Talk:Zheng He/Archive 4

Arabic name
His Arabic name in the article is wrong, shouldn't it be " محمود شمس" "Mahmud Shams"? In the article, Zheng He is attributed the honorific "Hajji" although he traveled to Mecca, he never performed the pilgrimage itself. Abstrakt
 * Interesting, can you provide some good sources of his Arabic name? L joo 09:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots of sources in Chinese are available. It is actually beyond doubt that "Hajji" was incorporated into the names of most male members of the Sayyid Ajjal Shams family including Zheng He's grand father and father. It is also recorded in Chinese source that the name "Hajji" was incorporated into Zheng He's especially when conducting diplomacy with Muslims. 郑和 is Zheng He in Chinese and Hajji is 哈只. One must conduct searches among Chinese sources, even though many of them are from textbooks printed by the Communist government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bestlyriccollection (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 April 2007

IPA Pronunciation
All right, well, I was just trying to tackle his name in IPA, but I'm not sure if I have it completely right. Based on how I have heard his name, I made ʒʌŋ hɜː, but I'm not sure if that makes sense. Perhaps someone else can weigh in on this? 17:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chinese textbook is outdated
Anyone who opposes to the fact that Zheng He or his crew of having contact with the New World should not base their surmise on the presupposition of what was written in Chinese history books as they are very outdated, thus not a reliable source for information, conclusion should be based more on fact findings and logical proofs. One should not expect any object the size of a coin like the Ming medallion to surface in the archaeological world very often, or anywhere in the world any time soon. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.93.53 (talk) at 13:05, 27 June 2007 Edluu 16:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Shangdi" or "Jing"?
Nothing wrong in using 'Shangdi' for God, that's the parlance and correct usage at the time, if (that's what Geoff Wade suggested) in the 17th-18th century, within the period the map was made, that was during the Qing Dynasty. What haven't changed is the name of the religion called 'Jing' or Nestorianism, the sect came to Central Asia for more than 1000 years earlier, it was called 'Jing' and is still called 'Jing' today, though the sect might have died out, remnant of it still survived. It does not contradict to the fact that the map was based on a 1418 or earlier Zheng He map. -T.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edluu (talk • contribs) at 10:01, 28 June 2007
 * Anyone want to source this info and/or propose a rewrite of the "Zheng He map" section? -- Rob C (Alarob) 21:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Argument archived
The argument has been archived and the relevent material has been moved to a seperate section. Please move all discussion regarding Zheng He's contact with America to that section to clean up this talk page and allow new topics of discussion.

New Section: Zheng He Medallion Archived Debate: Talk:Zheng_He/Archive 3 Weston.pace16:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated - Moved information from separate page to different section in this page) Weston.pace 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox created
The Zheng He medallion debate has been moved to a separate section. Please move discussion regarding that topic to Zheng He Medallion

I took all the relevant comments from this page and copied them into the archive page at Talk:Zheng_He/Zheng_He_And_America_Debate I then went through all the comments and took the facts and propositions, summarized them and moved them to the following section. I believe the debate deserves it's own space and it was sprawled all over the page, crowding out several other, also important, issues being discussed. Please leave any comments about the change at my talk page. I will be happy to revert the change if someone gives a decent reason. -Weston.pace 20:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC) (Updated - Moved information from separate page to different section in this page) Weston.pace 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

"America" -phonetic translation on the 18th century copy of the Ming period Zheng He(1418 and earlier) map
It all looks nothing out of ordinary at first, but in deeper examination it greatly puzzles one's mind, "亞墨利加"(as appeared on the map) was uniquely Hui-Hui(Chinese-Muslims) in origine! As Chinese all know, "America" is always phonetically translated to be "亞美利堅" in  early Chinese and even later in modern China,  not "亞墨利加". So why the discrepency and differences? where, and how did that arise? Why "亞墨利加" appeared on the map and not "亞美利堅"? One thing is clear, it was not of Han origine. One has to recall that ZhengHe himself was a Muslim, most of his crewmen were mixtures of Han and Chinese-Muslims(plus other nationals.) Remnant of Chinese-Muslims must still be serving the Qing court as they could be more trust-worthy or expert in certain area(like in map making for example.) The map maker was clearly not of ordinary Chinese, he worked for the court, and as a Chinese-Muslim he would have pronounced and used "ah" and not "eih" for the letter "e". Thus the sounding "America" to a Hui-Hui, would pronounce more like "A-mahk-ri-kah." Soundingly more rustic, Arabic in style and pronounciation, not of Han Chinese's mandarin pronounciation. "美"( "meih") was Han usage, "墨"(prounounces "Mahk") is what Hui-Hui would have used, the "ah" sounding is so emphasized as we can further see in "加"("kah",) thus "亞墨利加"("A-mahk-ri-kah",) is not  the same as "亞美利堅"(A-meih-ri-gin,)a modern Chinese pronounciation of "America". What it proves is that the map was not a copy but authentic because the phonetic transliteration of "America" was uniquely Hui-Hui(Chinese-Muslim) in origine. "亞墨利加"(as appeared in "now is called America" on the map) after all, turns out to be the important key in authenticating the map. Edluu 16:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you observed the phonetical difference on your own, that's great, and you should try and get that published in some sort of historical outlet, then post a reference to that.  If someone else described that phonetic difference, then you should tell us where it's published so that we can look up the source and add it as a reference. -Weston.pace 16:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Goog suggestion thanks, phonetic subtlety is easy to be missed by the academia, I will let you know of any outcome if it appears on any future reference etc. But for right now some Chinese characters appear well on Wikipedia as you have the most complete coding system for Chinese characters and other foreign language, very appreciative of that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edluu (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 July 2007

