This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am questioning why this book needs its own Wikipedia entry. Seems like only publicity to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 ( talk • contribs)
I have removed the prod tag. I believe the book will meet the notability guidelines. The next stage if you wish to seek community consensus on deletion is articles for deletion process. I tmight be publicity but I don't think it is mere spam. -- Matilda talk 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
While I personally do not disagree that the work is Pseudohistory I think to categorise it as such we need to cite a source. -- Matilda talk 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is obviously a biased thesis about the book. It is not fit for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a personal blog from Myspace. If American teachers also tell their students that Columbus discovered America, that claim is not just pseudohistory, it is obviously complete fraud! If it were possible to sue the American education system through the International Court of Justice, books like Menzies don't need to be published. The fact is, this article discusses possible minor errors in Menzies book, which might not be errors at all. The sources of the counter-thesis proposal is simply too unreliable. Menzies major ideas still hold true, and it may even be linked to the strange paintings of Da Vinci, which some explain from Dan Brown's thesis, but which may have influenes from Asian Gnostic-Buddhist philosophy. The fact is, if it's really pseudo history, would a major publisher such as Harpercollins put its reputation on the line for it? Even a kindergarten student would know the answer. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines of Wikipedia are Wikipedia's opinion of what constitues a reliable source. It is not acknowledged universally as absolute. It is also not clear cut since these are only guidelines and if a vote is needed to determine something, only the ones who participated in the vote have a say. Some pulitzer prize articles have been discovered to be fraud. Academic books have their errors. Why not tell something in an article and say who it's from and where you got it and let the reader decide to believe it or not.
There should be a for and against section. A section for the things that make sense and another section for the things that don't. At least there should be a warning or a prompt to request the reader to add to it. If I were not so busy myself, I probably would take the time myself to add some stuff like the picture of an Italian Map which says its source is Marco Polo and Nicollo de Conti which shows an upside down map of the west coast of the u.s, including california and the center of map being beijing and towards the right europe. The map shows the extent of the Chinese-Mongol Yuan empire in the 1200s, which included California. I have seen a similar map personally in Singapore.
I do not have the time now. Maybe in the future, but there should be a prompt and a warning at the top of the article. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
For people who are thinking to contribute, if we think that we will be wasting our time because our words will be edited or deleted anyway, we won't waste our time on wikipedia. We'll just forget about it. It discourages people from contributing and readers lose out. Americans deserve better. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.
[OFF TOPIC FORUM DISCUSSIONS REMOVED]
This entry is very one-sided; it is simply a cheap attack on the book (cheap in that the review doesn't address actual claims made in the book, just hits us over the head with a long series of historical facts held to loosely contradict assumptions present in the book). If there is a controversy, one assumes there are two sides to the story, but no one is presenting the other side. Is there any reason to keep this entry? I'm skeptical about the book too, but if it's worth having an article on it, it's worth presenting a more balanced view. ichnography talk 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is completely biased and one-sided thus violated Wikipedia's official policy of maintaining academic neutrality and NPOV (Neutral Point of View). It's seems as if this page is receiving cheap lame attacks by some racist and prejudiced people who dislike the idea that Ming China was more technologically advanced than a post Dark Age Europe and that only China at this time had the naval technology to build treasure ships in excess of 400 (by the
Song Dynasty) to 600 ft (by
Ming Dynasty) in length that could travel anywhere in the world. The question that Menzies provokes is whether or not the Chinese did so, given the undisputable fact they had the technology. For those ignorant of Chinese history please read the volumes of books "
Science and Civilisation in China" by British historian and scientist
Sir Joseph Needham. This kind of irrational attack on Gavin Menzies has no academic foundation to support them and are analogous to Western or Eurocentric racists who insist on the myth that Dark Age Europe was the most advanced civilisation in the world and that the Europeans discovered gunpowder, firearms, the movable type printing technology etc., of which these inventions indisputably, based on confirmed historical records, had their innovative origins in China. Neutrality on all articles must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia policy, continuation of this uncivilised series of cheap attacks against Menzies will be reported to higher Wikipedia authorities. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.71.0.146 (
talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
putting this here as a resource
[1] July 27, 2008, the Baltimore Sun, by Gene Altschuler, the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. "The renaissance of a flimsy theory" --
"he does not employ standards acceptable to professional historians, linguists or life scientists to evaluate the mountain of evidence he has amassed. Because Menzies gives credence to anyone who shares his views, every link in the chain of causation in 1434 is made of papier-mache.
