Talk:Gavin Menzies

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.) Jojalozzo 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. Jojalozzo 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)

Map image displayed twice

Let's have one image with a short caption that is neutral. Jojalozzo 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)

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 Wikipedia: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#3. Balance. 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'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)

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)

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'. Jojalozzo 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)

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's (talk) 00:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

This source [1] 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'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'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'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:[2]

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 [[3]] 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)