Talk:Yellow Emperor

2637 BC

Not saying it's accurate, but the article should mention the idea some hold of the Chinese calendar dating to the 60th year of the guy's reign (2637) rather than the first year.Mr Spear (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia - Hunan201p discussion re: blond God

Hemiauchenia, your recent edits aren't very well explained. Let's dicuss this matter on the talk page. I'll start with your recent edit summary:

That would imply that you also had consensus, for your edits, which you do not. Your edit summaries suggest that I respect you as an editor, which I do not. The fact that you think that wikipedia has a pro-east Asian bias that needs to be corrected is a clear NPOV violation. Picking two scholars from several decades ago does not represent current scholarly views.

In fact, my contributions have been restored multiple times by different people:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_Emperor&oldid=954249928 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yellow_Emperor&oldid=954185580

According to WP:SILENCE: "Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing). You find out whether your edit has consensus when it sticks, is built upon by others, and most importantly when it is used or referred to by others."

So basically, I'm on more solid ground here than you think. Your edit summary is highly personal and apparently combative. For you to say that I believe Wikipedia has an East Asian bias is bordering on WP:HOUND, because I don't recall interacting with you in the past, and so it seems stalker-ish for you to bring that up in an edit summary. Furthermore, my personal beliefs are not an "NPOV violation", and they don't give you a license to revert my edits.

For the record, I do not believe Wikipedia has an "East Asian bias". I do believe ethnicity and genetics-related articles show evidence of bias by nationalists of all ilk: white, British, East Asian, South Asian, etc. This article does not.

Now, about this blond God thing. You implied that Victor Mair and Tsung-Tung Chang are just "two scholars" from "decades ago". Well, Victor Mair and Tsung-Tung Chang are highly accomplished scholars, both in their respective countries and internationally, and two decades isn't a long time. Their work is more recent than Alan and Major; which aren't old, either. The theory has also continued to attract academic interest. For instance, Benjamin Elman and Martin Kern not only cite Chang as an equal to the other theories, but endorse his theory.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Elman |first1=Benjamin |last2=Kern |first2=Martin |title=Statecraft and Classical Learning: The Rituals of Zhou in East Asian History |date=2009 |publisher=BRILL |location=Leiden |isbn=9789047430933 |page=351 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SjSwCQAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA361}}</ref>

My contributions reflected academic work from high quality sources, which deserve equal footing. Tsung-Tung Chang's work is given every bit as much respect by academics as the "Yellow Therarch" proposal. - Hunan201p (talk) 05:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The bad faith edit summaries were made with your reputation for conflicts with other editors proceeding you, but I am happy to converse in good faith with no hard feelings either way. I was also exasperated that you'd revert my mild edits, I made absolutely no attempt to remove the passage at at all, only to attribute the opinion made within it, which I thought was a reasonable compromise. I agree (as I said in my NPOV statement) that Wikipedia is full of ethno nationalist cranks who you rightly oppose for their dubious editing around genetics related topics. That doesn't make you right in all scenarios regarding the topic. The main reason that the edits removing the section (which I did not) were reverted because they did not provide a satisfactory edit summary, not because there was consensus to include. My main issue is that if other scholars than the two cited support the idea, they should be directly named and cited. Just because some respected and influential scholars have an opinion doesn't necessarily mean that they represent scholarly consensus or even a significant minority viewpoint. For instance distinguished physicist Roger Penrose believes in Quantum Consciousness, an idea that Neurologists consider to be completely crank. The opinion should therefore be attributed to individual authors, who the readers are then allowed to judge their individual reliability. "Tsung-Tung Chang's work is given every bit as much respect by academics as the "Yellow Therarch" proposal." - You have failed to present any significant evidence of this being the case. When I went through google scholar looking for references to this idea I found nothing, which suggests that the idea Isn't taken very seriously by contemporary scholars. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Benjamin Elman and Martin Kern also do not seem to endorse the theory as Hunan had said, but merely mention it. They do not dismiss it, but saying that they consider Chang's theory an equal or given every bit of respect as "Yellow Thearch" seems like a stretch. The reference is a footnote. Qiushufang (talk) 08:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Thanks so much for your response and the encouraging words. We are at least in agreement that ethno-nationalists are messing up this website.

