Talk:Gavin Menzies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Seems to be an attack on the book[edit]

I was under the impression that a Wiki entry should be about the subject. It seems that most of the information here DEBUNKS the book. It seems out of proportion with the amount of space devoted to describing the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.75.153 (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Wiki search for Gavin Menzies should produce an objective public record of the man, and the events of his life. The author(s) have not quite been successful, however, in masking their own contempt for the man described; the article is pidgeon-holed with several uncited subjective notes of opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threebillygoats (talk • contribs) 10:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What "uncited subjective notes of opinion" are you referring to? All of the criticisms of Menzies currently presented in this article are cited to reliable sources. --Katolophyromai (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly it, this article is nothing more than criticism. From the beginning paragraph there is a clear agenda to discredit the man, and obvious underlying assumptions are supported with random critique of character and qualification. Even the man's service record (during a Cold War hushed in secret) is brought into question.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Threebillygoats (talk • contribs) 01:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article reflects what the reliable sources on Menzies say about him. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream historical scholars. If virtually all modern historians say the man is not credible, then we report that. We are not manipulating sources or anything in a deliberate effort to discredit him or anything; we are just reporting what reputable historians say about him. Regarding his service record, the article is not doubting whether or not he actually served, but rather his claim that his time in the Navy has made him an expert on cartography and navigation, since his books plainly reveal a startling ignorance of both those subjects. --Katolophyromai (talk) 02:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see the first comment may have been a bit ambiguous, sorry. In no way does the article break from academic structure; in fact, one could argue that the content is over-sourced and entirely unoriginal, which is what I'm really trying to get at here.. The "uncited subjective notes of opinion" are subtle, underlying assumptions only partly masked by citation of "reliable sources." The article is fairly well structured and written, but the cited facts serve a certain context of the story, rather than the story itself. A decent book review I suppose, but inadequate as a short biography. Threebillygoats (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's really an attack on his books, which wouldn't be a problem if done correctly and not misusing Wikipedia's proceedings. You made an inversion: created an article supposedly about the person, but starts it commenting the controversies on the books, puts "gender: pseudohistory" above, and creates the topic "Biography" below. The correct (usual in Wikipedia) would be to start with a summary biography, where you might even cite the books and the polemics around them, and after create below the topic "Controversies" to detail and explore the criticisms against his works. Paolo E F Maurício (talk) 04:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gavin Menzies. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Menzies or Debunking a Book[edit]

I'm not sure if this article is about author Gavin Menzies or it's a platform for people who hate on his books.

Shouldn't most of the comments be located on a page about the books, not a person's page?

The books do not have their own articles, nor should they, as this article is sufficient and Menzies is not famous for anything other than his books (which, incidentally, were almost entirely written by anonymous ghostwriters). In respect to your complaint that the article is overly critical of Menzies, this is because Wikipedia is supposed to reflect the views of mainstream scholarship and Menzies's writings have been universally rejected by respected scholars as fraudulent pseudohistory. We are obligated to accurately describe what he has claimed, but also explain why real historians agree that almost everything he says is fundamentally wrong. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Wikipedia needs to reflect academic views. If they're almost all negative, that's too bad for Menzies and his fans. John Smith's (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There used to be an article about the book 1421, which seems to have been deleted in favour of putting all discussion of it here. That is unfortunate in that the article contained a more detailed discussion of Menzie's claims and evidence and the criticism thereof.Bill (talk) 03:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018[edit]

Put the Category:Academic people related to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories on this page because he is related to a Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theorie which shows a Chinese landfall in America before Christopher Columbus arrive in America in 1492. 191.180.142.106 (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done, category looks likely to be deleted soon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Menzies is also not an academic either, so the category does not work. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why the Category:Academic people related to Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories will to be deleted soon? Because this category is an important category about Scholars related to Pre-Columbian transoceanic contact theories. - 2804:18:819:8D33:F1D3:B54C:AEA4:D991 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Semi-protection request (25 July 2019)[edit]

"Off topic" content copied, as suggested, from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection:

———————————————————————————

Temporary semi-protection: The ip said everything was a personal attack and removed most of the sources. Jack90s15 (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, user Jack90s15 is lying. The whole article of Gavin Menzies is filled with personal attacks and non-neutral vitriol against Gavin Menzies. This is in direct violation of Wikipedia official policy on biographies of living persons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B004:1D90:7C9B:B7CC:547C:B8D8 (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is removing citations that show that his work as been debunked and is POV pushing Jack90s15 (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC) like this,[reply]

On 21 July 2004, the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) broadcast a two-hour-long documentary debunking all of Menzies's major claims, featuring professional Chinese historians.[1] In 2004, historian Robert Finlay severely criticized Menzies in the Journal of World History for his "reckless manner of dealing with evidence" that led him to propose hypotheses "without a shred of proof".[2] Finlay wrote:

National University of Singapore, acknowledges that there was a cross exchange of technological ideas between Europe and China, but ultimately classifies Menzies' book as historical fiction and asserts that there is "absolutely no Chinese evidence" for a maritime venture to Italy in 1434.[3] Jack90s15 (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Menzies&diff=907735350&oldid=907733521

User Jack90s15 is lying in an vain attempt to reinsert his character assassination of a living person violating Official Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. user Jack90s15 is also deleting source references such as:

1.) https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1386655/Explorer-from-China-who-beat-Columbus-to-America.html
2.) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/ancient-chinese-explorers/
3.) https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2005/11/29/documentary-on-zheng-hes-adventures/
4.) http://thephotosociety.org/products/zheng-he-tracing-the-epic-voyages-of-chinas-greatest-explorer/
5.) https://www.boatus.com/magazine/2013/august/the-greatest-explorer-you-never-heard-of.asp
6.) https://www.ancient.eu/article/1334/the-seven-voyages-of-zheng-he/
7.) https://www.thehindu.com/thread/arts-culture-society/article8120894.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1011:B004:1D90:7C9B:B7CC:547C:B8D8 (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The ip is still pov pushing and Removing Content Jack90s15 (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_Menzies&action=history[reply]

———————————————————————————

It's the usual fringe-pushing stuff, utterly ignoring the overwhelming view of professional historians that Menzies views are junk. That's hardly a BLP violation, that's supporting the WP:N core policy. Zero attempts at discussion by the IP just the attempts at intimidation by spouting off some policies they've heard but don't understand. And they've gotten FAR more recognition than they should. WP:RBI. Ravensfire (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Fritze was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference finlay2004 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference reuters columbus was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gavin_Menzies&oldid=1217166601"