Talk:Yellow Emperor

---

Chi You/蚩尤

The link in the introductory paragraph leads to a korean deity of the same name, is this a confusion or are they actually the same figure? it seems that there are at least two articles about this figure, one is more generalized and other seems to be korean centric, I'm changing the link to the first article, if anyone disagree, feel free to talk about it here and/or change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.205.21 (talk) 09:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

皇帝 versus 黄帝

I thought that the Yellow Emperor is written 皇帝 (Huáng Dì). Although 黄 (huáng) means yellow, I regularly saw 皇 in combination with 帝. Could someone tell me the difference in the usage of those two character combinations? Thanks a lot Gugganij 21:53, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

They are just homophones. Look at the last sentence of The Three August Ones and the Five Emperors. --Menchi 22:06, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

O.K., thus 黄帝 refers to the mystical emporer and 皇帝 to the first historical one. Is this right? Gugganij 23:24, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

皇帝 is just a common noun meaning "emperor". The First Qin Emperor just happens to be the first one who uses that term. All emperors after him are 皇帝s as well. --Menchi 23:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt replies! Gugganij 00:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

皇帝 (Emperor)　is a title. There were dozens if not hundreds of 皇帝 (Emperors) through out the history of China. They all lived in the historical period when written lauguages were fully developed, therefore their deeds were fully recorded.

黄帝 , on the other hand, is only one person. He has a name "公孙·轩辕＂．He was the chief of one of the most powerful tribes in prihistoric China along the Yellow River drainage basin. He together with ＂炎帝＂-- the chief of a rivalry tribe, eventually allied with him -- were considered the ancestor of all the modern day Chinese. They lived thousands of years prior to the title "皇帝" existed and their stories were passed along from generation to generation until written words were invented. The title 皇帝 borrowed one word from "黄帝" and "炎帝" to add the legitimacy and authority that were bestowed from the heaven.

How stupid to translate into "yellow emperor". It's better use pronunciation translation, not word by word. Based on the "Five Elements" theory, yellow is the color of "earth" which is located in the center. The other four are: Wood, east; Fire, south; Metal, west; Water, north. So actually, 黄帝 means the king/emperor of the central kingdom which is same as the meaning of 中国.

If what you say is true, perhaps you could write it up and stick it in the article? Hanfresco (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What he says is only partially true. He's the Yellow Emperor in English because he's the "Yellow Emperor" in Chinese. He's no more the "Earth" (土) or "Central" (中) emperor than he is the "Pervert [modern slang meaning of 黄] Emperor".　And leaving it as Huangdi leads to all the confusion mentioned above and below in regards to the two "first emperor"s of China. — LlywelynII 07:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

The above posters are a little misleading. Huangdi was the adopted name of the Qin emperor and not merely a title. It simply got coopted, the way Caesar and Augustus became imperial ranks in Europe. — LlywelynII 07:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

"Yellow Lord"?

Should this be at Yellow Lord instead? The term 皇帝 means Emperor and was not invented until Qin Shihuang took over. 帝 doesnt necessarily mean "emperor" --Jiang 10:35, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It might be a better translation, but Yellow Lord is used less often than Yellow Emperor. Shawnc 02:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

As above; plus no it's not better. — LlywelynII 07:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Name Confusion w/Shi Huangdi

Any references to the Yellow Emperor tend to be related to Qin Shi Huang. "Huang Di" is just a generic term for "emperor" in Mandarin Chinese. "Huang," although describes the colour "yellow," is also used synonymously with "royalty" and "di" means "earth". Thus, "Huang Di" simply describes any "ruler of the earth," with no relation to any specific emperor.

Different huangs. This one is specifically this guy's exact name only. But you're right that Qinny needs his own hatnote. — LlywelynII 07:50, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Story

Yellow Emperor is depicted as a human being. Nuwa and Fuxi are said to have snake/dragon bodies. Edipedia 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Huangdi sometimes turned into dragons, too. But you're right that we should mostly stick with Sima Qian & co. — LlywelynII 07:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Era usage

This article used BC notation until November 2005 when User:Joe Kress changed to the BCE notation [1] in an edit with a summary that didn't mention the change. It is clear that the original intention was to use BC and that was the preference of the first major editor of this article. According to Wiki policy, therefore, BC notation should be used. If BC/AD isn't used in China, no problem. Use BCE/CE in the Chinese Wikipedia, but in the English version please maintain the preference of the first major editor. Arcturus 20:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone restored it. Reverted again. — LlywelynII 07:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Coherent, accessible writing

I would like to see this article made easier to understand by readers who don't yet know any Chinese history.