Where we differ is in our view of Mair's 1994 book, The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature. You have elected to re-word the statement concerning that book from "some scholars have suggested Huangdi had blond hair" to "Victor Mair has suggested Huangdi had blond hair".

However, Victor Mair doesn't actually suggest that Huangdi had blond hair in that reference. He only says this: "Recent scholars have argued, on the basis of archaeology and historical linguistics, that he may have had "yellow" (blond) hair."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mair |first1=Victor |title=The Columbia Anthology of Traditional Chinese Literature |date=1994 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=0231074298 |page=63 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h78phRx9lA0C&pg=PA63}}"Recent scholars have argued, on the basis of archaeology and historical linguistics, that he may have had "yellow" (blond) hair."</ref>

By changing the statement from "some scholars have suggested Huangdi had blond hair" to "Victor Mair said Huangdi had blond hair", we are removing what the reference does say and replacing it with something it doesn't say. That's the definition of original research.

The Victor Mair reference in question is published by Columbia University Press, which means it's one of the highest quality references available. It's not Victor Mair's opinion, but a fact, from a peer-reviewed source.

Wikipedia is, as you know, a tertiary source, where we compile facts from high quality, reliable sources. The fact in this case is that scholars have proposed that huangdi had blond hair. It's from a high quality, reliable source. And that's all I posted on to the Wikipedia article. I never said it's a fact that Huangdi was blond haired. I simply added a couple of logs to the woodpile of theories about Emperor Huangdi; which have no critics. Unlike other theories already mentioned here.

Penrose and others do have their quantumn theories mentioned at the consciousness article. It is noted that they have their critics, but they nevertheless had their ideas mentioned. Mair and Chang's Huangdi theories have no critics in reliable sources; in fact, the critics seem to be coming from Wikipedia. Which is, again, original research.

If you found nothing in google scholar, that doesn't surprise me. Huangdi isn't a common subject, and linguistic theories are more often published in books than in journals that publish the text of their articles online, which is what most results on any Google scholar search consist of. I take it you didn't find Mair's work there either, or anyone criticising him. Please let me know if you do, as I have searched very, very hard for months before posting this, including through personal communication with independent scholars, and feel confident that none exist. - Hunan201p (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious and considerate response Hunan. My main point is though is that if Mair said "recent scholars", there must be specific scholars (presumably including Tsung-Tung Chang) that he had in mind that he would have cited for the passage. Without any specifics "recent scholars" is merely an empty phrase. I do most of my editing on scientific topics where for the most part I have instant access to research papers, so my mindset is probably quite different to humanities where a lot of the discussion is in books. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: @Qiushufang: I sincerely apologize for this late response; my debauchery got the better half of me this weekend. I appreciate both of your comments and hope all is well, regardless of any disagreements we have had here in the past.

