Talk:Treasure of Khan

message: Ok, we get it. You don't like the author's characterization of certain aspects of Chinese society. But these sound more like liberties taken by the author for the sake of plot than errors. Remember, Cussler utilizes an alternative history throughout his novels. Atlantis likely doesn't exist, and Amelia Erhart didn't crash in Africa, but we don't need to add an errors section to other Cussler books. I propose cleaning up the section, leaving only the portion about Chinese surnames, or deleating it.
:The current article mentions very little of the book, but heavily elaborates on the errors, giving the impression that the author has only limited knowledge of the book or is on a vedetta.71.235.66.254 00:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that this article is heavily bias and needs some work. Once I finish reading the book, I'll probably come back and try to add some things to make it more NPoV. Rlloyd3 06:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors? 

message: I'm going to throw this idea into the mix, I've seen Shinzo Abe's name spelled Shinze Abe on the net. Is this considered correct and or acceptable? Could Cussler have used his name and possibly character as inspiration for a fictional president of China? I believe in one of his "Oregon Files" books, he used the name or a very similar name to the actual president, and maybe it was determined this was not a good idea?
Either way, it's just a thought I'm throwing in here about the whole Chinese culture accuracy/critisization thing. Magu 04:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinzo Abe? 

message: I made some changes to the wording of the controversies section. Basically this section is still not in good shape. Someone has attempted to "Cite" statements there by adding wiki-links to wikipedia pages are probably not "verifiable" references... so I would consider this section still needing major help, or DELETION.Crocadillion 23:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more changes. I havent read the book and only came here from the Inner Mongolia page in order to have a look before deleting the link there, but IMO the whole rambling about who settled when in Inner Mongolia seems rather over-the top in an article about a book that is apparently quite unrelated to reality. The only relevant statement might be the 18 million Han vs. 4 million Mongolians in Inner Mongolia, but then it's unclear (without reading the book) whether the president meant the whole population of Inner Mongolia or only Inner Mongolians. To qualify the oppression thing, there are some problems that Inner Mongolians have and Outer Mongolians don't, but on the other hand Outer Mongolia is economically weaker and generally not always welcoming to Inner Mongolians. In short, only very few if any Inner Mongolians consider their life in China inconvenient enough to seek emigration to Outer Mongolia.  Yaan 12:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to "Controversies"

message: Can this now be removed? a user so thoughtfully removed the entire questionable section, I see no reason to keep the tag.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.48.64.41 (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: neutrality tag