This article is more a list of legends and stories than a coherent article. It is hard for someone without background in Chinese culture to understand the significance of the Yellow Emperor. Here are some questions I would like to see answered by the article: Is the Yellow Emperor a major cultural figure in China? Is that why he's important? Is he mainly the hero of children's fairy tales? Is he mainly a figure in classical Chinese opera? Is there any reason at all to think he is historical? Does his life have a course from beginning to end, or is it just a random collection of episodes? What happens in the episodes (e.g., the westward retreat) – I could not tell from the article why anyone cares about this retreat, what he was retreating from, how the Han Chinese come into it, or how Han Chinese differ from other Chinese. (I know the answers to many of these questions, but the average curious reader will not. I suggest it will not hurt to give a few words explaining who Han Chinese are, and more words on the more significant of these questions. Other natural questions may occur to some of you, and that can lead to writing a better article.) Zaslav 06:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. Could certainly still use more real history from an anthropological angle. — LlywelynII 07:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Copyvio

The Copyvio notice should only be added to the page if the entire page and all revisions are copyvios according to Wikipedia:Copyright problems, which is where full page copyvios are collected. If only a portion of the page violates a copyright, then it says that the page should be reverted to a non-copyright version if possible (and a notice sent to the offending editor). Removal of the copyrighted text accomplishes that task. Wikipedia:Copyright#If you find a copyright infringement says to state on the talk page that copyrighted text has been removed and give its source (this entry accomplishes that task). Because the copyvio source was good, I added it as an external link. — Joe Kress 03:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The text added by 58.20.45.82 looks too much like a story to be his own work. I suspect it was copied, hence is a possible copyvio, so I am removing it. If it is in the public domain, please provide its source. In any case, this is an encyclopedia, so details of the legend should not be in the form of a story. — Joe Kress 05:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert incorrect anti-copyviol edit

Hi, my edit that reclaims copyright violation from ibiblio.org URL, now I think was wrong. According to web.archive.org seems is Mr. Werz to be ispired from here and others Wikipedia articles (see Shennong, "A close kin of the...", 25 February 2005). Please accept my apologies. --F. Cosoleto 13:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I should have caught that myself, especially since I have seen several other alledged 'copyvio's that were actually copied from Wikipedia without attribution. Furthermore, I have been monitoring and contributing to the article (in a minor way) since 2005 when the text is question was largely developed, The basic template was instituted by Mandel on 25 February 2005, and its basic wording was in place on 9 November 2005 when I contributed a couple of minor words to the compass parargraph, added the day before by Hanchi. That was reordered by 86.11.132.22 on 19 May 2006, and the enemy named as Chi You by Aranherunar on 3 July 2006, resulting in one of the paragraphs deleted as 'copyvio'. Unfortunately, I wasn't paying attention to this article, being more concerned with other articles. — Joe Kress 22:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Move to Emperor Huang

Why do people translate Emperor Huang as "Yellow Emperor"? Did Emperor Huang colored yellow? "Huang" means "yellow" in Chinese only as a simple word, but not in this situation. I think "Yellow Emperor" should change to "Emperor Huang". Anthony Li

Huangdi indeed chose yellow as his color, from the color of the Huang Ho or Yellow river (the muddiest river in the world). But first preference for the title of articles in the English Wikipedia should be their common English name, if they have one. Google has 177,000 hits for "Yellow Emperor", 107,000 for Huangdi, 88,000 for "Huang di", 60,000 for "Huang ti", or 1320 for Huangti (262,000 hits for all permutations of his romanized name, excluding shih or shi). "Emperor Huang" has virtually no hits so is unacceptable. This count leans towards "Yellow Emperor". I have no preference except for excluding Emperor Huang. The alternate name in the article is already Huang Di, although I think that violates pinyin guidelines, which would prefer Huangdi. — Joe Kress 05:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As acceptable as "Yellow Emperor" as a translation of "Huangdi" is, he was neither yellow nor an emperor. I suggest the article be named "Huangdi" and can be redirected from "Yellow Emperor" and other variations. Chevrox 02:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Cause, yellow is an imperial color and only emperors could wear yellow clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.238.194 (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand people's objections to the term Yellow Emperor, but it has been his standard name in English, used in many, many books, for at least 150 years, so it should stay. "Huangdi" would just confuse anyone who does not know Chinese, as it looks exactly like "Huangdi" meaning Emperor.64.74.185.67 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no one calls him that, and it does mean yellow in this situation even if both etymologies above are totally bogus. — LlywelynII 07:57, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Offended!