Hemiauchenia has said that Mair's words were empty, and I suppose that he is correct. And Qiushufang has said that the footnote in my Brill reference does not endorse Tsung-tung Chang. I agree, he too is correct here. However, to say it's a stretch that these authors treated Chang's theory as equal, doesn't match up with the reference. They gave just as much, if not more weight to Chang's Huangdi theory as they did to the translations of James Legge and Yang Bojun. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Huangdi existed in 2698–2598 BC, that's 600-700 years before the earliest evidence of Indo-European from Tarim mummies and Tocharians ( 1800 BC - 2000 BC ). These Indo-Europeans ( like Tocharians, Yuezhi, Pamiri ) were indigenous to Tarim Basin, Xinjiang it technically wasn't even part of China from 7000 BC to 200BC. They only became part of China after conquered/controlled by the Chinese from 200 BC to 2020 by Han dynasty, Jin dynasty (266–420), Tang dynasty and other Chinese kingdoms and dynasties that ruled all/parts of it by either conquering the territory of those Indo-Europeans or forcing them it into tributary state, vassals. Also conquered by Tibetans, Mongols, Manchus. Blonde doesn't have to be Indo-Europeans. There are Turkic, Mongols, Tungustic, Hmong-Mien, even Chinese with blonde hair...... the only Indo-Europeans in China are the Pamiri people of Xinjiang China, still indegenious to the Pamir mountaints of Xinjiang but they were conquered by Qing dynasty, Republic of China, People's republic of China like the Uyghurs. A lot of Uyghurs especially from the south look more like Caucasian Iranians than those from the North that look more Mongoloid. Uyghurs are believed to part Turkic, part Indo-European. They may have blonde hair but genetically speaking they are more similar to west Asians than to Europeans.

"Earliest mention of Explicit accounts of the Yellow Emperor only started to appear in Chinese texts the Warring States period"

Explicit accounts of the Yellow Emperor started to appear in Chinese texts the Warring States period. "The most ancient extant reference" to Huangdi is an inscription on a bronze vessel made during the first half of the fourth century BCE by the royal family (surnamed Tian 田) of the state of Qi, a powerful eastern state.<ref>{{harvnb|LeBlanc|1985–1986|p=53}} (quotation); {{harvnb|Seidel|1969|p=21}} (who calls it "the most ancient document on Huangdi" ["''le plus ancient document sur Houang Ti''"]); {{harvnb|Jan|1981|p=118}} (who calls the inscription "the earliest existing and datable source of the Yellow Emperor cult" and claims that the vessel dates either from 375 or 356 BCE; {{harvnb|Chang|2007|p=122}} (who gives the date as 356 BCE); {{harvnb|Puett|2001|p=112}} (Huangdi's "first appearance in early Chinese literature is a passing reference in a bronze inscription, where he is mentioned as an ancestor of the patron of the vessel"); {{harvnb|Yates|1997|p=18}} ("earliest extant reference" to Huangdi is "in a bronze inscription dedicated by [[King Wei of Qi|King Wei]]" (r. 357–320); {{harvnb|von Glahn|2004|p=38 (which calls Qi "the dominant state in eastern China" at the time)}}.</ref>

Most Scholars agree is he is God later represented as Historical person

Most scholars now agree that the Yellow Emperor originated as a god who was later represented as a historical person.<ref>{{harvnb|Lewis|2007|p=556}}: "modern scholars of myth generally agree that the sage kings were partially humanized transformations of earlier, supernatural beings who figured in shamanistic rituals, cosmogonic myths or tales of the origins of tribes and clans."</ref> K.C. Chang sees Huangdi and other cultural heroes as "ancient religious figures" who were "euhemerized" in the late Warring States and Han periods.<ref name="Chang 2"/> Historian of ancient China Mark Edward Lewis speaks of the Yellow Emperor's "earlier nature as a god", whereas Roel Sterckx, a professor at University of Cambridge, calls Huangdi a "legendary cultural hero".<ref>{{harvnb|Lewis|2007|p=565}}; {{harvnb|Sterckx|2002|p=95}}.</ref> Hapa9100 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, a few comments:

Your WP:SYNTH of references in your last paragraph is inadequate; K.C. Chang does not refer to Huangdi as a sage king, and he is not, in fact, a sage king. None of your sources support your claim that Huangdi is a mythical figure who was later humanized. In, fact, it is just the opposite, as reflected on this article. Huangdi was a real historical figure who was later deified, but ultimately it doesn't matter if we can prove he was or wasn't real. It doesn't have any impact on the etymological interpretation of Huangdi by of Chang; or any other interpretation. Unless you can find an author who specifically critcizes Chang's theory that Huangdi was yellow haired and related to Indo-Europeans.