Island of Seven Cities
History International, History Channel, seem to think that the America claim is worthy of a documentary [that I have not seen].

Further, this article is full of full of antigrammar: singular contradicting plural,....

&, the headline is buried near the end, to the extent that it might be true:

Former submarine commander Gavin Menzies in his book 1421: The Year China Discovered the World claims that several parts of Zheng's fleet explored virtually the entire globe, discovering West Africa, North and South America, Greenland, Iceland, Antarctica and Australia (except visiting Europe). Menzies also claimed that Zheng's wooden fleet passed the Arctic Ocean. However none of the citations in 1421 are from Chinese sources and scholars in China do not share Menzies's assertions.

A related book, The Island of Seven Cities: Where the Chinese Settled When They Discovered America by Paul Chiasson maintains that a nation of native peoples known as the Mi'kmaq on the east coast of Canada are descendants of Chinese explorers, offering evidence in the form of archaeological remains, customs, costume, artwork, etc. It is worth noting that several advocates of these theories believe that Zheng He also discovered modern day New Zealand on either his sixth or seventh expedition.

< http://islandofsevencities.com/mainindex.htm >:


 * THE ISLAND of SEVEN CITIES


 * Where the Chinese Settled When They Discovered America


 * “If it is true, the find would rank among the greatest archeological discoveries of all time, [and] turn much of modern history upside down.” National Post


 * Using aerial and site photographs, maps and drawings, and his own expertise as an architect, Chiasson re-creates how he pieced together the clues to one of the world’s great mysteries: a large Chinese colony existed and thrived on Canadian shores well before the European Age of Discovery. He addresses how the ruins had been previously overlooked or misunderstood, and how the colony was abandoned and forgotten, in China and in the New World. And he discovers the traces the colony left in the storytelling and culture of the Mi’kmaq, whose written language, clothing, technical knowledge, religious beliefs, and legends, he argues, expose deep cultural ties to China.

So, history is far more complex than public school would permit.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 01:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So who are you, are you a top notched scientist? did you discover a new Atomic matter or something? what work you've done? you don't act like an expert either so how can you discredit Menzie and other notable researchers in just a few words? And who the heck is the scientist you are talking about? why don't you give some name if any or just your imaginative habit of using big word? Chinese and their historians were responsible in destroying all the evidences of the voyages because it bankrupted the country's treasury, so they sure couldn't be the kind of expert or scientists you are talking about, nor the contemporary who are using old school text and ideology. Imagine if European navigators destroyed all their records and maps, what else do you have to prove their voyage but using all that you can find on hand? There are plenty of proof that Chinese had contact with the A.Indians since Shang Dynasty, so the American Continent is not as unknown to the Chinese as anyone might think. Westerners and Chinese need to relearn history anew that's all, it's a huge undertaking and Discover Ch. can't do the job just by themselves, but whatever Discover and Wikipedia had been doing they are doing great job so far, second to none. 75.60.225.51 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether or not The History Channel and its ilk are prepared to devote programming to a topic is no good indication of that topic or theory's worthiness and historical validity. Their prime concern is getting more bums on seats, not producing academic or critical analyses. To that end, the more sensational or outlandish the claim, the better. If you want to know what the scientific community at large thinks of Menzies' claims and 'scholarship' (A: generally bunkum, and very poor, respectively), The History Channel is not the place to turn to. You could start out with the wealth of 1421 reviews and critiques by (actual) historians, some of which are linked to in the relevant articles. Paul Chiasson's claims are in the same vein, and similarly discounted . --cjllw ʘ  TALK 01:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Might I say that, to an outsider, your criticism appears to be of the "if I cite a source, it is authority; if you cite it, it is bunkum" ilk, and one I had not expected to see on Wikipedia -- HenriLobineau 13:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, that's not the rationale for my comment.
 * I made no such assertion, or anything which could be reasonably be interpreted that way. The materials behind citations given should be examined on their own merits, and not by who added the cite to the article.
 * To be clear, I did not say that it was I who thought Menzies' claims were bunkum and his scholarship shoddy (although that happens to be what I do think). I said, that it is the scientific community at large which thinks so.
 * We were not, or at least I was not, commenting on the reliability of information in the specific History Channel documentary mentioned by hopiakuta&mdash; I haven't seen it either (although I have read 1421).
 * Instead, my comment is in response to hopiakuta's, which I read to mean, 'if The History Channel and others like it think it worthy to produce documentaries on "the America claim" [I presume Menzies' 1421 ideas], then there might be something to it'.
 * In my response I simply point out that the mere existence of documentaries on Menzies' claims does not of itself mean his claims and purported evidence are supported by researchers in the relevant fields. The History Channel and other media outlets do not function like refereed academic journals, and their editorial policies are not necessarily beholden to standards of evidence and presentation of argument. Which is not at all to say that these outlets do not or cannot produce programming of quality and rigour, only that the range of productions is much more variable and subject to what producers think will garner an audience. More so than the degree to which a topic has any sound credibility behind it. UFOs do get more than the occasional airing on the channel, for eg.
 * Something that you would expect to see on Wikipedia is that fringe and much-disputed theories are not given undue weight, out-of-proportion to how they are treated by reliable sources. In the case of Menzies' ideas, they are certainly well enough publicised to be notable for mention; but since his claims attract barely a ripple of support in the scientific mainstream they've no business being promoted in the lead for being possibly true. An awful lot of alternative claims are possibly true, but the evidence for them so far has not convinced mainstream scholarship that they are true, or are likely to be true.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So who are you, are you another notched scientist? did you discover a new Atomic matter or something? what work you've done? you don't act like an expert either so how can you discredit Menzie and other notable researchers in just a few words? And who the heck is the scientist you are talking about? why don't you give some name if any or just your imaginative habit of using big word? Edluu (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

