criticisms that I trimmed out of the external links section suggests that there's now a lot of popular criticisms that need to be integrated. They should be used as inline citations, not as external links, which are only included as links that can't be used as footnotes due to length, breadth or format reasons (i.e. collections of articles, a variety of sub-pages and sound or video files). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

Regards this edit, I agree that the source should be included. Ideally it should be included throughout the page, refuting specific points and raising new ones. It looks quite lengthy and interesting, but it's not appropriate as an external link (per WP:ELNO points 1 and 6). It should certainly be included in the page (and I'd dearly love a copy if anyone has a PDF) but it's not an external link since most editors can only read the first page. However, as a compromise, at 6000 words it's about 24 pages long and therefore would make a suitable further reading entry. Could we move it there instead? I'm content leaving it there for a while, it's cited three times already but if it's that detailed then I wouldn't suggest removing it until it's at least double this. Even then I might be tempted to just leave it in. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was under the false impression that the article was still a free sample, accessible to all users, as I originally included it. Too bad access is now restricted, that changes things. Let's hear what other have to say on the inclusion among the links, meanwhile I am happy to send all interested Wikipedians the complete PDF, just drop me a note. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not for me, it's possible there's something weird with my IP address. The reason I suggest further reading is both that it's not really an external link, but it is certainly a lengthy discussion. Further reading keeps it in the page, makes it quite prominent (it's a separate section immediately above the EL section), and per the guide to layout it's far more appropriate - I could essentially see no reason to ever remove it from further reading. It's really a technical issue of definitions and purposes of sections. I have no objection to its presence on the page, but I'd like to keep in line with the manual of style. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Regards the removal of 1421 exposed site, even though it is a footnoted reference, it is still an entire site devoted to criticizing the book and theory. I think it very much belongs as an EL as it's far too large for one link to capture all the details and expertise involved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It would qualify under "or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria." in wp:EL. However... it is very negative. Other than the book's own cite, is there another site that would add for wp:BALANCE? It seems to me to be wp:UNDUE. Interested readers can just click the link in the Refs section. As I say, I don't expect to take it out again, but I don't see the need.- Sinneed 20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1421 exposed site belongs definitely to EL. Otherwise I am going to quote directly from Menzies webpage so that the page moves by the same rationale from EL to references. Please don't overstate the case of wp:EL. On the whole, however, I believe we are making good progress. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

1st... this isn't a swap meet or a prisoner exchange. "If you don't do what I want I will x" is a Bad Thing. Don't worry, if you remove the official site, I am sure there are more than one who will restore it. But please don't. That would look like wp:POINT.

wp:EL wouldn't support that:

"On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view. If one point of view dominates informed opinion, that should be represented first. For more information, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view—in particular, Wikipedia's guidelines on undue weight."

"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria."

• Is there even a single positive link besides the Official cite? Virtually every credible reference I can find is negative.- Sinneed 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You still seem to interpret Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and other WP guidelines that if there are no positive reviews, we have to create ones or cut back on the critical side... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, your mind-reading device has failed. Please focus on the content, not the editors.- Sinneed 22:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Menzies' view, the reality of his hypothesis, is the minority. Two critical pages seems appropriate - he's the only one who takes it seriously. I would suggest one home page link and two critical links is reasonable given it's pseudohistory and not taken seriously by the experts. The other changes look good. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2 seems reasonable to me. I would love to find even one fan site, but I just don't see it. My objection is not the number... it is hammering away at the 1421 site. We use in the body, list it in the references and then cherry-on-top-it in the EL section. wp:UNDUE... fails wp:EL.- Sinneed 01:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's undue weight if there is too much emphasis on the minority opinion. I'd say it's pretty obvious the majority scholarly informed opinion is that Menzies is essentially wrong, and quite badly so. If there's that much difficulty finding other supporters, and if so many academics are objecting to his work, publicly, then perhaps two critical sources is due weight and therefore appropriate. If hammering away is the norm, then we should represent that hammering. Neutral doesn't mean credulous, uncritical or friendly - it means fair weight to the state of the art knowledge. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

...annnnnndd loop. I think we have exhausted this line of discussion. I think you understand my position. I think I understand yours. I see the article failing wp:UNDUE and wp:EL because the book is a fluffy bit of nonsense that rates an article because it is a successful bit of fluff. But it DOES have one. And we could easily have one that met the requirements of WP. The book is fluff. The article says clearly it is fluff, with no need to toss out the rules and guidelines of WP. Instead we will have one, it seems, that will wear a POV flag all its life.- Sinneed 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I don't understand why "fluffy bit of nonsense" would mean we don't include the extensive and detailed criticisms of the book and its contents, when that's giving due weight to critics. If there were no popular success, if there were no reviews in The Guardian or the NYTM, the scholarly reviews would still be enough to pass notability and would still require due weight to be placed on the criticisms. I can't see why this page is flagged with NPOV, since it is pretty clear to me that the main response has been criticism. I see this as due weight, and an encyclopedic description of the book's impact (i.e. reception) and flaws. Also, there's a lot more popular reviews as well, and they should be integrated. So far the first I've looked at (Salon.com) is negative, but we'll see what develops. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Citations in lead