Indo-Europeans were a part of the earliest Chinese civilization [Beckwith, Mallory, Mair, Zhimin] and much of the Neolithic period of China and Mongolia. They introduced spoked wheel wagons, cattle, probably advanced metallurgy, and definitely formed an important element of the earliest Chinese written language. They were also a part of the early Turkic societies.

Chang cites the Shih-chi for numerous statements linking Huangdi to these Indo-Europeans, such as his name (hsuan-yuan, meaning wagon shaft), his living in wagons, association with the earliest written languages in China, etc.

Your claims about Uygur genetics appear to be incorrect, and are unverifiable. They are more closely related to Europeans than to West Asians. And regardless, the genetics of Uygur people today tell us nothing about the genetic makeup of the inhabitants of the Xinjiang region 4000 years ago. Xinjiang wasn't the only place where Indo-Europeans lived in China or East Asia, either. - Hunan201p (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Hunan201p, you are not answering anything helpful and didn't even bother read the citations. I will say this again, Huangdi reign existed around 2590BC or 2690BC, even the earliest mention of him was only from the Warring States around 375 BC or 356BC. We are talking aboot a 2215 to 2325 years or 2234 to 2334 years (over 2 millennium ) of not a single recorded history on him. Mythical figures that can trace back to less than thousand years or few hundred years are generally not regarded as historical figures let alone those from more than 2000 years ago.

The immense vast majority of scholars, historians, linguist reject and denies that Huangdi was a living person.

K.C. Chang, Chinese/Taiwanese-American archaeologist and sinologist. Sees Huangdi and other cultural heroes as "ancient religious figures" who were "euhemerized" in the late Warring States and Han periods.

Mark Edward Lewis, American sinologist and historian of ancient China. Speaks of the Yellow Emperor's "earlier nature as a god". American scholar Mark Edward Lewis says "modern scholars of myth generally agree that the sage kings [including Huangdi] were partially humanized transformations of earlier, supernatural beings who figured in shamanistic rituals, cosmogonic myths or tales of the origins of tribes and clans."

Roel Sterckx, a professor at University of Cambridge, calls Huangdi a "legendary cultural hero"

Henri Maspero French sinologist and Marcel Granet French sociologist, ethnologist. Published critical studies of China's accounts of high antiquity for example, Granet argued that these tales were "historicized legends" that said more about the time when they were written than about the time they purported to describe

Sarah Allan, In the late Warring States period, the Yellow Emperor was integrated into the cosmological scheme of the Five Phases, in which the color yellow represents the earth phase.

Lothar von Falkenhausen speculates that Huangdi was invented as an ancestral figure as part of a strategy to claim that all ruling clans in the "Zhou dynasty culture sphere" shared common ancestry.Given that the earliest extant mention of the Yellow Emperor was on a fourth-century BCE Chinese bronze inscription claiming that he was the ancestor of the royal house of the state of Qi, Lothar von Falkenhausen speculates that Huangdi was invented as an ancestral figure as part of a strategy to claim that all ruling clans in the " Zhou dynasty culture sphere" shared common ancestry.

Michael Puett, historian and Professor of Chinese History and Anthropology at [[Harvard University] writes that the Qi bronze inscription was one of several references to the Yellow Emperor in the fourth and third centuries BCE within accounts of the creation of the state.

Yang Kuan, a member of the same current of historiography, noted that only in the Warring States period had the Yellow Emperor started to be described as the first ruler of China. Yang thus argued that Huangdi was a later transformation of Shangdi, the supreme god of the Shang dynasty'

Shiji, The figure of Huangdi had appeared sporadically in Warring States texts. Sima Qian's Shiji (or Records of the Grand Historian, completed around 94 BCE) was the first work to turn these fragments of myths into a systematic and consistent narrative of the Yellow Emperor's "career".