History Channel Documentary
"Their prime concern is getting more bums on seats,... " Wow, really??

Wiki's goal is getting more bums on keyboards. Virtually everyhing in culture is designed to attract an audience, membership. That's true of capitalism & socialism; I would contend that where capitalism predominates, we need socialism; where there is socialism, we need capitalism. &, we almost always need more democracy, disparate thought, even desperately.

So, if History Ch., or whatever, attracts someone, well, so? I have not encountered a grocery-store w/ a sign: "Hey, we must limit ourselves to two clients, two visitors, per day. Take your wallet, cash & cards across the street."

I am completely offended by misleading signatures; if you've chosen a screenname, to hide it means that you want to trick me when I read the historylog.

If you read the historylogs, you would see that I did not add any of this to the primary article.

I did say that the headline is buried. The article could say something, in the first three paragraphs, akin to: "Hey, this claim might be absurd, or even impossible; but, some people do contend that this evidence is accurate, so, here it is,..."

The headline is buried: that is fact, regardless of the content facts being true or false.

Some of the grammar is sufficiently difficult to numb a skeleton's mind.

If you insist on "na, na--na-na-na,..."

Try to avoid losing your head.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 14:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Pls refer to my comments in response to HenriLobineau above, by way of clarification.


 * Given that wikipedia as an encylopaedic effort is (by policy) not supposed to give undue weight to under-supported theories, I would disagree that Menzies' or Chiasson's attempts need be accorded "headline" status in the lead. If sufficiently publicised and notable (Menzies' 1421 certainly is, not so sure about Chiasson) they can be covered and dealt with later on and appropriately, as alternative and minority views to the mainstream historical interpretation(s).


 * If the article's grammar needs attention, you as much as anyone else are welcome to go about fixing it.


 * There's nothing in my signature &mdash;transparently an abbreviation of my username&mdash; that contravenes the relevant guidelines, and I see no good reason to change it.--cjllw ʘ  TALK 06:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese migration to the Americas
If one search under "Junk ship" in Wikipedia, one can see European ships had no more than one mast, some has none! whereas ornate Chinese Junks had 3-4 masts and look it up with magnifying glass if can't see it, some might even have 5, but that information comes nowhere than directly from the Fra-Mauro map itself 1460! Which tells you Europeans had better record keeping than the Chinese! and that Chinese Junks were commonly seen crossing the Atlantic, probably thousands of them, human migration could be seen settling in the Americas-North and South, some Chinese had mingled with the local Indian tribes and other Indian empires, some had ended up on sacrificial platforms which were spotted across the landscape...it was this kind of drains in terms of human resources, not only material resources that had caused China to close its door to the outside world. The precluding of the closing of door of China to the outside world later was emphasized by the Qing government, so Chinese migration to the Americas may last way into the early Qing Dynasty. Edluu (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We have better information that a 1459 map which might be an Arab ship (which is what a lot of scholars think he meant by the word 'Indian'. We know that the Chinese junks had as many of 9 masts. But there is no evidence for Chinese junks commonly seen crossing the Atlantic (which would be rather a long way to get the the Americas) or the migration you claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[there is no evidence for Chinese junks commonly seen crossing the Atlantic]-but yet according to the Fra-Mauro map there is evidence there were large trading bands of ships traveling on the Atlantic water, could they catch better wind current that way than the Pacific? maybe who knows? but they sure could stop in various countries for supplies as ZhengHe's crew had chosen as "the" preferred way of travel. It was an established safe route but also for business sense, whereas Australia for example, had no viable towns to speak of nor economic reason to stop by. Migrations might not be voluntary nor government sponsored by any means, trading ships would ended up broken down in some part of the Newworld and thus never came back. Americas are great sources for quality jades which valued more than gold in China. At any voyages less ships were seen coming back to China and that might have prompted government's attention, and crack down might not be in huge scale. But the complete closing of China to outside world was well known to be detrimental to China in later period Edluu (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The map doesn't show large trading bands as you think it does. As I said, the evidence for your migration just doesn't exist. And all those ships travelling across the Atlantic then wouldn't have gone unnoticed by European sailors or the ports where they would have had to get their supplies. --Dougweller (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Again Chinese ships might have by-passed Europe all together and might not have traded with Europe or rarely, as they could get supplies at much cheaper cost in Arab or Africa, what essentials to sailors were some good protein food like meats, right below Spain is Africa. They were going to trade what they were after, and the many styles of Chinese Junks depicted on Fra-Mauro maps is more than enough proof that Chinese ships were ubiquitous on the Atlantic water at the time. 75.60.225.51 (talk) 20:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC) 75.60.225.51 (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal research on Zheng He in Latin America
I have taken a personal initiative in my own research of the "possible" trace and tracks of the Zhenghe's footprints in South or Latin America.