Consider, for example, the e-mail Menzies received in 2007 from Dr. A.C. Lovric, a geneticist. As evidence that Chinese sailors visited the Dalmatian coast in 1434, Lovric cited legends indicating that "oblique-eyed yellow easterners" landed along the Adriatic sometime before 1522, and studies asserting that on Hvar and other islands, inhabitants have East Asian genotypes, non-Slavic and non-European surnames, and use a non-European nomenclature for America. The DNA test that Dr. Lovric referred to identified several explanations for these phenomena. The research paper on Dalmatian names he relied on has not yet been translated from Croatian into English. Nonetheless, Menzies concludes, with breathtaking specificity, that the "results are part of a logical sequence of events": One of Zheng He's ships berthed on the coast; sailors and slave girls jumped ship and melted into the countryside; the fleet proceeded to Venice and Florence and returned to Dalmatia in late 1434; and on the way home, the Chinese were joined by a Dalmatian fleet, under Adm. Harvatye Mariakyr, which discovered 30 Pacific islands and gave them Dalmatian names. In trying to establish that the Chinese visit was the "spark that ignited the Renaissance," Menzies relies on a fundamental fallacy of logic: after-this-therefore-because-of-this reasoning. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an analysis of some selected quoting that I'd restored after a brief chat elsewhere.
This was posted at NOR by GordonofCartoon:
"a dig in News for mid-2008 could well find other reviews - you'd have to be even-handed and include positive and negative, but for instance, there's this Telegraph review and this one from the New Zealand Herald ("But 1434 suffers from the full range of logical errors that also saw 1421 pilloried by experts"). The later mentions the selective quoting: "The most obvious explanations ... are selectively plundered for support, or bypassed entirely"). Or there's this Otago Times one." Dougweller ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the most important reference for the book '1434' (and it's predecessor '1421') should be the Wikipedia article Credulity ! Norloch ( talk) 10:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 ( talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 ( talk · contribs) - the edits make it obvious and they both geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina. Dougweller ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To Mr. Dougweller,
You should stop putting your non-neutral POV on these articles as you should know that you are severely violating the official policy of Wikipedia on maintaining academic neutrality on all articles. People who consistently vandalise articles based on their personal Western centric beliefs without providing any counter evidence disproving Menzies are not being a constructive member of Wikipedia.
If you disagree with the discoveries of Gavin Menzies you must provide academic proof showing that Menzies was wrong, instead of engaging in uncivilised personal attacks against Menzies.
It is an indisputable fact, that
Ming Dynasty
China was the most technologically advanced civilisation in the world during 1400's, with most of Western European civilisation just emerging from the economic poverty, technological underdevelopment and religiously dominated society during the
Dark Ages. Of we can say that eastern portions of Europe, notably the Byzantine empire was more advanced than the Western Europeans given the construction of Hagia Sophia etc., but what many people don't realise is that these accomplishments in the Byzantine empire were dependent on intellectual capital coming in the form of the
Arab
muslim architects, engineers, scientists etc. And the
Arab
muslims had contacts via the Silk Road with the Chinese and via Arab sea routes to China, furthering an exchange of Chinese intellectual capital and technology to the Western civilisations of Europe. Take for example the transmission of the ancient Chinese
magnetic
compass to Arabs and then to the Western Europeans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.71.0.146 (
talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, one thing that jumped at me in the lead is the use of terms like "drivel", which may not be necessary. The article is about the book, after all. I fully agree that it deserves to go in the lead that the tenets of the book aren't accepted by serious historians, but it could be worded a bit more encyclopedically, maybe something like "the conclusions of the book are rejected by mainstream historians" ? -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with the above. Whilst I think it's fair to express reservations about the validity of the book's arguments (for what it's worth I think it's far more likely the Renaissance was ignited by the influence of the Mongol Empire connecting a latter-stage Golden Age Islamic world to Europe) - to have an opening paragraph claiming 'scholars' dismiss the book as 'drivel' (with only one source citing this) surely cannot fit the description of a Neutral Point Of View? What's the point of having guidelines if they're not adhered to? Singlerider ( talk) 09:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)singlerider
IP blocked by another Admin for the 3rd time in 2 months, this block is for 3 months, we'll see if he comes back with another IP (see section above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For such a proposal, please see here: Forthcoming book on Atlantis#Merger?. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with any deletion as this would constitute suppression of information and a direct contradiction of our good old American "Freedom of Speech"!!! This article needs to be reinstated just like any other articles. Wikipedia should provide information about all subjects or books regardless of your personal beliefs or opinions, it should remain a forum for freedom of speech and freedom of press!