Dont it seem like the term "Yellow Emperor" seem racist! I think this need it be changed. I am terribly offended. Please change this. I would but i dont know how to edit well. I am Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.223.169.188 (talk) 22:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

According to this book on world religions that gives an overview of Taoïsme, "the people called him the "Yellow Emperor" because of his rule that was full of compassion and benevolence." (quickly translated from french) You seem to be finding political incorrectness where there is none. --Dandin1 18:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, yellow is an imperial color and only emperors could wear yellow clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.148.238.194 (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

His kingdom was also based around the Huang He, or yellow, river, if I am not mistaken.98.236.103.190 (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Troll be trollin'. But given that similar silliness has led to 3-4 move requests at list of man-made disasters, I suppose it's worth pointing out that in addition to being a simple translation of the Chinese name 黄帝, "Yellow Emperor" is the WP:ENGLISH WP:COMMONNAME. — LlywelynII 01:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Chi-You vs Huangdi

"Chi-You's victory over Huangdi after 72 battles." If some Koreans believe this, I suspect it is a recent phenomenon right? Hanfresco 05:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Historicity and meaning of name

The first sentence of the article discribes Huang Di as "legendary", but both the Cambridge Illustrated History of China and Stephen Haw's A Traveller's History of China treat him as a historical figure. Can we have a reference to sources which say he is not a historical figure?

John Man in The Terracotta Army says that "huang" can mean both "august" and "yellow" in different contexts and that the term "Yellow Emperor" was originally a pun on "August Emperor." Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:27, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I now see we are talking about two different emperors called Huang Di, which was what I searched for. The works I cited are referring to Shi Huangdi or Qin Shi Huang, the First Emperor. This is confusing and there needs to be a redirect from Huang Di to the respective articles. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point. Done. — LlywelynII 07:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Contemporary Political Significance

This is something from the President Ma (Republic of China on Taiwan President) article:

• In April 2009 President Ma made himself the first ROC President to pay homage in person to the legendary Yellow Emperor, believed to have founded China as a nation more than 5,000 years ago. Accompanied by all his government leaders, the president sang the ROC's national anthem as the starter. Ma then burned joss sticks, laid a wreath, and offered fruit, cloth and wine to the mythological national founder. He read a eulogy before he concluded the rites by bowing three times to the west, where the Chinese mainland is located.

Ma's spokesman, said the president wanted to pay his respects to the Yellow Emperor on National Tomb-Sweeping Day in person to stress the importance of China's ancestor-worshipping tradition. However, others saw the precedent-making ceremonies at the Martyrs' Shrine as meant to be a show by President Ma of his unprofessed commitment to maintain an umbilical relationship between Taiwan and the PRC. My question is whether politicians on Mainland China also carry on similar ceremonies or would that go against Communist theory so to speak? Thanks. (My Nickname here can be: Mr YellowEmperor). 84.203.53.211 (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. The article says that the ceremonies have been carried out since the Spring & Autumn period but it does seem dubious that continued even under the Cultural Revolution. Regardless, the trip of Taiwanese leaders to the actual Mainland seemed more noteworthy than some ROC Prez just looking that way, so I formatted the article accordingly. If there was an important political subtext to the action, it should probably be restored with a better explanation than last time. — LlywelynII 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

two yellow emporers

When modern Western historians refer to the Yellow Emporer they mean Chin Shihuangdi, the first Chin emporer, 221 - 210 BC. This cant be the same Yellow Emporer the Chinese mean, who lived 2,300 years earlier and is credited with the invention of medicine and writing. The first Chin emporer by comparison seems to have been a bloodthirsty megalomaniac.

What's going on here? Is this just Eurocentric cultural chauvinism; they cant believe in Chinese antiquity or something? It seems more reasonable to accept Chinese accounts of their own history than modern Western scholars.120.17.82.7 (talk) 05:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It is hardly "eurocentrism" to follow scientific standards in historic writing. In Europe there is a lot of "history", which people "believe" in, e.g. we make movies about them, which is largely mythical. The Trojan war, Romulus and Remus, the Tower of Babel etc. Many of them probably have a historical core, but details are inconsitent and they cannot be located and dated exactly. By all scientific standards Huangdi is mythical. There was probably a person who was the root of the myths by the details of atributed to Huangdi are certainly almost all not correct with regard to the historical figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.174.155.108 (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

...er, the article text is incorrect IMHO. Qin Shihuang may have modelled himself on the Yellow Emperor but he is never referred to as such - I believe that the Chinese sources are correct. Well spotted. Philg88 (talk) 10:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Qin Shihuang is never the "Yellow Emperor" except among scholars working (badly) with only translated texts. It's a completely different character. Still, deserves hatnote. — LlywelynII 08:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sons of Noah

