Talk:Zheng He/Archive 2

message: My old chinese textbook says that Zheng He also visited America on one of his voyages. Any confirmation on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.118.149 (talk) at 00:38, 3 November 2006
*No. -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: America?

message: I have removed the section headed "Chinese imperial brass medal found in America" on the grounds that it describes an absurd theory without indicating any grounds for doubt. If Dr. Siu-Leung Lee's theory is to be mentioned here, it must be done in an appropriate context, indicating that the theory is highly speculative and does not reflect a consensus of experts. 
The section did contain such language previously, but it has been deleted without discussion. That is inappropriate and discourteous behavior. My response is to challenge the mention of Dr. Lee's theory at all. I have stated concerns on this page (above) and there has been no attempt to address them. Let us have a discussion here before continuing on this matter. 
I welcome comments from all interested, of course. -- Rob C (Alarob) 19:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "brass medal" section 

message: Sllee19 kept deleting a paragraph describing Geoff Wade's findings, with source, even though more than one other editor restored it. Here's the paragraph in question: 
:Geoff Wade of the Asia Research Institute at the National University of Singapore has strongly disputed the authenticity of the map and has suggested that it is either an 18th or 21st-century fake. He has pointed out a number of anachronisms that appear in the map and its text annotations. For example, in the text next to Eastern Europe, which has been translated as "People here mostly believe in God and their religion is called 'Jing' (景, referring to Nestorianism)", Wade notes that the Chinese word for the Christian God is given as "Shang-di" (上帝), which is a usage that was first borrowed from Chinese ancient text by Jesuit missionary Matteo Ricci in the 16th century.[www.singtaonet.com:82/arts/200702/t20070208_465576.html]
To save space, here is a list of the reverts by Sllee19:
#00:29, 6 June 2007
#00:44, 6 June 2007
#16:02, 23 June 2007
#01:34, 24 June 2007
#15:33, 24 June 2007
#07:11, 26 June 2007
#10:08, 26 June 2007
#12:41, 26 June 2007
-- Rob C (Alarob) 13:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geoff Wade section repeatedly deleted

message: The term Shang Di is a Chinese term used in Han dynasty or earlier. Jing Jiao (Nestorianism) came to China in Han dynasty. The map has been indicated by the owner as a 18th century copy of an earlier map. There is nothing special to have the term Shang Di or Jing Jiao on the map, just like the word America is on it. These words were apparently added in the copy, not the original. The appearance of these terms has nothing to do with what the map indicates geographically. I am not defending anything about when this map was made, but Geoff Wade's points are groundless. If one wanted to question a map, the Waldseemueller map now in Library of Congress should be more controversial. The map purchased by  the US government from Germany for $10 million is called the "birth certificate" of America because the word "America" appeared on this map for the first time.  Yet the map is dated 1507, six years before Balboa saw the Pacific Ocean for the first time after crossing the Panama isthmus. Even so, how could the map maker know that the Pacific Ocean extended from North to South America? and how could the continent of the two Americas fit their latitude in modern maps?  As mentioned in my other statement, Geoff Wade is at the most a translator of Ming Shi Lu.  He has no knowledge about the revolutionary technology of making brass in Xuan De era, as clearly demonstrated by Xuan De censers. Ask any laymen with some rudimentary knowledge of Chinese antique, they can tell you that Xuan De censers were made with brass.  What kind of qualification is this "Ming expert" if he does not even know about the brass technology of Ming dynasty?  See my statement on : http://www.asiawind.com/forums/read.php?f=10&i=47&t=47
The worse thing to do for a good historian is to tie ethnic and nationalistic bias in research. Some  people insist that Australia was "discovered" by Dutch and try to disrupt discussion and new evidence of a different view point. This is totally unscholastic.
Sllee19 16:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of simply trashing Geoff Wade, show us what you have, from reliable sources, that contradicts him, or at least presents an equally plausible interpretation of evidence. Censoring his views is not the way to proceed, and I ask you again to refrain from doing so. -- Rob C (Alarob) 16:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Geoff Wade biased

message: Concerning "the section (I) deleted": As explained above, I deleted the section "Chinese imperial brass medal found in America" because it advanced a specious theory. First I edited the passage to indicate grounds for doubt, but you (Sllee19) reverted my changes (diff). I responded by deleting the section and called for a discussion on the talk page. The response was silence. 
As for the 20 points you just listed, I note that they fail to address the five questions I raised months ago at Talk:Zheng He#Original research. I will not repeat those unanswered questions, but will add new concerns about the evidence you just gave. 
*I cannot read Chinese, so am unable to evaluate your claims for 滇南本草 (Diannan ben cao) by 兰茂 (Mao Lan; note that Lan Mao is a cartoon character). I wish you (or someone) would begin a Wikipedia article about this 15th-century author. Your claims for his book need to be better sourced, however. It is not enough to mention the title, especially when you wish to use the book to overturn the consensus of both Chinese and American historians about both Zheng He and Columbus. 
*The provenance of the brass medallion (which you own) remains a secret, and this makes it difficult to evaluate some of your claims about it. Allowance must be made for the possibilities that it is a forgery, a replica, or that, if authentic, it was conveyed to North America by someone other than Zheng He's mariners in the five centuries between its creation and its rediscovery. It cannot be accepted as irrefutable evidence of Zheng He's presence in America just because its owner says so. 
*Lawson's sighting of a large iron pot among the Cherokees is not so surprising, unless one assumes that they never saw a European between Soto's expedition in the 1540s and Lawson's at the end of the 1690s. There is no need to introduce a Chinese mariner to explain it. 
*Your assertion that Columbus saw Indians dressed in silks is based on a misreading of Hale's Life of Christopher Columbus, which you cite. Columbus saw Indians with "worked [i.e., decorated] handkerchiefs on their heads. At a little distance it seemed as if these were made of silk...." On closer examination, they turned out to be something else, probably plant fiber. 
*The chicken bones in Chile are at least on the shore of the more plausible ocean; however, even if this evidence proves convincing, there are numerous ocean-going cultures somewhat closer than China that could have introduced the chickens, despite your denial. (See Mau Piailug, for example.)
*It is apparently your view that every culture in which red and white were significant colors must have been molded by the Chinese. What's more, any coincidental resemblance to an element of Chinese culture is taken, in your analysis, as proof of a Chinese imprint. This is a fundamental error in reasoning. 
*You assume that North American Indians were childlike primitives with impaired vision until Zheng He enlightened them. Somehow the Indians were unable to perceive patterns in the stars or to describe them to one another, to make decent pots, or even to come up with a word for the color white on their own. I don't wish to be unkind, so I will not attempt to describe this assumption. 
For these reasons, as well as the concerns already stated before, I am unconvinced by your evidence and do not agree that your improbable theory belongs in this article. I hope other editors will give their views. -- Rob C (Alarob) 00:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply to 20 points