What random drivel do you people believe? Gina in the thread about books has made it apparent that some of you are taking the claims of otherwise disreputable authors as concrete fact. Common sense says to examine the credentials of these authors and the content of their text in order to come to a conclusion on how much fact the thesis they put forward contain. An unbearable concept for most peope. It isn't particularly surprising that several works which are popularly entertaining and appeal to certain cultural ideas would gain acceptance with the correlating sections of the population with which those ideas appeal to.
The length of this document and the wish not to simply restate published material makes the case against Gavin Menzies in particular easy to dispense with. His books have been called into question in numerous newspaper articles12. The general consensus among them being that it doesn't stand up to any sort of academic criticism. A short review of journal articles also seems to discredit the theory34.
If you want to argue about that knock yourself out, but I dont actually look at the popular or bestselling list when I go to the bookstore. It makes me wonder what other blatant falsehoods some of you believe (aside from fly and 9/11). Quasi socialist political theories, any book by a politician, various history rewrites (chinese, african etc.), Michael Moore...
1 Review: 1434, by Gavin Menzies - Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/09/08/bomenzies108.xml [Accessed September 11, 2008].
2 Thompson, D., 2008. How Da Vinci Code tapped pseudo-fact hunger - Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575347/How-Da-Vinci-Code-tapped-pseudo-fact-hunger.html [Accessed September 11, 2008].
3 Henige, D., 2008. The Alchemy of Turning Fiction into Truth. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(4), 354―372.
4 Finlay, R., 2004. How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America. Journal of World History, 15(2).
The length of this document and the wish not to simply restate published material makes the case against Gavin Menzies in particular easy to dispense with. His books have been called into question in numerous newspaper articles12. The general consensus among them being that it doesn't stand up to any sort of academic criticism. A short review of journal articles also seems to discredit the theory34.
If you want to argue about that knock yourself out, but I dont actually look at the popular or bestselling list when I go to the bookstore. It makes me wonder what other blatant falsehoods some of you believe (aside from fly and 9/11). Quasi socialist political theories, any book by a politician, various history rewrites (chinese, african etc.), Michael Moore...
1 Review: 1434, by Gavin Menzies - Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2008/09/08/bomenzies108.xml [Accessed September 11, 2008].
2 Thompson, D., 2008. How Da Vinci Code tapped pseudo-fact hunger - Telegraph. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575347/How-Da-Vinci-Code-tapped-pseudo-fact-hunger.html [Accessed September 11, 2008].
3 Henige, D., 2008. The Alchemy of Turning Fiction into Truth. Journal of Scholarly Publishing, 39(4), 354―372.
4 Finlay, R., 2004. How Not to (Re)Write World History: Gavin Menzies and the Chinese Discovery of America. Journal of World History, 15(2).
Last edited: