Talk:1421 hypothesis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article...

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 1421 hypothesis article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] NEW INFO

I think this info may be useful: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4609074.stm

[edit] NPOV

For Wikipedia to maintain its integrity it cannot take a neutral point of view between truth-telling and lie-telling. This book is not amature scholarship it is professional and very profitable lying.Iglonghurst 22:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I feel that it is necessary to modify some of the wording here, as I am uncertain about the NPOV of this article. I am currently re-reading 1421 after doing some research since reading in about 15 months ago. Peter Ellis 22:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Throughout the article I read it as very NPOV complient, until we get to this part:
"Menzies modifies his theory from time to time based on newly discovered evidence. His new findings are usually bigger, bolder, and much less traditional than his previous ones. For example, he now claims some of Zheng He's ships travelled as far as Spain. He also now alleges that the Chinese records of the voyages were never, in fact, destroyed, and are waiting to be found."
This paragraph seems to be a tad bit tinged with bias against his argument. I, personally, have no thought either way on the topic, but I do feel the only non-NPOV of this article is the above passage. Perhaps, rewording this passage and working a "Pro-argument"/"Con-arugument" part into this article would keep the content fairly even. User: Bozu 23:09, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC-6)
I think "bigger, bolder, and much less traditional" is not all that biased. In his book, he stated the Chinese fleets had not been to Europe, but one year later in his speeches, he told his readers they had been to Europe. His theory does become "bigger, bolder, and much less traditional".
Eventhough I don't believe in his "bigger, bolder, and much less traditional" theory, these Chinese sailing records, so far as I know, were very likely not destroyed. A foreigner may never understand the level beaucracy of the Chinese government. Basically, they hired an unimaginable number of officers to record almost everything happened in the palace. They recorded the emperor's each day from wake up to sleep. Each office also generated their own records. Scholars had their records. Astrologers had their records. Politicians had their records. Cooks, gardeners, maids, eunuches and horse keepers also had their records ... You can bury a man alive with these records. If the index was gone or not well-maintained, no one can tell you where are the sailing records now. Today's researchers are still unable to answer many questions because of the amounts of records. -- Toytoy 14:33, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
The Evidence section could do with expansion, as could the criticism section. Its not particuly clear as to why this theory has any merit.Rrreese 11:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it is very interesting that many people are so focused on Menzies' hypothese regarding rather Zheng He discovered America but completely ignored his other claim that none of the European explorers such as Columbus, Magellan or the Portugese discovered America or are the first one to circumnavigated around the world because all of the seem to already have a map before any other their first voyage. If this is proven to be true, this fact alone will result in a major rewrite of the world history. The next question is if none of the well known European explorers discovered America? Then who did? Clearly according to Menzie, Admiral Zheng He was the one who mapped out the world since China at that time was the most technologically capable of accomplishing such feat and that Zheng He's voyage was by far the largest in history; but his evidences proofing this was sketchy at best and completely hypotheical.

I think further investigations into rather Menzie's claim that Columbus and other European explorers did indeed have the map of America and other parts of the New World before any of their first voyage would be very important. We need to validate the current written history before we hypothesize who else could have discovered the rest of the world. [User:Kelvin] 24.149.52.84 12:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Toytoy writes "A foreigner may never understand the level beaucracy of the Chinese government." Excuse me? Apeman

Martinscholes 21:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC) "The 1421 hypothesis has proven highly controversial among scholars. It proposes a revolutionary interpretation of established historical opinion but has been criticized for providing inadequate proof, largely relying on contested documents. However, it is popular in the Pseudohistory field."

Aha. Judge AND jury! The author of that paragraph (with NO evidence cited) condemns Menzies and everyone who admits his claims may be valid! This should be used as a classic example of a NPOV without even a shred of evidence.

Well the theory is basically bullsh*t, as it has repeatedly had holes poked in it by various academics and experts - it's got to the consistency of swiss cheese. To date not one professional historian with any expertise in this area has come forward and said "Gavin Menzies is right on his 1421 theory". Nothing in that paragraph is actually incorrect - the problems with the theory are discussed later on in the page. John Smith's 23:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Further to my comment above last year, as for the understanding of Chinese bureaucracy see, for example, Charles O. Hucker's book, in which he discusses the structure and defines and translates terms used in imperial Chinese government. [1]. We can safely assume there has been much more work done by scholars (of all races) in the field in recent decades as well. Apeman 08:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something to Add?

Apparently Menzies's theories really are getting more outlandish. I wanted to add this to "Reactions," but the ffotnote didn't work. Could somebody do it? I was going to add something like "Most recently, Menzies admitted in a televised interview that he maintains "the Chinese sailed up the English Channel, went in the Thames, [ . . . ] and gave Henry V a set of underclothes." The source is here: Australian Broadcasting Corporation's Four Corners Program Transcript "Junk History".Apeman 08:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As well, the "Reactions" section should be re-written, and there should be something in the article about Menzies' ghost writers, marketers and promotional people. This should lead to some words, with the support of Menzies himself (using the interview here "Junk History"), on the 1421 project as fundamentally designed to sell books: a very successful money-making scheme.Apeman 08:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australia

After reading the book, he does not infact claim that Zheng He discovered Australia, but that it was known already during the Sui Dynasty 132.205.15.43 19:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category Pseudohistory

why?Geni 1 July 2005 01:33 (UTC)

Because despite the apparent handicap of a total lack of historical training, he's achieved results which have eluded professional historians for centuries?

It's because virtually all of his claims lack evidence. Apeman

It is actually pseudohistory, not the other one. User:Danny Yee doesn't like this though. He doesn't like to accept that this issue about people of his blood, may indeed be within the realm of fringe theories used to displace the Western world. His position of deletion has NPOV problems. Menzies is clearly an Orientalist, while the info he claims is fact has not been found so--except by the fringe. IP Address 01:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good grief, I'm no fan of Menzies. Heck, the strongest criticism of him in the current article is the quote from the Finlay article, which I added. That's orders of magnitude more damning than any waffle about communism and orientalism and hippies, as well as being encylopedic. -- Danny Yee 02:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Menzies's work may or may not qualify as pseudohistory - I think it's just really, really bad history myself - but if you're going to claim he's pushing communist propaganda or he's a hippy then you need to provide some evidence. It's not impossible that a retired Royal Navy submarine commander was a communist hippy, but it seems prima facie unlikely. -- Danny Yee 06:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Then perhaps we'll keep the "pseudohistory" link for this page, with the psyche report for his page? IP Address 06:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to be psychoanalysing article subjects - that probably comes under the No Original Research ban. "Pseudohistory" I'm unsure about - it's a neologism to me, so I'm not sure what it's supposed to encompass. -- Danny Yee 00:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no strong feelings either way on categorisation as "pseudohistory". Since that's a neologism with little precedent, it doesn't seem particularly helpful as a category. Is there really much in common between stories about Atlantis, Holocaust denial, and Gavin Menzies' ideas? The historiographical background to these seems very different to me. -- Danny Yee 05:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. John Elliot

" /.../ His book is considered by many experts to not be founded in fact. One Chinese expert pronounced the theory "pure fiction". However, some academicists, like Dr. Sir John Elliot (Oxford University) do believe the theory. /.../ "

I would like to see some references regarding Dr John Elliot and the other academic supporters of the 1421 theory. It would be very interesting to see what people who belong to the academic world have to say about the possibility of it being a valid view. Consolamentum

I don't know how old this is, but I e-mailed Dr. Elliott re:1421, and here was his reply:
No - I did not 'endorse' 1421. If I remember rightly (I do not seem to have kept the correspondence) the author asked me to read in typescript the chapter or chapters relating to the 15th century Mediterranean world. I told him that his insistence on the significance of 1421 for Mediterranean societies did not convince me, and I think he omitted from the published version a good deal of what I read, though I can't be sure of this. That's the extent of my dealings with him. I hope this helps! Yours sincerely, John Elliott
Natch this can't be included in the page, but here's his view. Be nice to have it on record somewhere so we could put it on the page. WLU 15:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who wrote the original request, quite some time ago and long before I bothered to register properly on Wikipedia. Thanks for the illuminating response! I'm not inclined to dismiss all aspects of the 1421 hypothesis as completely improbable through and through, but if the allegations regarding Dr. Elliot's support can be traced to Menzies himself (which wouldn't surprise me) it certainly shows that the hypothesis should be taken with a big grain of salt. Jonas Liljeström 18:48, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gold from the New World

This would have been as much valued by the Chinese as by the Spaniards. Chinese and Spaniards never fought in that era, but Spain fought with mixed results against the Ottoman Turks, who were defeated by Timur, who never risked a fight with the Ming Chinese until the very end of his life. So Ming China could easily have conqured the New World. Or just traded silk and other commodities for the gold and silver that the New World didn't much value.

Having read the book, I also wondered why the Chinese had visited the whole world apart from Western Europe, where they would definintely have been recorded. It seems he's now claiming them did. It still seems unlikely that such gigantic ships could not have left more of a record.

--172.201.10.215 17:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Gwydion M. Williams

[edit] "Debunking" Sites

Unless there's something I've missed, I think these sites should be removed. Neither of them qualifies as "debunking" in my judgment; instead they pick at just one or two selected points from the book. The alternate theories offered are even more debatable than the originals. And really, the second site is just a juvenile attack.

I have no opinion about the validity of Menzies's claims, though I hear that some historians strongly disagree with them. The book includes tens of pages of categorized data; if there's a site out there that comes close to refuting any of it--or the conclusions he draws from it--I think that does belong here.

--Papayoung 9 September 2005

Google "Gavin Menzies" or something. A couple of links that touch on the data he uses:

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_6_27/ai_110575769 http://hnn.us/articles/1308.html

I personally haven't seen any credible academic source that takes him at all seriously, though I may just not be looking hard enough. In fact, academia seems to consider him just a notch above von Daniken as far as credibility goes.

Anyone with google and half an hour or so could probably scare up a number of links to historians that attack his theory; I'd do it, but I have to get to class. A common complaint is his use of circular logic, which is something that could be added to the criticisms section.

In acedemia many critics become quite hostile, so the tone of a page should not be used to judge its veracity and validity. Taken together, each of the pages plays a rol ein debunking this ridiculous hypothesis.--Dahveed323 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Border Kindom

I want to write a science-fiction piece in which after the Zhang He explorations, Chinese colonists travel across the Pacific and settle the Western United States. I was wondering could China have the capabilities to conduct European-scale colonization and what could be the outcome when Britian and French colonists find a second China instead of America?

Well according to Menzies, that's not sci-fi, that's fact. 71.106.44.200 07:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So America could have been a Chinese territory before Europeans arrived?

Yes, it would of been possible. At least, more possible than other countries conquering America, but still it would not of stopped the Europeans from coming.. but I'm not sure on what you're trying to do exactly. Anyhow, Best wishes --A Sunshade Lust 01:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
However you would have to significantly re-write history as it would seem rather unlikely for the Chinese colonise the Pacific. They didn't colonise (didn't even try) anywhere else except perhaps Japan... Nil Einne 11:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

A cool idea. The wonderful thing about science fiction is license -- though I believe historical China could indeed erect sophisticated colonies, if it turned out they could not: you wouldn't have to spoil your story with such facts. Your work being, as it is, fiction! I say go ahead with it regardless. Dress the details with fact if you choose to, but have fun with the broad strokes. --Anon.

[edit] Theory or hypothesis?

Name should be consistent with the lead, and those terms are far from synonims.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:08, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they're not synonyms. A hypothesis is a speculation, a theory is the explanation of an observation. In (uneducated) everyday English usage however, quite a lot of people incorrectly use the word theory for speculation. Chunlong (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hippies and Communism

Menzies may simply be drawn to Hippie counterculture of the Cold War, embracing a New Age pseudohistory of The Orient and promoting Eastern (Communist) propaganda in contradiction to the prevalent Western (Capitalist) perspective. See Triumphalism.

This seems barely meaningful to me, and in so far as I can work out what it means, just screwball. The guy posting it seems obsessed by it, though. Is this some kind of trolling, or am I missing something? -- Danny Yee 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, that is just personal opinion and hearsay. Unless there is solid evidence to its validity, I do not see why should it be posted as factual.

Oh and play nice, the world would be a better place to live in if people are polite. And I am no 'sockpuppet' I assure you. Nic tan33 04:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree keep it removed Nil Einne 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I love how you use two different accounts, alternating on and off each one. How come the other name isn't active right now and Nic_tan33 posting (vice versa circumstances exit)? IP Address 05:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter since he makes it clear both accounts are his. If he we're using them as sockpuppets and trying to make it appear he were two different people that would be a different matter but he's not so who cares? Nil Einne 11:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
As a practical matter, I don't think many career naval officers in the 1960s and 1970s were drawn to hippie counterculture or communist propaganda. If they were, the Royal Navy sure didn't keep them around or make them submarine commanders.
--A. B. 02:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

One key question is why the alleged great voyages of 1421 managed to touch every corner of the world except Europe, where a record of their occurrence would have been made and maintained. Given the fact that Chinese-European contact existed for well over three centuries by the 15th century, it is difficult to understand why nothing of these voyages can be found in the historical record (including the convenient destruction of all chinese records)

I feel the section above has is rather poorly written and has a biased POV (especially the bit about the convenient destruction of chinese records). Also, it doesn't really seem that unlikely the voyages never reached Europe. If you were going from China and visited the Pacific first then later came back and visited Asia and Africa, Europe would be the last place you would reach. If you were going from China to Europe by sea and somehow missed Africa for example, it would seem quite unusual. However never reaching Europe doesn't seem that surprising if you are starting from China. Also, given that Europe was already fairly well explored by the Europeans and there was existing contact we can assume there may have been significantly less incentive or desire to visit Europe. Why go somewhere you already know very well about? Nil Einne 11:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The bigger flaw in the theory appears to be the lack of evidence rather then failing to visit Europe. The issue of whether news of the voyages to the Pacific etc would have reached Europe is an interesting one and probably needs to be elaborated further. Since there was clearly contact, the question becomes was it that unlikely that news of the voyages would not have reached Europe? One way looking in to to further would be to establish whether or whether not news of voyages by Ming Zhe and other Chinese of this era that are undisputed did reach Europe early on. If news of these other voyages did reach Europe, it would seem rather bizzarre that news of the voyages to the Pacific did not. On the other hand if news of the other voyages did not in fact reach Europe until a long time later, it would seem less surprising that news of the voyages to the Pacific never reached Europe Nil Einne 11:58, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction and criticism sections need citations

I am no fan of Menzies or the 1421 hypothesis, but I think some portions of this article that are critical of the hypothesis need citations. Otherwise, the material is unencyclopedic and POV. Lack of citations also undermines the credibility of the criticism, indirectly making Menzies seem more credible. If there's not a credible source that can be cited for a particular criticism, then that criticism should be deleted.--A. B. 02:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I think all of the points made have credible sources - it just requires someone to put the links in. Go have a look at the debunking sites. You know which points you have a problem with, so that can be rectified more easily if you try do it yourself. At the very least tag those comments which you think need a citation. John Smith's 18:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have put a number of references into the criticism section. Especially on the Australian section as I checked the information locally to confirm the criticisms raised by other academics. It would be good if some New Zealanders contributed as they are extremely angry at Menzies' nonsense. Roonz123 01:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV edits and requests for citations

I will probably make both Menzies fans and Menzies detractors upset with the changes I'm making but I am working my way through the article trying to make the language more neutral. In some cases, that means trying to make pro-Menzies sentences more neutral, in other cases, trying to make anti-Menzies sentences more neutral. I will also add requests for citations.