Charles Leblanc, "The most ancient extant reference" to Huangdi is aninscription on a bronze vessel made during the first half of the fourth century BCE by the royal family; who calls it "the most ancient document on Huangdi" ["le plus ancient document sur Houang Ti'

Jan Yun-hua was a Chinese language researcher and Anna Seidel, a german sinologist agrees with Charles Leblanc

NOW AS FOR THE TURKIC UYGHURS AND INDO-EUROPEANS

The Turkic-Uyghurs are the only modern day population that is (partially) related with the ancient Caucasoid population of Xinjiang.

There were different Iranian kingdoms and ethnicities tha inhabited ancient Xinjiang. The closest and best (unmixed) representatives to the ancient Iranian Caucasoid population of Xinjiang would be the indegenious Pamiri people, an ethnic group still lives inside the Tarim Basin of Xinjiang. A sub-group of Pamiri the Sarikoli speakers in Taxkorgan are indegenious to the Pamir mountains of Xinjiang. Tashkurgan became the capital of the Sarikol kingdom (色勒库尔), a kingdom of the Pamir Mountains. Many of them do have blonde hair, blue eyes. The other ethnicities related with them are the Tajiks, but with Pamiri having much more European admixture on average but still roughly 51% West Asian, 40% European, 6% South Asian ( Tajik have 15% South Asian). The South Asian is close to the Pakistani type rather than dravidian. The Uyghurs and the Pasthun are like partially related to them aswell, with Uyghurs being mix of East Asian and Pamiri/Tajiks and Pasthun being a mixture between Persian/Tajik/Pamiri with Pakistani to different degrees. This is based on the autosomal DNA studies of these Iranic population of central Asia/Afghanistan. They all have mostly R1a type , different to the Europe type. Their skulls belong to the Iranic type. Despite many of them having a strong north european appearance in skin complexion, hair and eye color, they belong anthropologically to the Iranid type is isn't found in Europe. Most of the ancient and medieval Indo-European (Iranian ethnicities) population have been extinct by the Mongol-Turkic invasions through conquest and assimilation. The Iranic people and their desecendants were also previously ruled and controlled by the Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolic tribes, Tungustic tribes , Turkic tribes from 2200 BC to 2020, at different time periods. It was the Yugur the original Turkic invader of Tarim Basin. that had extinct and intermixed with the all Indo-European population, became eventually the modern day Uyghurs.

You're wrong. They have introduced buddhism to China (which originated from India) but not any of the other things you said. Like one example; wheels for example, In China, wheel tracks dating to around 2200 BC have been found at Pingliangtai, a site of the Longshan Culture.[14] Similar tracks were also found at Yanshi, a city of the Erlitou culture, dating to around 1700 BC. The earliest evidence of spoked wheels in China comes from Qinghai, in the form of two wheel hubs from a site dated between 2000-1500 BC.[15] The wheels existed in China long before those indo-europeans even had wheels themselves. I could provided sources for it but this is unrelated with the yellow emperor