God Bless America!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As promised, here is the new section I've created in Gavin Menzies' article:
In 2008 Menzies released a follow-up publication titled 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. In it Menzies claims that by 1434 Chinese delegations reached Italy and were in some way responsible for the Renaissance. He claims that a letter written in 1474 by Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli and found amongst the private papers of Columbus indicates that an earlier Chinese ambassador had direct correspondence with Pope Eugene IV in Rome. However, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, a professor of history at Tufts University in the United States and at Queen Mary College, University of London, labels this claim as 'drivel' and asserts that no reputable scholar supports the view that Toscanelli's letter refers to a Chinese ambassador. [1]
Menzies then claims that materials from the Chinese Book of Agriculture, the Nong Shu (農書), written by the Yuan-dynasty scholar-official Wang Zhen (fl. 1290-1333), were copied by European scholars and provided direct inspiration for the illustrations of mechanical devices pioneered by Taccola (1382-1453) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). However, Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University questions the rigor of Menzies application of the historical method and, in regards to the illustrations, asserts that Menzies "says something is a copy just because they look similar. He says two things are almost identical when they are not." [1]
Geoff Wade, a senior research fellow at the Asia Research Institute of the National University of Singapore, admits that some Chinese technological ideas came to Europe around this time, but ultimately classifies Menzies' book as historical fiction and asserts that there is no Chinese evidence for a maritime venture to Italy in 1434. [1]
I believe it is sufficient and solves the problem of the merger.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am questioning why this book needs its own Wikipedia entry. Seems like only publicity to me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.6.6 ( talk • contribs)
I have removed the prod tag. I believe the book will meet the notability guidelines. The next stage if you wish to seek community consensus on deletion is articles for deletion process. I tmight be publicity but I don't think it is mere spam. -- Matilda talk 07:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
While I personally do not disagree that the work is Pseudohistory I think to categorise it as such we need to cite a source. -- Matilda talk 22:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
This article is obviously a biased thesis about the book. It is not fit for an encyclopedia article. It reads more like a personal blog from Myspace. If American teachers also tell their students that Columbus discovered America, that claim is not just pseudohistory, it is obviously complete fraud! If it were possible to sue the American education system through the International Court of Justice, books like Menzies don't need to be published. The fact is, this article discusses possible minor errors in Menzies book, which might not be errors at all. The sources of the counter-thesis proposal is simply too unreliable. Menzies major ideas still hold true, and it may even be linked to the strange paintings of Da Vinci, which some explain from Dan Brown's thesis, but which may have influenes from Asian Gnostic-Buddhist philosophy. The fact is, if it's really pseudo history, would a major publisher such as Harpercollins put its reputation on the line for it? Even a kindergarten student would know the answer. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The guidelines of Wikipedia are Wikipedia's opinion of what constitues a reliable source. It is not acknowledged universally as absolute. It is also not clear cut since these are only guidelines and if a vote is needed to determine something, only the ones who participated in the vote have a say. Some pulitzer prize articles have been discovered to be fraud. Academic books have their errors. Why not tell something in an article and say who it's from and where you got it and let the reader decide to believe it or not.
There should be a for and against section. A section for the things that make sense and another section for the things that don't. At least there should be a warning or a prompt to request the reader to add to it. If I were not so busy myself, I probably would take the time myself to add some stuff like the picture of an Italian Map which says its source is Marco Polo and Nicollo de Conti which shows an upside down map of the west coast of the u.s, including california and the center of map being beijing and towards the right europe. The map shows the extent of the Chinese-Mongol Yuan empire in the 1200s, which included California. I have seen a similar map personally in Singapore.
I do not have the time now. Maybe in the future, but there should be a prompt and a warning at the top of the article. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 07:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
For people who are thinking to contribute, if we think that we will be wasting our time because our words will be edited or deleted anyway, we won't waste our time on wikipedia. We'll just forget about it. It discourages people from contributing and readers lose out. Americans deserve better. Colourfulglobe ( talk) 08:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.
If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.
[OFF TOPIC FORUM DISCUSSIONS REMOVED]
This entry is very one-sided; it is simply a cheap attack on the book (cheap in that the review doesn't address actual claims made in the book, just hits us over the head with a long series of historical facts held to loosely contradict assumptions present in the book). If there is a controversy, one assumes there are two sides to the story, but no one is presenting the other side. Is there any reason to keep this entry? I'm skeptical about the book too, but if it's worth having an article on it, it's worth presenting a more balanced view. ichnography talk 15:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
This whole article is completely biased and one-sided thus violated Wikipedia's official policy of maintaining academic neutrality and NPOV (Neutral Point of View). It's seems as if this page is receiving cheap lame attacks by some racist and prejudiced people who dislike the idea that Ming China was more technologically advanced than a post Dark Age Europe and that only China at this time had the naval technology to build treasure ships in excess of 400 (by the
Song Dynasty) to 600 ft (by
Ming Dynasty) in length that could travel anywhere in the world. The question that Menzies provokes is whether or not the Chinese did so, given the undisputable fact they had the technology. For those ignorant of Chinese history please read the volumes of books "
Science and Civilisation in China" by British historian and scientist
Sir Joseph Needham. This kind of irrational attack on Gavin Menzies has no academic foundation to support them and are analogous to Western or Eurocentric racists who insist on the myth that Dark Age Europe was the most advanced civilisation in the world and that the Europeans discovered gunpowder, firearms, the movable type printing technology etc., of which these inventions indisputably, based on confirmed historical records, had their innovative origins in China. Neutrality on all articles must be maintained in accordance with Wikipedia policy, continuation of this uncivilised series of cheap attacks against Menzies will be reported to higher Wikipedia authorities. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.71.0.146 (
talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
putting this here as a resource
[1] July 27, 2008, the Baltimore Sun, by Gene Altschuler, the Thomas and Dorothy Litwin Professor of American Studies at Cornell University. "The renaissance of a flimsy theory" --
"he does not employ standards acceptable to professional historians, linguists or life scientists to evaluate the mountain of evidence he has amassed. Because Menzies gives credence to anyone who shares his views, every link in the chain of causation in 1434 is made of papier-mache.
Consider, for example, the e-mail Menzies received in 2007 from Dr. A.C. Lovric, a geneticist. As evidence that Chinese sailors visited the Dalmatian coast in 1434, Lovric cited legends indicating that "oblique-eyed yellow easterners" landed along the Adriatic sometime before 1522, and studies asserting that on Hvar and other islands, inhabitants have East Asian genotypes, non-Slavic and non-European surnames, and use a non-European nomenclature for America. The DNA test that Dr. Lovric referred to identified several explanations for these phenomena. The research paper on Dalmatian names he relied on has not yet been translated from Croatian into English. Nonetheless, Menzies concludes, with breathtaking specificity, that the "results are part of a logical sequence of events": One of Zheng He's ships berthed on the coast; sailors and slave girls jumped ship and melted into the countryside; the fleet proceeded to Venice and Florence and returned to Dalmatia in late 1434; and on the way home, the Chinese were joined by a Dalmatian fleet, under Adm. Harvatye Mariakyr, which discovered 30 Pacific islands and gave them Dalmatian names. In trying to establish that the Chinese visit was the "spark that ignited the Renaissance," Menzies relies on a fundamental fallacy of logic: after-this-therefore-because-of-this reasoning. -- Doug Weller ( talk) 14:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed an analysis of some selected quoting that I'd restored after a brief chat elsewhere.
This was posted at NOR by GordonofCartoon:
"a dig in News for mid-2008 could well find other reviews - you'd have to be even-handed and include positive and negative, but for instance, there's this Telegraph review and this one from the New Zealand Herald ("But 1434 suffers from the full range of logical errors that also saw 1421 pilloried by experts"). The later mentions the selective quoting: "The most obvious explanations ... are selectively plundered for support, or bypassed entirely"). Or there's this Otago Times one." Dougweller ( talk) 21:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps the most important reference for the book '1434' (and it's predecessor '1421') should be the Wikipedia article Credulity ! Norloch ( talk) 10:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
98.122.100.249 ( talk · contribs), already blocked 3 times this year and who evidently has also been using 68.222.236.154 ( talk · contribs) on other articles, is clearly also 74.243.205.109 ( talk · contribs) - the edits make it obvious and they both geolocate to Columbia, South Carolina. Dougweller ( talk) 12:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
To Mr. Dougweller,
You should stop putting your non-neutral POV on these articles as you should know that you are severely violating the official policy of Wikipedia on maintaining academic neutrality on all articles. People who consistently vandalise articles based on their personal Western centric beliefs without providing any counter evidence disproving Menzies are not being a constructive member of Wikipedia.