I'm doing this as I have the time; it may take a day or two.

My goal is not to take a side but to try to make a neutral article. I don't pretend to be the best at it. Please don't take my edits personally!

Request: If you object to an edit on POV or factual grounds, please bring your objection to the talk page first and let it sit for a day or two for others to discuss, before reverting. Revert wars resolve nothing. Obviously, as you find "spellin or grammatickal erors", go head and fix them; I'm a terrible proof-reader of my own work.

Regards to all, --[[[User:A. B.|A. B.]] 19:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Just remember the following, please. First if something is highly dubious, you have to say that. Don't feel tempted to edit out critical language when that really is the case. Second it is true that basically no one with any historical authority supports him, so it's not just that his theories are "disputed". John Smith's 19:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] supposed popularity with 'pseudohistorians'

Regarding my removal of this and the subsequent reversion: "However, it is popular in the Pseudohistory field." When I click pseudohistory, I see this: "Pseudohistory is a pejorative term applied to texts...." Yes, Menzies is a crank, but this is unacceptably POV, in my opinion. On top of that, this does not address my objection that pseudohistory is not a field. I intend to take this back out unless a good case can be made for keeping it in (the fact that the word "pseudohistory" is wikilinked does not qualify).--Birdmessenger 00:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV-check

I count these problematic lines, which I will discuss here before doing anything else:

  • However, it is popular in the Pseudohistory field. See section above.
  • ..., while [Menzies'] archaeological evidence is often extremely dubious and in some cases demonstrably incorrect.
  • One key question is why the alleged great voyages of 1421 managed to touch every corner of the world except Europe, where a record of their occurrence would have been made and maintained. Given the fact that Chinese-European contact existed for well over three centuries by the 15th century, it is difficult to understand why nothing of these voyages can be found in the historical record. Menzies has provided scant evidence of any such visit, simply alluding to vague European contact — but contact between the two cultures dates to the Renaissance and does not depend upon any large-scale sea travel. This should be cited to avoid the appearance that some Wikipedian did some original research.
  • The linguistic evidence cited by Menzies is unconvincing. ... This, too.
  • He event [sic] went as far to say that the Maoris don't exist as a race and are just the result of rebelling slaves mating with Chinese concubines brought over to Australia by Chinese miners [2]. This needs to be rewritten for tone.

--Birdmessenger 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. These need to be removed, or backed up with citations/quotes, or rewritten for tone. -- Danny Yee 04:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Best way to deal with POV issues/avoiding an edit war

I've noticed the article is biased both pro and con in different places. I think the people that edit this article also have a range of views from very pro to very con on the 1421 hypothesis. Here are two recommendations:

  • Rather than delete unverified material, we should start with using a fact tag. Putting the template {{fact}} at the end of the sentence produces a little superscript[citation needed]. This gives people who support the sentence a flag that they need to find a source. I'm not sure the source always has to go on the main page; it should be sufficient to put it on the talk page in some cases.
  • Rather than delete material altogether, when we cut material from the article, we should consider copying it to the talk page with an explanation as to why we removed it.

Our goal should not be to advance a particular view we agree with. We edit as individuals who hold varying opinions, but our product is not ours -- it's Wikipedia's. To the outside world, what we write is seen as Wikipedia's material, not mine or Joe's or Kathy's. Wikipedia's goal is to have no opinion and offer no judgement. Personally, I am skeptical of Menzies' work, but when I come to this article, my responsibility is to make the same neutral edits that a strong Menzies supporter would make. The alternative is a ongoing edit and reversion war like some other articles' editors get into. Ultimately, all of us come out losers in these situations, since the article alternates between supporting one viewpoint one hour and the opposite postion the next hour. Furthermore it gets so chopped up in the process that the grammar and flow go all to hell. To the outside world, the credibility of the article and of both points of view all become suspect. By extension, it also damages the perceived reliability of other Wikipedia articles and all the hard work done by other editors that have never even heard of Menzies or the 1421 Hypothesis.
Relevant links:

