Talk:Mu (mythical lost continent)

message: A significant amount of the Geological Arguments section has no source.  The first 3 paragraphs, however detailed, are written without any indication of where the information came from.  The Mysteries of Easter Island source in the 4th paragraph doesn't relate to the first 3, and Mu isn't even mentioned in its text.  I am recommending that the bulk of this section be either extensively reviewed, or deleted, as it is less reliable than the rest of the article.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.39.234 (talk) 03:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Geological Arguments Citations

message: Please consult the following page to ascertain the proper chemical symbols: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elements_by_symbol
(i.e., Magnesium = Mg)
Also, SiAl, SiMg are chemical compounds, and while not an exact chemical formula, they do indicate the presence of those chemical elements.
Jchurchward (talk) 13:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Symbols 

message: In a section of the late Mayan period Madrid Codex that is sometimes called the Troano Codex, fanciful archaeologists in the days before Mayan glyphs had been translated thought they were able to interpret illustrations as "records" of a continent in the Pacific, destroyed by volcanic activity. (That was the origin of the Mu-Story.) Supposedly, a similar legend has been translated from unspecified "Sanskrit tablets" that describe a continent called Rutas, by the  french writer Louis Jacolliot.
: This was part of the article on Lemuria. After changing the Rutas redirect to Louis Jacolliot, I decided to delete it there, since it would belong here. --Zara1709 10:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Madrid Codex 

message: I think the page should have a better division to subtitles. Now the text for example suddendly jumps to describe Mu in fiction and art. I, however, am too incompetent to do this.
: Done. It even jumped from semi-fiction, to pure fiction, to geologist criticism, and back to fiction. --GunnarRene 17:56, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles 

message: Geologists maintain that we may be quite certain that no such Pacific continent existed.
What?
What kind of sentence is that?
:English. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd sentence 

message: It says Augustus Le Plongeon held that the Mayas were older than Atlantis, and that the survivors of Mu's destruction founded Maya civilization... but then it says Le Plongeon thought Mu was Atlantis. This doesn't hang together. (Also, the bracketed footnote with the name of the section's author doesn't seem to conform to Wikipedia policy.) 71.82.214.160 03:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustus Le Plongeon, Mu, Atlantis, and the Mayas 

message: In the books by Augustus LePlongeon, his use of Mu or Moo was as a proper name, i.e., "Queen Moo and the Egyptian Sphinx." Leplongeon did not believe in a lost Pacific Ocean continent - his lost civilization was in the Yucatan and Central America and extended to Atlantis.
I believe that the article should be changed to reflect that the 'Lost Continent of Mu' was an invention of James Churchward. Jchurchward (talk) 15:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, good to see you here. But I thought Mu was invented by the Abbe Charles-Etienne Brasseur. He found an abridged copy of a work by Diego de Landa, a Spanish monk who assumed Mayan had a phonetic alphabet.  Brassuer was looking at a Mayan codex, and found a couple of symbols very vaguely (very!) similar to Landa's 'M' and 'U', decided they said Mu and were the name of a land flooded by a catastrophe. Isn't that how it all started? Doug Weller (talk) 18:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Although Augustus Le Plongeon used the term prior to Churchward to describe a sunken continent, his reference was to Atlantis, which he envisioned was in the Atlantic Ocean." I don't get it, this article is about "Mu the lost continent", right ? So it doesn't matter if this legendary continent is believed to be in Atlantic or Pacific Ocean. Anyway, the introduction shouldn't be : "Mu, as a name of [...] was first used by Churchward". It should be something like : "Mu is the name of legendary lost continent. The term was first used by Augustus Le Plongeon and Brasseur De Bourbourg to describe a civilisation whom they thought they had found in maya codex and was popularized by Churchward with his book "The lost continent of Mu". Well, something like that, anyway...kition 18:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the text accurately reflects the usage of 'The Lost Continent of Mu.' Although mentioned by Le Plongeon from an mistranslation, it was not referenced as 'The Lost Continent of Mu.' The 'Lost Continent of Mu' as described, i.e, 'as the name of a sunken Pacific Ocean continent' was first used by James Churchward is accurate. Jchurchward (talk) 15:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputing Augustus LePlongeon & the Lost Continent of Mu

message: Some points on the introduction:
- Oceanic crust is also made up of aluminosilicate minerals - indeed the mantle itself is made of silicate minerals. Just keep the point about continental crust being lighter.
- Plate tectonics doesn't say there can't be submerged continental crust. There is plenty of submerged continental crust - it's the areas of the continental shelf, i.e. shallow seas. The Sea of Japan, the Sunda Sea, a large part of the South China Sea. That's all continental crust. Bathymetry makes it clear whether there are sunken continents in the middle of the Pacific. And indeed, there aren't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.173.33.50 (talk) 09:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Addressed. --Againme (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kerguelen is also a small sunken continent.Eregli bob (talk) 16:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  SiAl... plate tectonics = no sunken continents? 

