Talk:Gavin Menzies

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Seems to be an attack on the book 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091217134954/http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract to http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=abstract&id=846503
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109021554/http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/1421.pdf to http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/1421.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Gavin Menzies or Debunking a Book 

message: 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)
replies: text: , category looks likely to be deleted soon. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Menzies is also not an academic either, so the category does not work. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2018 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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</br>
2.) https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/ancient-chinese-explorers/</br>
3.) https://www.thestar.com.my/news/community/2005/11/29/documentary-on-zheng-hes-adventures/</br>
4.) http://thephotosociety.org/products/zheng-he-tracing-the-epic-voyages-of-chinas-greatest-explorer/</br>
5.) https://www.boatus.com/magazine/2013/august/the-greatest-explorer-you-never-heard-of.asp</br>
6.) https://www.ancient.eu/article/1334/the-seven-voyages-of-zheng-he/</br>
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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Semi-protection request (25 July 2019)