Can I ask a question. If the NPOV policy is interpreted as inflexibly as so many wikipedians want to (often when it suits their purposes - not making an accusation here), how can we basically say that Menzies' views are very much his own and not supported by anyone with historical authority? I'm not saying we have to say "he is a crackpot", but really you can't pretend to be "neutral" if there is clear evidence that something is wrong, flawed, unreliable, etc. John Smith's 18:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
John, good question. I think the answer is that we let others do the talking -- we don't do it ourselves:
"Menzies states that the fleet landed at Cape XYZ based on a tablet found there with mysterious writing Menzies says is Chinese. Aztec language expert Dr. John Doe has disagreed, saying the markings on this tablet appear to be classic early Aztec hieroglyphics. Menzies, however, notes that the type of rock used is unlikely to have been ..."
It might also be interesting to see how some professionally edited print-encyclopedia handles a controversy of this sort if we can find an analogous article.--A. B. 20:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't use Menzies for counter-criticism, by the way. He has a habit of getting his information from not the most reliable sources. Like the time he went to someone that does crosswords rather than a cryptologist to answer his questions. John Smith's 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Alrighty--since I see one response in agreement and none in disagreement, I took out "However, it is popular in the Pseudohistory field." I don't believe that this serves any purpose (to describe Menzies' work as controversial and marginal) that is not already fulfilled by the text in the rest of the paragraph.--Birdmessenger 19:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Whilst I am all for citation, there is a limit. At the moment the text says "Given by Menzies as evidence of Chinese contact in Australia is the reported existence of pyramids or stone structures in and around Sydney and Newcastle, Australia. These structures in fact do not exist. [citation needed]". Why on earth would you need a citation to say that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist? Do I need a citation to say that pyraminds DON'T exist on the moon? Or that pre-historic Easter Island-like statues don't exist in Liverpool? This is the NPOV snark hunt taken to its extreme. --Mat Hardy (Affentitten) 12:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
The citation needed tag is not asking for proof of a negative. Rather, the article claims that this is part of a criticism of Menzies' work, but does not provide a source for that criticism. --Birdmessenger 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the achievement cited in this article really an achievement? Although Menzies does reveal some true details of the expeditions and the period in history, the reader is most likely to be misled by his outlandish claims, which are either based on speculative or fabricated evidence. His conjectures are often updated, so even by his own standards, they are not firm. Raising awareness is not an achievement if it is only superficial.

The man is a crank. Rintrah 14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC) Menzies makes many mistakes in the eyes of people who are capable to distiguish likely evidence, i.e. evidence that is likely to proof a point, from unlikely evidence. To them he made the mistake of pretending that the book his ghost writers composed is in fact history, rather than fiction set in some historical time frame. The objective of Menzies and his publishers is however to earn as much money as possible and if that objective can only be achieved by pretending that they present history, and some of us have fallen for it, they have achieved and continues to achieve that objective. A good history book with "news" rarely sells well (most publishers will tell you), as it has to painstakingly discuss all the alternative scenarios of the evidence, which is rather boring. A BAD 'history book' ( i.e. one containing fiction at the key points, skipping the hard analysis) however, providing some sensational point to the uncritical, sells well provided it is written using some seductive writing techniques from the fiction writers' repertoire. The sad thing is that it is an attack on our carefully built up world history that took centuries to find evidence for. Rich people often gained their money by lying, cheating etc. An endless list of examples can be found. User Bruno 22 August.

[edit] Merge with book article

As this hypothesis was primarily outlined in the book I suggest that this article is merged into that one.--Moonlight Mile 23:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure this one should be merged, given the article's size and the fact that it deals with an emerging historical theory, becoming much greater than the book itself. I say keep them separate Orchid Righteous

The fact that the article is called the 1421 Hypothesis suggests to me that it is directly related to the book entitled 1421: The year that China discovered the World and therefore all this information should be on that page. Any "emerging historical theory" should be included on the relevant pages under Chinese history.--Moonlight Mile 09:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
There are already other books on this "hypothesis", so if anything the book article should be merged into this one, not the other way around. -- Danny Yee 06:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Then Merge Qur'an With Islam. Merge Bible with Christianity! If we merged everything that was related we'd just have one big article.... Zazaban 05:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There isn't a Bible hypothesis page or a Quran hypothesis page, why should there be a 1421 hypothesis page?--Moonlight Mile 12:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest to keep the two separate, as the hypothesis has now taken on a life of its own and become a topic of great debate, with many websites and numerous arguments advanced on both sides etc - the hypothesis has become bigger than the book itself. --82.29.235.182 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Map

i first saw the map on the 1421 website. i noticed that the yellow and yangtze rivers were out of place, along with other mis shaped areas. such as korea and japan. it is possible that the sizes of these countires can be wrong, but the basic shapes are too wrong. the chinese have traded with these 2 countries for thousands of years. the kanglido also has correct shapes of korea and japan, which shows that asians knew the basic shapes of these countires also the yellow river and the Yangtze have been navigated since the beginings of chinese civilization. i think it is impossible that the chinese could of had misplaced them. i would like to belive that this map is real, but it has too many flaws.

I don't think the accuracy of contemporary cartography plays a role in this; many European maps from the same time frame are wildly off-mark. It's almost impossible to draw a map correctly in freehand without a sextant. --Colage 20:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Simply bad and needs major improvement.

Regardless of whether an editor believes the hypothesis or disbelieves it there is no reason for what is simply poisoning the well and bordering on ad homenim in places.

1. Intro The introduction is very close to what it should be. It seems to be clear and gives an overview of what will be being read by the reader. The last paragraph causes me some problems. "The 1421 hypothesis has proven popular with the general public, but has been dismissed by Sinologists and other professional historians." What is the basis for making these broad sweeping statements. I don't see any evidence. Who are the general public? Which countries? How do you know how popular it is? The way dismissal is used implies all sinologists and professional historians (who are also part of the general public) are agisnt it. evidence. Replace this section perhaps with something about the number of books sold in X place, number of documentaries made and the fact that the hypothesis has met with critisism and the level of critisism if it can be ascertained and substantiated.