After reading portion of the book of Mr. Menzies- I have started with some of my own hypothesis. Meaning I have stayed focus on the possible "Chinese foot prints" with the possibility where these Chinese foot prints or trace via the entry from the Atlantic side of South America and what are the possibilities.

As I am from Brazil and my personal track record is my engagement of the gem and mineral business along with a personal interest of cultural anthropology. With all the roaming of the entire country of Brazil from the mineral rich deposits in the Southeast region of Minas Gerais, the state of Bahia, Rio de Janeiro --- but with most of the concentration of color gemstones located via that northeast region of Minas Gerais and southwest of Bahia where most of the concentration of gemstones like tourmalines, beryls (Aquamarine, heliodor,morgonite) to emeralds, again beryls to the many rich and exotic gemstones like precious topaz, andalusite, chrysoberyl cats eye, or alexandrite and a huge array of rich minerals in the family of quartz -- in these past thirty years, along with my travel and business into Asia, Southeast Asia, with Thailand, Burma (Myamar), Sri Lanka, Cambodia and now with a more fixed location in Guangdong, China like most of the many gemstones processing firms, jewelry manufacturing companies and as I have predicted- almost one third to one forth of the global companies will be located or based between this region of Hong Kong, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Punyu in and near the east side of the Pearl River and even west of the Pearl River directly into Zuhai and then wrap around with the ex Portuguese Colony of Macao.

With this much said, as always, as an ethnic Chinese, our interest in jade, be that jadeite, nephrite or even serpentine, plus a variety of many so called "jade" that in actuality were not jade or as such , the real jadeite --- or the variety of jadeite that have been found in Burma, nowadays Myanmar. where most of the so called imperial jade, or the sort of high value jade jewelry one sees in most of the jewelry stores -- but then again, the color of jade and in particular in jadeite has its rich variances -- from white to purple, to orange to red and the huge array of green that can be floating from apple green, spinach green -- and then the quality of jade by its uniformity of the gemstones, mixed of color, and mixture of its body's translucency to transparency that are varied by simple jade lovers, then to the professionals and connosiers - with the most prominent pieces often in auction houses like Soethby, Christies and the like, thee autions now are active almost weekly with the many estate sales in and around the globe. I trust that the reader can do enough "Googling" or just visit these many auction sites and get a good ideas of its history, plus value and availability.

However, the reason I am in here -- in part, linking to the hypothesis of the possible Chinese navigation with their possibilities into first Central America, Caribbeans and then in and near the mouth of the Amazons -- and what are other possibilities into further up the Amazons. Can it be possible?

Nevertheless, I think one of the best track and traces from that gemstones, emulates and artifacts angle -- what are the possibilities of then "jade" as one of the many wares that normally can outlast most of the wares of that period -- presuming the period of 1400. So, jade, and most likely not "jadeite" was one of my focus ..

Since the Chinese use of jadeite had only come to the time and period in the Qing dynasty and by way of Qinlong the third Qing emperor and his appreciation of the vibrant green color of jadeite from Burma.

Nevertheless, as early as in 1972-- I had my first visit to Antigua, Guatemala, where most of the Central American -- jade, yes, jadeite have been around and have been seen by many gemstone, mineral enthusiast -- even though at that time, Guatemala was in chaos with much of the ups and downs and military coups and guerrillas had began -- I have taken my chance to explore the region  to see and to compare the jadeite from that region and of jadeite from Asia --namely Burmese jadeite, often in the trading hands of the Chinese in China, Hong Kong and Thailand.

Four years ago, I have received an email by and old pal, Ian -- who was in part of the research team with Mr. Menzies. I first have received this email with a funny name of "muyrakyian" and almost in half German and then the rest that was quite obscure. Supposedly as a jade object found in and near the Amazons.