Don't try to enforce your tiny minority views as facts. Only a extremely few are supporting your wild Huangdi theories. Every history of you related with Asia has a obvious racial agenda. You trying to claim Huangdi (yellow emperor), a mythical being that existed as blonde and indo-european based on extremely tiny minority views much like Bhuddist is a european. Those are very eurocentric behaviours. Much like Turkocentrcs claiming ancient Summerian as Turks or afrocentrics claiming ancient greeks were black. I'll make sure in the future to give high quality sorces that the The Bulgarian nation is formed by the ProtoBulgarians led by Asparuh ( Turko - Europeides displaying a varying degree of Mongoloid signs ) Йордан Алексиев Йорданов First Bulgarian Empire, some sources cited it was created by Mongoloids. Or the Roman emperor Septimius Severus was a Black African emperor (Birley, Anthony R. (1999). Septimius Severus: The African Emperor ), it can easily be done by anyone. Hapa9100 (talk) 23:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The cultures to which you refer (such as Longshang) are generally associated with Indo Europeans by anthropologists. The earliest written language in China is Indo-European or Indo-European influenced, and the Uyghurs, Kyrgyz, Western Mongols, etc are predominantly Indo-European on their paternal line, which is not consistent with your "extinction and assimation" hypothesis. An upcoming paper by Jeong, et al. (2020) also acquired aDNA samples from the Early Xiongnu, Göktürk and Uyghur elites; they belong primarily to West Eurasian paternal haplogroups, consistent with the previous linguistic research indicating an Iranian elite among the early Turks. The proto-Indo-Iranian skulls at Sintashta and Andronovo belong predominantly to a European type. I'm sorry but your comments here are smelling like ethno-nationalism. - Hunan201p (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not interested in pseudo-science. The claims you made are neither supported by mainstream views, nor do they have concensus agreements with scholars and historians. If you compare your eurocentric claims compares to afrocentric views which are based on pseudo-science evidence but many famous white scholars suggest ancient European civilizations and ruling class Europeans were created by Africans. Black Athena, Black Egyptians, Moors that ruled Iberia penisula for 700 years had Sub-Saharan DNA. Since the first human being in Europe is black, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz being black, Roman emperor ceaser, Hannibal being black. The first European: Created from fragments of fossil, the face look like someone of African black.

Why do you assert that Indo-European is the earliest language in China. I understand that these Indo-Europeans, white looking Iranic tribes that settled in Xinjiang, were in fact ruled/conquered/controlled/subjugated by the Han Chinese for 2200 years (200 BC to 2020 periods of times) but in only started during the Han dynasty that Xinjiang began being incoorporated as part of China, later conquered by other Chinese, Tibetan, Mongolic, Turkic, Tungustic. Historical China never included Xinjiang until the Han dynasty and what is some very northern parts of northern China today was not China but was conquered by the Qin dynasty and later by other dynasties.

I also do not understand why you assert that the ruling class have western paternal besides many Uyghurs (half caucasoid) and indegenious Pamiri (pure caucasoid) of Xinjiang have western haplogroup but are still ruled by pure Han Chinese Mongoloid haplogroups. Scientific studies shows the ruling Gokturks with haplogroup Q is Mongoloid (haplogroup Q is found in Yenenisian Mongoloids, Siberian where they have massive caucasian percentages of western maternal DNA but still predominant Mongoloid due to their haplogroup Q). Ruling class is haplogroup Q in Gokturks, not just the ashina tribe and chances are the Ashina R1a would have been Mongoloid by that time. The ruling class of Xiongnu has haplogroup Y-DNA C, mtDNA D4, R1a. Haplogroup is not that relevant when it comes to identity and physical appearance. Many Africans, South Asians, and other Asiatic people can have caucasian haplogroup but never identity as caucasian. Ancestors the Yugur (or yellow Yugur) and responsible for conquering and extinct of the Indo-European Tocharians. Go ahead and try to assert that yellow Yugur means blond Turks, the fact that modern day Uyghurs became 50% Mongoloid today is because of Yugur people who can't be anything more than East Asian racially.