2. Method The first phrase in the method is poisoned. Substitute with Menzies claims he has found evidence from .... without alleged and disputed etc. There is plenty of room for critisism and making the critisism in one place gives it more weight.

The Maps piece seems OK. However, it's not clear why the section is here. Shouldn't it be clearer that this is evidence put forward by Menzies?

The Other Evidence has a few more weasle words like purportedly. I also prefer to use something like "claims that .... were reported" rather than "reportedly seen". Somehow the current phrase almost reads cynically rather than neutrally.

3. Critisism is a mess. Lots of citations needed. It reads badly as if it is not thought through. It is often not presented in a readable fashion. Weasle words are everywhere. "Some critics...", "They claim ...", "Most people". ....

There is also an axe to grind here I feel. I corrected an error where a critisism in this Wiki claims Menzies was raised in China but was actually born in London. In fact, the book claims he was born in China.

Quoting from the reference given for this:

"Where were you born?

GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR: I was born in London.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Well, why did the dust jacket on your book say you were born in China?

GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR: Well, the - the original draft said, "He spent his early life in China," I think.

QUENTIN MCDERMOTT: Well, it actually said you were born in China.

GAVIN MENZIES, AUTHOR: Well, I went there when I was three weeks old. I mean, it's a mistake, I can't see it's material."

This is actually very trivial. Dust jackets are often not written by authors and there are pleanty of mistakes in them.

Overall, this critisism section needs really smartening up if it to actually contribute to this article.

I will watch this article and look for responses. I'm afraid I will have to do some culling of weasle words and unreferenced statements at a later time if they are not worked on by someone else. Hopefully I will find some positive reponses here. Candy 15:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is it my imagination but as it is claimed Menzies is rejected by a great number of historians and sinologists why is it just one repeted reference (Finlay) which is cited to support this? Candy 18:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
This may be down to the fact that Finlay was AFAIK the only one who bothered to write a point by point refutation. And his article is available online. Gun Powder Ma 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Then this article needs to answer in singulars not plurals. There does seem to be a lot of assumed original reserach going on in this article. I'm back to the fact this article was written without NPOV. If there are citations to support the allegations use them. If not remove the assumptions. Candy 10:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
There's the article by Wills as well as the one by Finlay. And I'll see if I can find some more, though I don't see why historians would feel more completely annihilating refutations would be needed. (It's hard to provide evidence for a negative, but the complete absence of any support for Menzies by an professional historian is surely significant.) -- Danny Yee 11:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Danny. A ship can only be send once to the bottom, what use is it when the others continue to bombard the water surface? We could make a selection of small handy comments by other historians, but this may violate the NPOV character to some. Gun Powder Ma 12:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
However, the original article when I made statements about citations had no relevant citations. It used NPOV terms and weasley words to critisize Menzies. One article which itself has no criticism (ie response from Menzies nor support from other historians) does not make a damning critisism. whether Menzies has has no, partial or full validity is not my contention. The issue was simply that this article was a travesty. wordfs like ... "most historians" (which nocitation) is weasley. This was backed up by ONE reference from ONE person. I think to retain credibility it needs more than one reference. I'm not a professional historian. I'm coming from the perspective of a Wki author and yes, Gun Powder Ma, one staement by one historian does not send a ship to the bottom (particularly when some of the refs used to damn Menzies were clearly weak and trivial).

If the contention is lack of support, Danny Lee, then that also needs to be shown in a reference. Otherwise it's original research. It's no good hiding behind "Menzies is wrong" if the article does not support that clearly. It doesn't. Whatever your views on Menzies it is inappropriate to support them without citation. Candy 14:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this article is poorly constructed. But the only bits I added were the references and quotes from the Finlay and Wills papers under "Criticism", which I think make most of the rest redundant. It's NOT the place of an encyclopedia article to refute every one of Menzies' silly ideas, we should just say "this is what the historians say" and "this is what the news coverage has been like" and let the reader make up their own mind. -- Danny Yee 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


But I still see that the consideration isn't for a balanced article with appropriate citations. I mean the language you use here is "silly". You obviously want to refute what is written. Fair enough. But then you need to make sitations when it says "most historians...". One citation is not enough. Otherwise, it is just poor writing and needs to be amended to, "One historian, name, has refuted at length ....". Candy 12:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you. Most historians have simply ignored Menzies, so to state that most of them have disputed him or contested his evidence is just plain wrong. -- Danny Yee 21:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Great Danny. I think we got to the same page here. I'll reread the article this weekend and make some appropriate changes unless you want to...? Candy 22:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


But it's not the place of an encyclopedia article to present every one of Menzie's ideas, either. The problem is that "1421" is more a method than a hypothesis. If it were a hypothesis it would actually be several hundred hypotheses, about specific discoveries in specific years and locations, many of them largely independent. -- Danny Yee 22:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] It's been long enough

I'm making some basic changes to this article based on my previous post.

These are:

1.The 1421 hypothesis is a controversial theory .. It's a hypothesis not a theory. 2. According to Menzies ... Removed. Almost seems like ad homenim! 3. Many of these categories and items of evidence... How can a category be contested? Makes no sense. 4. Changed the mainstream part to two mainstream as that is all that is offered.