After three and half weeks exploring that work and searching for the name --- at the end, I did discovered the real writing as in "Muirakita", written as in the native Tupi language -- It has stated as one of the amulate being found in the region of Santarem, Amazons- an amulet, a token of gift given by one of the "woman" tribes to their "mating" partners. You all now are welcome to do more of the "Google". Where indeed, I have located two of these amulates were actually made of Jadeite and by my hypothesis, these jadeites with all the more possible transit from the Central American Mayan deposit -- like those in Guatemala -- creating another my past suspicion where there might have been trans-American trade between the Andean Incas and the Mayans?

I am continuing my research in the Amazon basin with various universities and research institutes. I am personally very close to the Museum of the Red River, located in Idabel, Oklahoma and before that with Beloit College and their museums. directly linked with Escola de Minas, in Ouro Preto and other Salesian colleges in Brazil with our closest link to the native and indigenous tribes in and around Amazon region and in Mato Grosso and much more in the Western region of Brazil.

The Muirakita and the amulate had started me with jade but had float now into a different direction from the jade from Asia and the possibility of Chinese foot prints in that region remains open for greater inspection. As in my travel with my business -- I am all eyes and years as I have the opportunities to have witnessed many more possible Asians traces in that region of Amazon between Rio Negro and Rio Solimoes. As a part time cultural anthropologist and with my many links between Brazil and Macao -- I am extremly closed to the Jesuits in and around Macao and with an rich array of Portuguese documents and about navigation and voyages -- with both fluency in Portuguese, Spanish and Chinese -- I will continue to explore the archives from Macao to the Philippines, to Portuguese Goa in India and many more. Remember now, a great deal of the Spanish voyages, much of their deck hands were Portuguese and so were the many documentations that were written in Portuguese.. Thus, I will have ample opportunities to explore more -- and I am definitely curious and interested to that hypothesis -- Chinese entry into the Americas via the Atlantic region. I hope this can be part of my contribution to the new possibilities - of Zhenghe reaching the Americas ? Let us explore more and see if another options. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.99.41 (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm probably guilty of this as well, but look at the top of the page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zheng He article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. And of course your personal research cannot be used in an article.--Dougweller (talk) 22:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Time Magazine article
It is interesting that the Time magazine article compared Zheng He's voyages with other great western explorers. And Zheng came out on top by a great margin in almost all aspects, despite his name is not as well known as the others. It is a pity that politics stopped all those great adventures.

Archive links [outdated]

 * Archive 1 and Archive 2 contain old miscellaneous comments.
 * Archived America debate is stored at Talk:Zheng He/Archive 3.
 * Summary outline of America debate by Weston.pace is at Talk:Zheng He/Archive 4.
 * Comments toward resolving America debate are invited at User:Alarob/Zheng He. -- Rob C (Alarob) 17:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Tamil Muslims in Zheng He's Fleet
User:Anwar saadat has twice posted a statement that some of the mariners in Zheng He's fleet are believed to have been Tamil Muslims from south India. I reverted the statement once, and explained why at User talk:Anwar saadat. The statement is back again, so I ask other editors to give their views. My concerns:
 * The cited source (a report at a website) does not state that foreign (south Indian) Tamil Muslims were in Zheng He's fleet. Instead, a Tamil Muslim is listed among the foreign residents of China who were in the fleet.
 * More important, the website, http://1421.tv, is not a reliable source. It is devoted to a controversial theory that Zheng He sailed to the Americas in 1421. Possibly the specific report (although it contains a good deal of confused language) is an example of valid research. But before citing it in Wikipedia, we should establish that it reflects scholarly consensus. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. This website is unlikely to meet that standard. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 22:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with that assessment. Menzies' 1421 is bad enough as an unreliable source, some supporter's offshoot website is really beyond the pale of any reasonable standard of verifiability and reliability.--cjllw ?  TALK 02:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yongle Emperor and Eunuchs
the emperor Zhu Di, "judy", preferred complete  eunuch, complete  castration,  penis &  testicle. [ Zheng He, born as Ma He, was  Grand Eunuch,  Head Eunuch, despite losing his head.]

Eunuchs ran virtually all of the powerful elements of government; Zheng He was admiral.

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Modern Scholastic Study of Ship Dimension
"The treasure ships described in Chinese chronicles would have been several times larger than any wooden ship ever recorded since, including the largest, l'Orient (65 m long) in the late 18th century. The first ships to attain 126 m long were twentieth-century aircraft carriers with metal hulls."