message: What about the song "justified ancients of Mu mu" by the KLF? Surely an example of a reference to Mu in the field of music...82.211.95.178 16:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music 

message: Why are Illusion of Gaia and Terranigma listed twice? I'm not so sure they belong in the first list of games that just simply mention Mu. 24.78.225.171 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Refrences 

message: WP:POPCULTURE says such sections "should contain verifiable facts of genuine interest to a broad audience of readers. Although some information can be verified from primary sources, this does not demonstrate whether such information has been discussed in independent secondary sources. If a cultural reference is genuinely significant it will be easy to find a secondary reliable source to attribute that judgment. Quoting a respected expert as attesting to the importance of a subject as a cultural influence is encouraged."  Which is why I have removed some and the rest need justification.--Doug Weller (talk) 10:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mu in the arts and entertainment section 

message: This sentence is badly worded:
:Moreover, the weight of all archaeological, linguistic and genetic evidence is contrary to the claim that the ancient civilizations of the New and Old Worlds have a common origin.
The consensus of modern scientists is that all civilization had a common origin, based on genetic, linguistic and archaeological evidence (e.g., mitochondrial eve, PIE, Lucy). So this sentence should either be reworded to clarify what is being claimed (I suppose it is trying to claim something to the effect that there is no direct, immediate connection between ancient European and new world civilizations), or it should be tagged with cite needed, or should be removed as WP:OR. 24.243.3.27 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that "civilization" is being used in the sense of "the society, culture, and way of life of a particular area".  In that sense, all humans have a common origin, sub-Saharan Africa, but civilizations arise in different times and places, and are only necessarily related in that all civilizations are built by humans.  ClovisPt (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that was the intended meaning. This point needs to be made more explicit; it seems that many readers misunderstand "civilizations" as "peoples". --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue is not with the possible confusion of "civilization" and "people" (per se--though this could also be an issue). My problem is specifically with the claim that "ancient civilizations of the New and Old Worlds have [no] common origin". This is very confusing, since all related fields of scientific study conclude that they do have a common origin. The point the article is trying to express is, I believe, that ancient civilizations of the New and Old Worlds have no direct connection. I'm not sure how that point should be worded in the article, but the current wording is deficient (on multiple levels--per the confusion of "culture" with "peoples," as well as at this point). 64.234.10.32 (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

text: To clarify, while it is true that "civilizations arise in different times and places, and are only necessarily related in that all civilizations are built by humans"--it is also true, according to all relevant sciences, that all civilizations are incidentally related, do to contact and influence of nearby civilizations, which in turn can be (hypothetically) traced to a common origin of all civilization. 64.234.10.32 (talk) 04:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common ancestors 

message: I must point out an error on this page.  Repeatedly it is stated that continents cannot sink, yet there are several sunken continents on the Earth, including Zealandia and Kerguelen.  Both of these continents have sunk over the course of millions of years, and have not just been affected by raising sea levels. 68.148.123.76 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats not what they mean. The lack of a sunken continent refers directly to places like Mu or Atlantis, which were claimed to be places that dissapeard rapidly, sinking from catastrophe. In reality of course, continents do NOT sink, they merely move and change elevation due to plate tectonics, which gives the appearance of sinking. You are technically correct, basically, but thats not what the term itself refers to. Kinda weird, I know, but just wanted to point out its not a factual error, just an odd terminology conflict. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 03:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sunken Continents 

message: Be careful when claiming Japanese cultural references to "Mu".  In the Japanese language the Kanji for nothingness,(無) is pronounced mu. Unless there is a specifically stated link to the western myth of the lost continent of Mu, Japanese literature and film is not likely to be addressing the lost continent.  This is why the reference to the Death Note manga was removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.255.208.27 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding 無, the Japanese Concept of Nothingness 

message: The map that is allegedly by Augustus LePlongeon is not. This is a map from the 1926 Lost Continent of Mu Motherland of Men by James Churchward.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jchurchward (talk • contribs) 13:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The map has to go 

message: Should we remove that tag from basically every object in the "In Popular Culture" sections, and replace it with a citation-needed banner dealie immediatly before or after the "trivial or minor details" banner? I think itd really improve that section of the article, but as there seems to be some dispute on that section as a whole, Id rather not just up and change it all without input. 74.132.249.206 (talk) 03:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. Dougweller (talk) 05:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thats a lot of citations. 