Western Mongols have mostly haplogroup C,O except for a few tribes who's population is no more than 23,000 or 50,000.Haplogroup can only make up a small percentages of our DNA. Kyrgyz and Uyghurs have high number of both western maternal and paternal, the different is that Kyrgyz still more Mongoloid in appearance while Uyghurs are even.Also Kyrgyz Y-DNA is the result of founder effect which means historically it was spread by few males, they could have even been predominately or 90% Mongoloid. Haplogroup make only 10%, or technically even 0.1% depending on how diluted they are. Hapa9100 (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. It seems as Hunan, from what I can see personally as an observer, (I can only go by what I have observed and read) is that he's basing his opinions on pseudo-science, which consists of statements, beliefs, and/or practices that are claimed to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method as further characterized by contradictory statements, and reliance on confirmation bias... I also base my opinion on what I've read of the ongoing edits and "feuds" within the edit pages concerning this "blond" article also, Hapa9100's has been pretty consistent with his research.Kezo2005 (talk) 14:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I read this discussion and wanted to add my opinion. Tsung-Tung Chang's paper is on (highly) speculative linguistics, an attempt to link Chinese with Indo-European languages, especially Germanic. The paper would be would be considered fringe even in its field of interest (linguistics), let alone a remark on hair color. It should not be used for this purpose, and probably not on a linguistics article either. Victor Mair is a venerable scholar but his statement is written in a glossary, and as a passing mention without any kind of support, textual or archaeological. Controversial claims need more backing than this, even when it comes from a reputable scholar. Likewise, the frequently quoted K.C. Chang also wrote about connections between Chinese and Mesoamerican cultures, which is disregarded as a fringe and should not be taken at face value. The same caution should apply to other linkages he made. Lastly, I don't remember Mair or K.C. Chang describing Huangdi as a real person, perhaps a quote is needed? - AMorozov ^〈talk〉 17:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

A problem with translation ?

In the sub-chapter "As ancestor" I have already changed "within and without" to "within and outside". There was also a phrase "issued from..." which I changed to "originated from..." As a non-native speaker of english, I have often problems with this langauge. So, these led me to think that perhaps there was here the same difficulty to express acurately in english. This same phrase also has something like _a stone in my shoe_:

"He accepted that the ruling house of the Qin dynasty originated also from the Yellow Emperor"

Most probably this word "He accepted" should be something like "He believed" or "He claimed". But these have a difference, so I thought I should better ask the help of more informed editors. Mastros (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Not for nothing but, if you already know your English is poor, don't make stylistic changes. Both of the changes you just described were bad and unhelpful, if not damaging to the meaning of the passage. — LlywelynII 03:41, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Warring states

i will attempt to look into this some time, but warring states evidence should be front - ended. Currently, warring states discussion is scattered across the page for some reason, and the front end discussion references a dead link.FourLights (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't put a request in the introduction simply as a challenge. I actually do want to know about this purported warring states huangdi cult.FourLights (talk) 17:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi FourLights, I've just cited the claim you tagged. The source is freely accessible even without TWL access. Folly Mox (talk) 11:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to look it up.FourLights (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

You can just click the DOI in the full citation ☺️ Folly Mox (talk) 12:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of problems about the The Shiji version part.

What is mentioned in ShiJi about HuangDi is not much, His mother is not mentioned, only one of his wife was mentioned. Only two of his sons' names were mentioned in his part in Shiji, and one of the name for his sons in this page is even wrong. What is worse is that, this part in this wiki page skipped the most important contents written in ShiJi, how he fought the wars and who he was fighting, and how he manage the country after major wars. The Shiji version part in this page is so misleading and wrong, I wonder who based on what wrote this part in this way. If there's no solid reason for this, I may rewrite this part. Waragami (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello @AntiDionysius:,

I am writing to explain the necessity of my recent edit to the "The Shiji version" section.

The primary reason for the rewrite is that the previous content was factually inaccurate regarding the source material.

1. False Attribution: The section is titled "The Shiji version," yet the previous text contained a large amount of mythological material that does not exist in the original Shiji text. It conflated Sima Qian's historical record with other folklore sources, misleading readers into believing these were Sima Qian's accounts.

2. Omission of Key Content: Sima Qian's account of the Yellow Emperor is fundamentally a political and military history, focusing on the unification wars (Banquan and Zhuolu), governance, and the establishment of dynastic order. The previous version largely ignored these core military and political aspects, which are the main focus of the Basic Annals.

My edit replaces the misattributed content with a direct summary of the original Shiji text, you can find Chinese text or French translation on wikisource, strictly adhering to what Sima Qian actually wrote without adding external fabrication.

I request that this correction be maintained to ensure the article accurately reflects the cited primary source. Waragami (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2026 (UTC)

@AntiDionysius: (Re-pinging to ensure notification). Waragami (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2026 (UTC)