That's incorrect. Many 19th century ships as the HMS Warrior or SS_Great_Eastern were already longer than 126 m. L'Orinet was blown up in 1798 prior to the 19th century.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.157.1.252 (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And there were a number of ships longer than l'Orient according to List of world's largest wooden ships The second paragraph doesn't make sense.--Dougweller (talk) 13:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll delete that part then. The sentence doesn't provide much for the article anyway. .--Gnip (User talk:Gniptalk) 9:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Why has the critical part concerning the length of the ships been heavily curtailed (while the fantastic ancient claims are given much room)? I fear this is the wrong direction. I reintroduced the material stable until 8 th February 2008. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're assuming I deleted your passage. All I did was delete the part in which it came from Prof Xin, which makes the passage sound very college-paper like. I also put it into the same paragraph with the rest of the criticisms, else the entire thing would have an absolutely terrible paragraph construction. I assure you nothing was curtailed. And I see nothing on "more room" of "fantastic ancient claims". None of them stated the size of any ship, except one with 2000 tons, which would be normal for a large ship, but not nearly enough for a 44 zhang treasure ship. Out of respect I'm not going to change anything, but please put Prof Xin's critiques with the rest of the paragraph on what the "real size" should be when you can. But seriously though, one author does not equate with the consensus of modern scholarship. From what I remember Sally and Xin's claimed size are different as well. Please replace "modern scholarship" with "many modern scholars" or something like that. Gnip (talk) 11:40, 11 Feburary 2008 (UTC)

Gnip or anyone, Can you tell me how many zhang is the mast itself? Thanks in advance. Edluu (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Chinese woodblock carvings(similar to drawings) are very accurate though, I've seen Chinese illustrations on "the process of paper making" and the size of the machinery in relative to the workers operating them next to it are very accurately depicted. Chinese illustration of Ming ships thus are very reliable sources of evidences since the ships shown have either at least 5 masts, maybe more, thus those ships pictured are humongous, the people shown standing on board the ships look so tiny compared to the ships. So if the Treasureships had 9 masts one could easily picture how huge those ships would be. Would I feel safe traveling the world on a 5 masts Chinese ship? you bet!! not alone on board a Treasure ship, I'd jump on board anytime. Note also the width of the boats were wider than normal in Ming ships. Edluu (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)Ed Luu

Alright numbers just came in: 1 Zhang = 3.3 meters, the mast 8 to 10 Zhang, but that is not what am getting into. What I try to put to ink is the spacing between any two masts at any given time, all thing being equal, can easily be 4.5 Zhang or 5 Zhang, otherwise you couldn't catch any wind to push the boat if spacing is any narrower, so a 9masts ship could easily measure 50Zhang, more or less equal to 150m, that would be the largest of the Treasure ship and is not impossible based on this calculation. Thus the 128m to 135m Treasure ships are just the average size in its kind/category. Edluu (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Not a junk
Have anyone seen the real Santa Maria or the other two Columbus boats? I have, and it's pathetic-ly tiny! more or less same size as a vietnamese boatpeople's refugees boat, maybe 2meter longer no more. If you haven't seen it then go see it(especially those who claim to be scientists,) it's nowhere qualified to be a small sized junk, Chinese Junks are huge, easily measure up to 3 Columbus' boats. So the drawing depicted in the following link is not far-fetched at all, it merely shows 3times of the Santa Maria and that is very reasonable if you have seen the Santa Maria. http://www.chinapage.com/zhenghe.html One mistake on the drawing is that I would leave the front and rear decks clear of sailing masts, leaving 6 zhang each in the front and back deck clear of mast, then the boat would not seems to be that big, it's an illusion, remove that illusion then it will be the way it should be. Otherwise the representation of the ZhengHe Treasure Ship is perfectly correct, the overall shape from the areal view should look like a water-bug. By the way, look at the Santa-Maria clearly shows only 3 masts, average Imperial Ming boats carry 5 to 6 masts, wouldn't that be 2 times or 2.5 times the size of the Columbus' boats already? any scientists here with or without their scientific-calculator could easily figure that out!

Editor please put the picture of the Treasure Ship on the main page. It's a Treasure Boat for God's sake! not any misnomered "Junk" as the way it is understood by most ordinary people. Thankyou and appreciate it. Edluu (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What If It Never Happened
China has decided 40-year old is too young for the Culture Revolution(CR) to make a public reassessment in the open media. So let me try something that's old enough. How about the almost 600-year old Zheng He Demolition, in which all Zheng's records and fleets were destroyed. The loss amounted to several orders of magnitude greater than in the CR. And the impact was so huge it was like the Big Bang that never happened. Like CR, nothing you can do about it now. But we can surely muse over it. Here, of course, we want to look at the snuffed-out Big Bang.

The records Zheng collected in his several voyages around the World epitomize a plan to rule the World. Even the scanty remains that escaped demolition allowed the Europeans to go very far on their attempts to colonize the World in the half century that followed.

The Chinese Court Mandarins decided that ruling the World was not exactly China's cup of tea, so they aborted Zheng's plan by burning all his records. Thus this World's greatest event got buried without even a puff. Well, that's Chinese characteristics for you.

Now, let's go back to the what-if scenario in which the plan was actually implemented. China would have obviously dominated the World. Everyone would be happy except the whites, especially the Christian types. This is because they, too, had a plan.

Crusading against the Muslims wont go very well with the Muslim Zheng. Making the blacks their slaves would make Zheng suspicious of the whites being really our fellow humans. Then, finally, treating the Chinese as backward people, who were bogged down on a self-effacing culture, would surely agitate Zheng He into action.