message: First, there are no myths about Mu, it's a recent invention.
Secondly, sources need to discuss the subject of the article, we can't use other sources to make an argument. See WP:NOR. Dougweller (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Apparently amongst Taiwanese nationalist circles, there are circulating theories regarding the possibility that Taiwan was the "origin of human civilization", and that the ancient continent of Mu was actually Taiwan. Obviously, most of this is unsubstantiated pseudoscience, but a number of books have actually been written on the topic, using the theory to promote national mysticism. For example:
*
There's also this webpage which mentions this theory, however I'm not sure how trustworthy this website is. Then there's nonsensical stuff like this and this. --benlisquareT•C•E 02:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mu apparently linked to Taiwan nationalism theories 

message: Anyone ever considered this as the explanation for Mu? 2605:A601:521:6701:B033:52CE:DE9F:C028 (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fabrication? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mu (lost continent). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080406124306/http://www.davidmetraux.com/daniel/docs/alfred/alfred_metraux_mysteries_of_easter_island.pdf to http://www.davidmetraux.com/daniel/docs/alfred/alfred_metraux_mysteries_of_easter_island.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mu (lost continent). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118105055/http://www.savefuture.net/files/2009edition-en.pdf to http://www.savefuture.net/files/2009edition-en.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: This is a statement that has no evidence, and is based on the assumption, of a person with only knowledge of limited part of the time line of earths evolution. Research and evidence has been proven by Charles H. Hapgood in 1982, before his death, and supported by Albert Einstein, and continued after his death, by Rand Fleth-Ath and Colin Wilson. It proved that Movement of the earths crust and movement of polar position, caused catastrophic events, which resulted in movement of whole continents. Every 41,000 years the earth tilts on its axis by 1 degrees, causing techtonic plate shifting potentially with catastrophic impact. The result of the tilt can cause a whole continent, which was at the equator, to shift towards the freezing conditions of the north pole. Resulting in a rapid freeze. Equally a place that is frozen solid can shift towards the equator causing a flash flood from the rapid melt. In this case engulfing and submerging a whole civilisation and continent.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.242.55 (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  a continent can neither sink nor be destroyed in the short period of time  

message: A lot of the edits in the last few days have been giving undue weight to detailed specifics of what appear to be fringe theories. While they appear to have been made in good faith, a lot of the details don't seem notable and are sourced only through primary sources. On a more minor note, the reference to Wauchope under Archaeological and Genetic Evidence appears to be taking a quote out of context, but as I lack access to the source, I can't tell. Darthkayak (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll ping their professor -  I thought you should see this. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  that was Darthkayak  who mentioned primary sources. But that's right, we need to base the article on secondary sources, otherwise we run the risk of original research by choosing what we think is important. And yes, there's too much extraneous information. Doug Weller talk 17:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Thanks! The article's already looking a lot better. My issue isn't so much that the article uses primary sources, but that primary sources are the only information cited on the topic - WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. I was thinking of the Churchward section in particular; a lot of weight is given to the specific details and claims made by Churchward, but it isn't made clear what's notable enough to be included without including secondary sources. A lot of the criticisms, while valid, read like original synthesis without citing secondary sources which make the same criticisms. Darthkayak (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

text:  - You're welcome. There is still quite a bit to do at improving the article, especially with making it clear how Mu is a slightly different concept than Lemuria and therefore merits its own article. The work of Churchward is especially important, so it's essential to get that part right. Subsequent authors should not be included unless they specifically mention Mu and not Lemuria. (If they are writing about Lemuria, then they should be discussed in that article.) As for secondary sources, I think the best references are Wauchope (1962) and Lost Continents by L. Sprague de Camp, which has its own article. This second secondary source, which has a great deal of relevant information, has barely been cited. Hoopes (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight 

message: The "Continents of the world" template and infobox needs to be added. 71.80.203.159 (talk) 19:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It never existed. That's for real continents. Doug Weller talk 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Template box

message: I boldly moved this page, as the title was demonstrably inaccurate. Mu is a fictional location; only the tiniest fraction of the population believe otherwise, and certainly no one in the mainstream. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: See e.g. https://nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/9/yonaguni-jima-japan-underwater-city
Most think it's a natural formation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.61.180.106 (talk) 05:51, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yonaguchi: undue weight 

message: I've removed a lot of unsourced additions to popular culture. Most of these seem to be non notable, and all are unsourced. I suspect a few are hoaxes. Very Average Editor (talk) 16:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture  

message: Raymond Buckland claimed at a public lecture that the stories came from a series of hypnotherapy sessions, where he guided past life regression and different people told similar tales of their lives in an advanced prehistoric civilization.  2601:640:C983:5C0:28AB:252D:8096:1339 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mu Revealed - Sources 

message: The last sentence of the lead reads:
:Mu's existence is considered to have no factual basis.
I would think all flood myths - even modern deliberate fabrications or overt fiction - are likely to have a partial factual basis in historic and prehistoric floods, tsunamis, and similar disasters. I'm not saying there is anything factual about Mu or the myths being perpetuated; I'm just saying the sentence is written in such a way that it is most likely factually wrong.
Perhaps I should make my point differently: "is considered" are weasel words - by whom? I do not think we could simply get rid of them, as in
:Mu has no factual basis.
I do not have access to the two sources referenced at the end of the sentence. Nø (talk) 17:21, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a flood myth. But I guess we could say it in Wikipedia's voice, ie your suggestion. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Doug Weller talk 09:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No factual basis