Right now the lead has a single citation. Per WP:LEADCITE, I'd like to remove it but need consensus to support this and Gun Powder Ma is justifiably concerned over the history of this particular sentence. I've adjusted the wording to avoid any sort of numerical estimation. Can we agree that professional historians have been less than impressed, and therefore can leave the citations to the body? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep citations: As I said, I have been following this article for two years and there was repeatedly some quantitative debate on how many historians dismissed Menzies hypothesis by how much and how this all can be best expressed with words. There were some attempts, too, to outright remove all criticism to Menzies from the lead, also by anonymous IPs. I am fairly certain this will happen again if we don't send the right signal and keep the citation in the lead. This is not against WP rules, and happens in fact in thousands of articles on controversial topics. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In agreement with the above. In addition to the dubious quality of the historical research, the book also contained a wide range of flawed premises which would seem to indicate a confused and superficial understanding of marine navigation and seamanship.Norloch (talk) 12:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Amateur Historian, Professional Writer

Menzies is paid for his writing, it's sensational nature and outrageous claims. He has no formal training or credentials as an historian. That makes him an amateur historian and professional writer. Please stop the edit war. Jojalozzo (talk) 04:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

He clearly is not a historian. It's even a stretch to call him a professional writer, given that at least his first book was almost completely rewritten I understand, and I suspect that wasn't the only one - more of a team effort probably. Dougweller (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Under what criteria does being paid make you a historian (amateur or otherwise)? Authors of fiction get paid. And historians don't always get paid because their work is sometimes considered not profitable. John Smith's (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has said being paid makes you a historian, have they? 'Historian' implies having both formal training in history (usually at least) and having published works that are referenced by other historians -- in academic books and journals. Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1. Historian: 'Although "historian" can be used to describe amateur and professional historians alike, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees in the discipline. Some historians, though, are recognized by equivalent training and experience in the field.'
2. Is the resistance to calling Menzes an amateur historian due to his unwillingness to apply historical methods to his efforts?
3. I don't have a problem calling Menzes an historical writer but I think it's inaccurate to call him an amateur historical writer since he is paid for it. If there is proof that he is not the true author of his books then we can take away the writer designation but not the amateur designation. Maybe we could call him an historical project organizer? Jojalozzo (talk) 02:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. But I disagree. I think you can be a paid amateur historian. It just makes you a professional amateur historian, but as that sounds silly I don't think we should use that description. Or we just call him an author. That is accurate. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer him being called just an "author". Because, what does "amateur historian" means? Noone knows, just a vacuous term. By that token, we here would be amateur historians, too, and in fact anyone who bothers to spill ink on historical questions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As the writer of this book and no earlier works, "author" is redundant. "Retired submarine captain" works for me. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny that noone else thought of this simple solution. Works for me, too.Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I still think British ghost writer Neil Hanson be acknowledged somewhere, as he has been identified as such by Gavin Menzies himself in the 2006 ABC TV program. Hanson also makes indirect reference to 1421 on his own website!--Nickm57 (talk) 11:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

PBS Documentary

This is an unhelpful and confused addition. First, the given source does not support what this section says. Second, that Zheng He travelled as far as the East African coast is widely accepted and mainstream scholarship. No news here. But the claim that he also rounded Cape of Good Hope and sailed into the Atlantic, which is somehow meddled in, is not. This is Menzies' 'theory'. If there were really scholars who supported this view of Menzies in the documentary, which I doubt very much, we need solid references to printed material. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

IP socking & pov editing

98.122.100.249 (talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 (talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 (talk · contribs) - the edits make it obvious and they both geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina. Dougweller (talk) 12:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Argument against the theory... no linguistic or cultural influence

The Chinese had sophisticated technology and a well-defined culture. The Chinese would have left much evidence of their presence among any people who would have come in contact with them -- especially linguistic evidence. Words of Chinese origin are extremely common in Thai, Vietnamese, Korean, and Japanese, reflecting the cultural influence of China. Had the Chinese reached the New World, then they would have left much linguistic evidence in words for Chinese technologies and institutions. If any First Peoples of the Americas ever ad contact with the Chinese, then they would have linguistic and religious evidence. Example: the Aleut language has huge numbers of words of Russian and English origin, as would be expected after their contacts with Russians and Americans who were as different from them as the Chinese, and had powerful institutions and technology. The Aleutian Islands would have been the part of the New World that the Chinese would most likely reached at some time had they sailed along the currents of the North Pacific because the Aleutian Islands are closer than any other places in the New World to China. Aleut has practically no words of Chinese origin, suggesting that a culture that would have influenced them heavily with powerful institutions and technology had it gotten there... never got there. The same is surely true of all First Peoples, in view of eventual meetings of Chinese with First Peoples in the mid-19th century and later. No particular affinities between China and any First Peoples seem to be noted in religion, philosophy, institutions, or vocabulary.

--Pbrower2a (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this is not a forum to discuss the issue, it's purpose is to discuss improving the article. So what you need are reliable sources saying what you are saying but relating them to Menzies. I agree with you, but this discussion doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you make some good points, Pbrower2a. Unfortunately, we won't be able to include them in the article unless we can find support from notable sources. Jojalozzo 01:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)