If you disagree with the discoveries of Gavin Menzies you must provide academic proof showing that Menzies was wrong, instead of engaging in uncivilised personal attacks against Menzies.
It is an indisputable fact, that
Ming Dynasty
China was the most technologically advanced civilisation in the world during 1400's, with most of Western European civilisation just emerging from the economic poverty, technological underdevelopment and religiously dominated society during the
Dark Ages. Of we can say that eastern portions of Europe, notably the Byzantine empire was more advanced than the Western Europeans given the construction of Hagia Sophia etc., but what many people don't realise is that these accomplishments in the Byzantine empire were dependent on intellectual capital coming in the form of the
Arab
muslim architects, engineers, scientists etc. And the
Arab
muslims had contacts via the Silk Road with the Chinese and via Arab sea routes to China, furthering an exchange of Chinese intellectual capital and technology to the Western civilisations of Europe. Take for example the transmission of the ancient Chinese
magnetic
compass to Arabs and then to the Western Europeans. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
98.71.0.146 (
talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi, one thing that jumped at me in the lead is the use of terms like "drivel", which may not be necessary. The article is about the book, after all. I fully agree that it deserves to go in the lead that the tenets of the book aren't accepted by serious historians, but it could be worded a bit more encyclopedically, maybe something like "the conclusions of the book are rejected by mainstream historians" ? -- Dailycare ( talk) 21:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to agree with the above. Whilst I think it's fair to express reservations about the validity of the book's arguments (for what it's worth I think it's far more likely the Renaissance was ignited by the influence of the Mongol Empire connecting a latter-stage Golden Age Islamic world to Europe) - to have an opening paragraph claiming 'scholars' dismiss the book as 'drivel' (with only one source citing this) surely cannot fit the description of a Neutral Point Of View? What's the point of having guidelines if they're not adhered to? Singlerider ( talk) 09:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)singlerider
IP blocked by another Admin for the 3rd time in 2 months, this block is for 3 months, we'll see if he comes back with another IP (see section above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller ( talk • contribs) 05:08, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
For such a proposal, please see here: Forthcoming book on Atlantis#Merger?. Gun Powder Ma ( talk) 00:38, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with any deletion as this would constitute suppression of information and a direct contradiction of our good old American "Freedom of Speech"!!! This article needs to be reinstated just like any other articles. Wikipedia should provide information about all subjects or books regardless of your personal beliefs or opinions, it should remain a forum for freedom of speech and freedom of press!
God Bless America!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.249.69 ( talk) 15:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
As promised, here is the new section I've created in Gavin Menzies' article:
In 2008 Menzies released a follow-up publication titled 1434: The Year a Magnificent Chinese Fleet Sailed to Italy and Ignited the Renaissance. In it Menzies claims that by 1434 Chinese delegations reached Italy and were in some way responsible for the Renaissance. He claims that a letter written in 1474 by Paolo dal Pozzo Toscanelli and found amongst the private papers of Columbus indicates that an earlier Chinese ambassador had direct correspondence with Pope Eugene IV in Rome. However, Felipe Fernández-Armesto, a professor of history at Tufts University in the United States and at Queen Mary College, University of London, labels this claim as 'drivel' and asserts that no reputable scholar supports the view that Toscanelli's letter refers to a Chinese ambassador. [1]
Menzies then claims that materials from the Chinese Book of Agriculture, the Nong Shu (農書), written by the Yuan-dynasty scholar-official Wang Zhen (fl. 1290-1333), were copied by European scholars and provided direct inspiration for the illustrations of mechanical devices pioneered by Taccola (1382-1453) and Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519). However, Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University questions the rigor of Menzies application of the historical method and, in regards to the illustrations, asserts that Menzies "says something is a copy just because they look similar. He says two things are almost identical when they are not." [1]
Geoff Wade, a senior research fellow at the Asia Research Institute of the National University of Singapore, admits that some Chinese technological ideas came to Europe around this time, but ultimately classifies Menzies' book as historical fiction and asserts that there is no Chinese evidence for a maritime venture to Italy in 1434. [1]
I believe it is sufficient and solves the problem of the merger.-- Pericles of Athens Talk 18:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)