Talk:Zheng He

Wenming's descendants

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

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

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

NPOV ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

17 August

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

Confusing first paragraph

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

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

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

Three questions

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

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

Expeditions section Plagiarism

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

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

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

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

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

"On the first three voyages, Zheng He visited southeast Asia, India, and Ceylon (today known as Sri Lanka). The fourth expedition went to the Persian Gulf and Arabia, and later expeditions ventured down the east African coast, as far as Malindi in what is now Kenya. Throughout his travels, Zheng He liberally dispensed Chinese gifts of silk, porcelain, and other goods. In return, he received rich and unusual presents from his hosts, including African zebras and giraffes that ended their days in the Ming imperial zoo. Zheng He and his company paid respects to local deities and customs, and in Ceylon they erected a monument honouring Buddha, Allah, and Vishnu." That's the plagiarised section. I noticed in the template, it says edition "unknown". The textbook is edition 3. Thanks for the help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.167.234 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

like most hui…

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

In Malacca

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

Removing OR

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

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

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

Map named after him

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoff Wade could be wrong

Geoff Wade could be wrong:

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

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

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

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

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

Re: Disputation edit disputing outlandish Zheng He/Chinese claim to introduce Islam into SE Asia

There are major factual errors in many of the sophistic augments attributing events to Zheng He. With regard to the introduction of Islam to Indonesia and essentially the region (including Malaysia and Philippines) I have added important data from peer-reviewed texts, (which are usually on prescribed reading for university course curriculum) which reflect the academic discourse and not the fantasy hagiography of Menzies and the other half-witted hacks. The Chinese academic discourse in the main reflects identically that of Western discourse- and it is damaging and insulting to serious Chinese academics. Let's all please try and make Wikipedia something less than a total joke or forum for sophistic cultural aggrandisement and petty bourgeoisie historical revisionism. Frankly- a lot of this article is dreadful- it attempts to pass off fallacy and fantasy as consensus/academic discourse fact.Starstylers (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Doug,

to doug

You'll find on a second reading that the edit is not an essay but disproves the Original Research as portrayed in the article attempting to masquerade as fact. The source texts are peer-reviewed external third-party books, if you'd care to re-check. Thus the Disputation stands the test of Wikipedia edit requirements as it not original research, but, the required rebuttal of Original Research in order for an article which does not meet any criteria of POV Neutrality and research that diverges from academic mainstream discourse. Additionally, the links I use add to Wikipedia in the framework of cross-linking to related articles. Frankly, if more articles were written as thoroughly as the Disputation alone- Wikipedia would not be a steaming pile of politicised horse manure and would not be ridiculed a d banned from even primary and secondary school referencing (as per UK, Australia and Indonesia school curriculau)Starstylers (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

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