Zheng's being the most fearless warrior of all times was no accident. Being a eunuch, he couldn't wait, to live the next life, or, in another word, for an early death. The genes he inherited from his Muslim warrior ancestors gave him the "cutting edge" brutality against the fiercest adversaries. Putting the two together, what we get? Mr. Castration himself.

Here's how he would spring into action. He would round up all the whites and say to them: "This is Mr. Castration at your service".

In order people dont miss the boat on the above message. Let me hit home on what I have been trying to say.

In Zheng's time as all through her history, China was conservative, and rejected barbarism. But China is progressive now. Japan was progressive even sooner. But the West was progress even more sooner. And conceivably China could have left her conservatism behind and opted for barbarism the Zheng's way, much earlier than the West.

In that case, China, being first one to be barbaric, would have done what West did to China years later. And earlier than Japan, then the invasion would have gone the other direction.

So, see my point?

In the last half century, the fate of each country was decided by how early they turn barbaric. The world has been in a race down that path ever since.

In this post, I just want to send out some imaginary castrations warning to all the warmongers, who are still trying to glorify the what-if kind of barbarism China would have been fully capable of.

Another more pragmatical point is: don't worship modernity too hard. Just remember in Zheng He's time, as well as during CR, China could do a demolition on it without a puff. Joeching (talk) 18:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

UNDERSTANDING CHINA THROUGH ZHENG HE DEMOLITION

Imagine tomorrow we decided to destroy all the intellectual properties in the world. Yes, most people would think it's shear madness. We are prematurely aborting civilization. Some would even do anything to keep that from happening, even if it means destroying the entire world instead. But understandably, such a decision is not arrived at lightly. What had to be done had to be done. Often time, a lost of man-made amenities means a gain in humanity.

Well, this is exactly what happened in China 600 years ago. The vast volumes of Zheng He's records of his seven voyages were burnt. The greatest armada the world had ever created was destroyed. The value of records and the fleet of ships in today's worth amount to holding the entire world in the palm of China's hand. China was within a stone's throw to world domination. But China chose to demolish them all.

Modern historians have attributed this single event to China's remaining a "backward" nation in the ensuing centuries. It was why Chinese people had been consistently on the slaughtered ends of the two World Wars. Did China make a mistake? Maybe yes, for China. But for the world, China saved humanity.

China retained for herself, today, the option of leading the world without having to be a superpower first.

Zheng He was really of Mongolian origin. His ancesters have conquered the world by land. He's own military voyage was the same conquest by sea. Is the next conquest, again by China, by air?

History showed China had twice said "no". The first time, the pulling back was involuntary. But the second time, it was voluntary. If there ever going to be a third time, China would have to be invited before she will occupy any foreign land.

Understanding China, therefore, means recognizing this Zheng He's demolition.

And understanding China means trusting China.

From Chapter 66 of China's Dao De Jing we have:

Why is the sea king of a hundred rivers? Because it lies BELOW them. That's why it is the king of a hundred rivers.

If the sage would guide the people, he must serve with humility. If he would lead them, he MUST follow behind. In this way, when the sage rules, the people will not feel oppressed; When he stands before them, they will not be "harmed". The whole world will support him and will not be tired of him.

Because he does not compete, He does not meet competition. Joeching (talk) 18:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Article Needs More on the Chinese Diaspora
* Cambodia: Envoy of Yuan dynasty, Zhou Daguan (Chinese: 周达观) recorded in his The Customs of Chenla; Chinese: 真腊风土记), that there were many Chinese, especially sailors, who lived there, with many intermarrying with local women.   * Siam: According to the clan chart of family name Lim, Gan, Ng, Khaw, Cheah, many Chinese traders lived there. Some of the Siamese envoys sent to China were these people.    * Borneo: Many Chinese lived there as recorded by Zheng He.    * 1405 Ming dynasty, Tan Sheng Shou, the Battalion Commander Yang Xin and others were sent to Java's Old Port (Palembang; Chinese: 旧港) to bring the absconder Liang Dao Ming (Chinese: 梁道明) and others to negotiate pacification. He took his family and fled to live in this place, where he remained for many years. Thousands of military personnel and civilians from Guangdong and Fujian followed him there and chose Dao Ming as their leader. * 1459 Ming emperor sent Hang Li Po to Malacca along with 500 other female attendants, many attendants later married officials serving Mansur Shah as Li Po married the sultan after she accepted conversion to Islam. - Not to mention Madagaskar was inhabited by Asians not African, many were Chinese, Africans didn't live on the island back then or even today. Some Chinese sailors had also settled in African coast lines. ( Trades: Chinese/Burmese jadeites could fetch gold in South America, whereas the stone wouldn't worth much to the Europeans.)  Edluu (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Java: Zheng He's compatriot Ma Huan recorded in his book (Chinese: zh:瀛涯胜览) that large numbers of Chinese lived in the Majapahit Empire on Java, especially in Surabaya (Chinese: 泗水). The place where the Chinese lived was called New Village (Chinese: 新村), with many originally from Canton, Zhangzhou and Quanzhou.
 * The "launching pad" from the back skull of Africa to the horn of South America, the distance is not as unreachable, the distance is no more than the total length of the Mediterranean Sea. The sea current and wind current are most favorable and strongest at that juncture.

