Talk:1421: The Year China Discovered the World

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Books Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article. You can discuss the Project at its talk page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at in the comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Negative POV imbued in article?

Menzies is trying to convince the reader - and perhaps himself...

I know this is only a smallish article, but I believe this is submitting to the opinion that his book is just of poor quality. Whether it is or isn't, is not our directorate, rather we offer unbiased explanation of the differing opinions which some take on this issue. Eps0n (talk) 12:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book box

I added a book box to the page. Note that the genre I put it in was pseudohistory - I couldn't think of what else to put, it can't be history 'cause it's got about as much evidence as Area 51, but fiction is too much of a stretch. WLU 21:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why my reference addition to the paragraph "Many in China ... (citation needed)" isn't suitable.

In his book, Menzies claims that these people: Professor Yao Jide, Professor Fayuan Gao, Professor Bi Quanzhong, all support his hypothesis with their own research. He also claims that the prestigious Yunnan University awarded an honorary doctorate.

Even if these claims are false, they need to be verified as such.

Metadigital 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vexatious Litigation

Why is he a noted vexatious litigant? As says on this article Vexatious litigation. Thas, Dailly Rubbings 02:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Outline

What is the point of the book outline?

Anybody wants to put some content into this outline? Otherwise best remove it, as the links there confuse you to think that they point to an on-line copy. Tzafrir 17:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally have found book outlines extremely useful, especially of important books. This article might need some more references and links but I would strongly object to its deletion.--Filll 18:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the outline is too detailed in structure and not detailed enough in content. A listing of chapters with a brief summary of contents would be more to my liking than the current dog's breakfast of sub-headings and sloppy wikilinks - in example, The New World links to a movie and I'm not sure why. A prose summary for many of the points would be better than the currently list of the fact that they are there. WLU 23:50, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger proposal (again)

I appreciate a merger has been discussed before (Talk:1421 hypothesis#Merge with book article but it was some time ago. I am reopening the discussion as there are no alternative major sources supporting the 1421 hypothesis and the material is duplicated between the two articles.--Matilda talk 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)