Stopping there becasue it is bedtime 8=)

Adding doesn't cite sources to page. Theer are enough unsubstantiated comments now for that.


Candy 03:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


1. Is it a hypothesis? So far as I'm aware it's simply the content of one work of popular literature. Until we can find some (i.e. multiple citations) of the term "1421 hypothesis" in common use, as far as I'm concerned, the title of this article is original research.
I would agree. I was only correcting the contradiction in the article as it stood. However, the point about original research is not appropriate here. All hypotheses and theories are original research (for example general theory of relativity). Ergo, this book cannot be dismissed becasue it is original reserach? Candy 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Is it not important to cite viewpoints? See point one. Menzies is the one who elucidated and argued this "hypothesis". Let's not reify the "hypothesis" into some abstract entity; the best and simplest approach is "In 1421, Gavin Menzies says. . ."
That's much better imho. BTW, I'm not trying to prevent viewpoints being sounded. But you can't say a hypothesis is a controversial theory. It doesn't make sense. Candy 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
3. A category can quite easily be contested. "Chinese artifact" for example. "Christian" is another one that can spring to mind. Perhaps "Categorisations" is better.
"Or, the analysis of artifacts and explanations of evidence ..?" Candy 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
4. This has already been amended, but I would remark: how many scientists do we have to cite before it becomes mainstream? By definition, mainstream scientists don't spend much time dealing with fringe theories. UFO's are rejected by mainstream scientists, but it's not as though you have to get a Bachelor's in Debunking UFO's to be a member of the mainstream. It's not as though every historical work on Ming China is going to mention "incidentally, Gavin Menzies is talking rubbish". Partly because much mainstream Ming history predates Menzies' book. Slac speak up! 23:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, UFOs are accepted by all mainstream scientists. The fact that they are extra-terrestrial or flying saucers etc is rejected. However, ignoring this example, it is not appropriate to say "it's rubbish" and not give some reference. It isn"t appropriate to say most scholars and give no evidence. Every point does not need to be debunked but there needs to be some evidence that scholars are saying this surely?? Candy 11:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
not that this is the place to really get into this, but the existence of UFOs is not admitted by all, many , or most mainstream scientists,except in the narrow sense that some real or imagined objects have been called UFOs, The name and the concept are all that is known to exist. In the same sense we could say that at least some junks made trips somewhere in 1421. DGG 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
There is one prominent remaining POV flaw: the rhetorical one implied by the use of the pull quote, which makes it appear to be a final judgement. I have restored it to ordinary size. DGG 05:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was not aware that these pull quotes are viewed as suggestive in any way. I thought they are jmore convenient for longer quotes (as cursive script is harder to read). :-) Gun Powder Ma 12:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Historian terminology

It's a minor point, but how do people feel about the terms used to distinguish Menzies from 'academic' historians (i.e. the ones working in universities who think his ideas are crap). Are they mainstream historians, academic historians, traditional historians? What do people think is the most accurate or precise terminology? Currently the article uses both, professional in the intro paragraph, and mainstream later on. I don't really have a preference, but at the least it should be harmonized, and should convey that the the consensus of academics who disagree. WLU 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Traditional versus non-traditional means different things in different subject areas: in some cases "traditional" might refer to a "kings and battles" approach and social history might be "non-traditional". Academic and professional are probably more clear-cut; maybe mainstream is confusing. (I wouldn't actually call Menzies a historian at all, by the way, anymore than a journalist who writes about science is a scientist.) -- Danny Yee 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not just "the consensus" of academics who disagree, also -- that would suggest there's some kind of actual debate about Menzies' ideas among historians, when any such debate has been entirely in the media. -- Danny Yee 21:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm still failing to come up with a good adjective then, traditional was my best bet. Academic might be best, but that kind of wording attracts the nutjobs who think that academic historians are just out to conspiracy-theory the 'truth' (i.e. Atlantis, lizard-alien rulers, pyramids-as-landing-pads). Would conventional work? How about (a bit snippy) educated historians? I'm trying to think of a wording that conveys the 'trained in a school, has actually read the books/articles/reports, peer-reviewed knowledge'. Anyway, no matter what is chosen, I'd be happier if the two terms were the same. Oh, and Menzies is definitely an 'amateur' (with pejorative connotations) historian. See my response below also. WLU 12:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Academic historians is the best term, you can't worry too much about what "nutjobs" think because they are unlikely to change their minds anyway. Puddytang 23:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism intro