Why not worth much to Europeans? Why wouldn't South Americans prefer to trade with Central America for jadeite? One of the most ridiculous claims made by Menzies' lot is about Jade -- eg they want us to believe that an 1889 article (oh, of course they don't give the year) is gospel and that the jade in Panama wouldn't come from Guatemala.

But what you have written: 1. Is original research so far and thus not suitable. 2. Seems pretty tangential for a biography of Zheng He and thus not suitable.--Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But some common points, Chinese and Incas, Aztecs  all 3 have gold, Chinese could have bought jades from them, jadeites from Guatemalas, it doesn't matter how you look at it and surely childish to limit only to these items for trade and exchanges(like jade/jadeite.)   Gold could be exchanged for other items. What other countries don't have is Chinese porcelains, undoubtedly fragments found on NewWorld would be conveniently ignored as "modern". Some map, South America was well surveyed by Chinese navigators more than the northern part like shown on the Waldseemüller map... why the South America is more popular a destination for some than the North? Evidences are there. Edluu (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC).


 * This is a topic that crops up now and again. Bottom line: It is easy and fun to imagine that Zheng He's fleet sailed to the Americas and all the way around the world. But there is absolutely no evidence that it really happened. Unless and until someone proves, to the satisfaction of most historians, that it did happen, Wikipedians must treat Menzies' speculations as false. (See WP:V. Perhaps we might do a better job of referring readers of this article to 1421 hypothesis, which goes into detail about Menzies' ideas and the case against them.) -- Rob C. alias Alarob 23:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If one can read Chinese, the 1418 map's original text located on the major part of Meso America says "people there use gold as currency", thus it proved Chinese have been there, thus had documented that Mayan valued gold as currency which the Ming Chinese had. It just happened that China had plenty of gold at the time that Chinese did not think of looting other people's gold like the Spanish and Europeans did, when America wasn't "raped" at the time it doesn't mean Chinese had not been there. And by the way one must also read Menzie's new book "1434," it delivers a one-two punch that critics are now silent about it. 75.60.240.10 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)(75.60.240.10 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC))

While there was plenty of gold in some parts of the Americas, it was not a standard and common form of currency. There were no gold coins or anything of that sort pre-1492. 1418 is also centuries after most Mayan kingdoms has fallen and their cities had been reclaimed by the jungle, so it's even odder that this would be indicated as a common currency well after that region had lost its wealth and power and had fallen into a backwater.

As far as the Chinese not thinking "of looting other people's gold like the Spanish and Europeans did," while it's nice to think of noble foreigners uncorrupted by Western greed, Chinese history is full of wars, looting and all the other stuff that you would expect from everybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.190.86 (talk) 14:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The map reads " gold was used as a sort of "currency" ". When the Conquistadors were leaving the area, the Inca king made a grave mistake by presenting them a small gold object as gift, the greed in the Spagnards immediately set in.. the rest is history. In a barter society Gold was the "currency" of choice and always had been in MesoAmerica by the populace, though was not minted in coinage fashion, gold was recognizable by the locals as precious and valuable enough for any kind of exchanges, that is the fact, that is relevant evidence on the 1418map(now known as the ZhengHe map). (75.60.240.10 (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC))

Dude, you don't know your history - the Mayan kings were gone. The latest - I believe was Chichen Itza and that fell in the 1200s. The Mayan kingdoms had long fallen into ruins by the time the Spaniards reached there. As far as gold being used in barter societies, true - but no more than salt, flint, food, or whatever, and the latter would be far more common among the populace--Few could afford any kind of gold and it usually reserved for the absolute elite. Either way, gold wasn't prevalent in the Yucatan and would not have been the good of choice to barter with there. Gold was never the currency of choice in Meso America, though, among the Mayans or anybody else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.190.86 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

yOU can't deny the fact that the elite king gave the Conquistadors a small piece of gold for "souvenir," with terrible consequences, if he had given them a piece of pottery, the Conquistadors would have left, massacre,looting and exploitation of the people would have been avoided. You say gold was not valuable in the areas, but not according to the ancient people in that areas according to the map! do you know how many millions of tons of gold artifacts were smelt to gold-bars so they could be shipped back to Europe by the Conquistadors?? how many gold objects were used for trade, how many of them were decorative? do you know how much energy used to produce a small amount of gold? Again what you don't see(the ancient people, and their gold)you assume they didn't exist, that ofcourse is propostereous.(75.60.240.10 (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC))


 * OK, stop right here. Please read the notice at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject." This page is for discussion about the article, not about your and my opinions about Zheng He. -- ℜob ℂ. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 17:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)