Currently (15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)) the intro to the criticism section reads: 'received no support from mainstream historians'. I think could be worded better - though I'm 100% positive that academic historians (versus pseudohistorians and pyramid/atlantis nutters) have nothing good to say about the book, it is impossible to prove a negative. We'd have to cite every single historian on the planet. Would people be comfortable with 'has been severely criticized by mainstream historians' or something similar? WLU 15:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, proving a negative is a bit of a problem. The same problem exists with "largely ignored", which would seem like a more accurate description than "severely criticized" (which suggests that significant numbers of historians have actually taken any notice of Menzies). How about something like "The [few] historians who have responded to Menzies' ideas have been scathing"? -- Danny Yee 21:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't use scathing, I would stick with something like 'the professional/academic/mainstream historians who have responded to Menzies ideas have been heavily critical and provided numerous rebuttals.' Few is a subjective judgement (proportionately few, or numerically few? Is 100 few, considering there are 50 000 historians in the world? etc) and scathing, though accurate, is a bit of a weasel word (though that's arguable, as their own comments and criticisms are pretty harsh and damning). Could say 'heavily critical of his findings and approach', I think that conveys the sense of their criticism overall. WLU 12:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, "scathing" is a bit emotional. On the other hand, "highly critical" seems weak in comparison to "uniformly without substance" and "completely useless". -- Danny Yee 02:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed it to "strongly critical", which on the balance seems the best choice. -- Danny Yee 02:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent re-word, top notch. WLU 11:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The fundamental evidence Menzie uses to support his hypothesis are the maps, most notably the Kangnido, Piri Reis, the Fra Mauro Planisphere, and the Pizzigano chart. I'm no expert in the history of exploration in the 14th and 15th centuries. The readers of Wikipedia would be well served if the article answered a few basic questions about these maps: Are the dates that Menzie's assigns these maps correct? If so, how have previous writers explained the existence of these charts, some of which were supposedly published prior to Columbus' voyage? Also, the article cites the book by Louise Levathes, but gives no substantive explanation of the difference between that book and Menzie's book. J l harvey 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Noted, will try to keep it in mind when re-working the content. WLU 01:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Remember we're not detectives, so try to use opinion/views from established sources when making points. John Smith's 18:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other thoughts

Should British ghost writer Neil Hanson be acknowledged here, as he has been identified as such by Gavin Menzies in the 2006 ABC TV program?--Nickm57 (talk) 11:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other evidence section

Every statement in this section has request for citation to be added. But the book itself is the source for all the claims so why do we need to cite it repeatedly?

Example: Evidence of Horses, flightless ducks and Asiatic melanotic chickens and pigs in the New World prior to Columbus's arrival. are claims made in the book by the author supporting his hypothesis. Is it necessary to cite the book when the artical is about the book? Xtrump (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The argument for citing the book is that page numbers should be given. An abbreviated form of the book title may be used.Itsmejudith (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this is an in-appropriate use of references with little or no benefit that only tends to clutter up the article with links. I would recommend they be eliminated or minimized.Xtrump (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kangni Do Map

I was just wondering -- the blurb under the map says "entirety of the Old World, from Europe and Africa in the west, to Korea and Japan in the east," but of course it leaves out areas we know the Chinese knew -- Southeast Asia, Indonesia and India. So, 'entirety'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't Doug, you haven't finished doing your research! It has India (not too well) and Sri Lanka. More later if I can get the latest article on it. -- goes off mumbling more to self--Dougweller (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Native Peoples

When I see Aztec art I think of Polynesia and I beleive that is where they came from..while others like Mayans ad Incas seem more Mongolian to me. Just the word MEXICO there is no X or O in spanish that's Chinese not "indio". people of the Americas could just be mixes of several Asian tribes/groups who just mixed with the new people of Europe & Africa(slaves). what I don't get is why peple get offended by the idea that Asians was here first. I think it's safe to say that most people know that "natives" are from Asians...DNA proves this they accept that native Americans are Asians yet they say there is no proof they came here first. Umm what part of that makes sense?? --Mari —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.93.111 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I don't think the Chinese went to the Americas or England in 1421, but most people agree that sometime in the past 40000 or so years (opinions differ a lot) there were migrations from Asia to the Americas. The Spanish alphabet does have X and O although obviously they pronounce X differently than English speakers do. But the name Mexico isn't Spanish originally, although the Spanish changed it from the original. It is a Nahuatl name (Uto-Aztecan), no relationship to Chinese.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hmmmmm

the problem with this and the book is that first we know there were people already in america before anybody from the old world got here,but i think it is disparageing to the norse people i believe it is now accepted fact that the vikings discovered america around 998 A.D i think this arguement about east asians finding the new world first is brushed aside by the onset of facts--Wikiscribe (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vikings

In a case of history being written by the victors (in this case the Norman's) the achievements of the Vikings well over five hundred years before the 1400's are ignored. The Vikings settled America and traded with the Chinese in the 900's. They were far from the mindless thugs which they are portrayed as post 1066. Jrl101 (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. (You do know that the Normans are descendants of the Vikings I hope). We still have no evidence for the Vikings settling America, only evidence for a short lived seasonal settlement. But this article isn't about the VIkings and there is no reason for them to be mentioned in it.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is fact that the vikings discovered america circa 1000 that is accepted fact and even had a settlement though short lived as you have said, but that is discovery and would be no more or less than what is claimed by this 1421 non sence so even if this is true it does not erase the fact that vikings still were in america mainland some four centuries before the chinese so the point is moot by saying the chinese discovered america and the author is trampling on european achievment to make a name for himself and make money,and yes you are right about the normans being decendants of vikings but the normans became latinised because they spoke a form of french thus the normans were latin not germanic--Wikiscribe (talk) 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but this is, as you say, 1421 nonsense. The article doesn't present it as accepted fact, note that it is in the category Pseudohistory. The Chinese didn't discover America, but the book is notable enough to be included, even if we don't like it.--Doug Weller (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)