Hello! I was curious if any editor has source material on which son of Noah the Sinitic peoples are said to be descended from, and if ancient Chinese records correlate with the Genalogies found in the Old testament..--Gniniv (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many Chinese creation myths featuring a great flood which match with the old testament but I have never come across one that features the sons of Noah. If you have some other pointers (names and things) then I'll have a look in Chinese WP for you.Philg88 (talk) 00:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much (my illiteracy in Chinese has hindered my investigations). If you don't mind looking for ancient Chinese figures who would correspond to the following sons of Joktan I would appreciate it:

• • • Almodad, son of Joktan. According to Easton's Bible Dictionary "Almodad" means "immeasurable", however it has also been translated as "not measured", "measurer", "measure of God", "the beloved," or, "God is beloved", "God is love", and "God is a friend".
    • Sheleph, son of Joktan. Sheleph means "drawing out" or "who draws out" (Hitchcock's Bible Dictionary).
    • Hazarmaveth, son of Joktan. Hazarmaveth, also transcribed Hazarmaueth, means "dwelling of death" (Hitchcock's Bible Dictionary) and is composed of two parts in Hebrew: hazar/ḥaṣar ("dwelling" or "court") and maveth/mawet ("death"). (There are alternative systems for transliterating Hebrew into Latin letters.)
    • Jerah, son of Joktan.
    • Hadoram, son of Joktan. According to Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's footnotes: "Hadarom: Some interpret this as denoting 'the south.'
    • Uzal, son of Joktan.
    • Diklah son of Joktan.
    • Obal, son of Joktan.
    • Abimael, son of Joktan. Abimael means my father is God.
    • Sheba, son of Joktan.
    • Ophir, son of Joktan. Ophir means Goldman or Goldstein
    • Havilah, son of Joktan. Literally meaning "Stretch of Sand"
    • Jobab, son of Joktan.

Any ancient Chinese figures who have similar sounding names (or meanings of names) would be helpful. Thanks for the assistance!--Gniniv 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Phew! good job - I'll look into it and keep you posted on your talk page.Philg88 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This would be an interesting thing to include on the relevant Mosaic/Hebrew history page. But unlike with Middle Eastern potentates and peoples, there is absolutely no way that the Mosaic tradition was referencing actual historical Chinese people when describing the Indian/East Asian descendents of Noah. [& even if you want be completely silly and pretend the relevant Chinese migrated in during the historical period and Moses totally knew about them, you're looking at Old Chinese names which are almost impossible to get from just looking at what's left in pinyin. Cf. Old Chinese Wjat with Modern Chinese Yue (sim. to Uehhh said really fast).] — LlywelynII 08:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Pinyin of 氏

The article says "He also has the Hào name (號) Xuānyuán-si (軒轅氏) and Youxiong-si (有熊氏)". I've never heard 氏 pronounced si, neither can I find any source which says it should be pronounced so, I'm pretty sure it should be shi. Only alternative pronounciation I could find was zhi and I doubt that's correct in this context. --130.235.35.107 (talk) 09:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Wiktionary is your friend. — LlywelynII 08:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Legendary figure in mythology?

Huang Di is a historical figure. I mean, look at the references. They are history books. At least he should be half historical, half legendary. If there is no objection, I'm going to change the first sentence. --Betty (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of our article is virtually identical to the first sentence of the entry on Huang Di in the Handbook of Chinese mythology by Lihui Yang and Deming An (2005): "Huang Di, or the Yellow Emperor, is one of the most renowned legendary figures in Chinese mythology and culture." Confucianists practised euhemerism (or reverse euhemerism), that is, they changed Huang Di from a god in the early Zhou dynasty to a man in the later Zhou and Han dynasties. "Chinese scholars regularly eliminated the supernatural or marvelous elements in a myth that seemed to them improbable, and then interpreted myths as real history, and the gods as humans."[2] — Joe Kress (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

That's quotation from one person. There are many other scholars with other opinions. Wiki's principle is to be neutral, representing all scholarly views as fairly as possible. We can't just label some scholars' opinions as "euhemerism" and dismiss them. Maybe it's better to explain the situation in the article, like "Some believe it is history. Some think it is myth. Many scholars eliminate the supernatural elements and interpret the real part". (the meaning expressed in a more sophisticated writing style) --Betty (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It not a "label" on contemporary scholars. The euhemerism mentioned an historical fact, well know in chinese historical research. It has been established by comparing texts from different periods, which clearly show the described evolution from "myth" to "fact" on the same content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.174.155.108 (talk) 10:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be changed to "legendary" instead of the "half historical, half legendary". Then in the history section, explain that the ancient Chinese believe him to be a historical figure. Angry bee (talk) 05:31, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree - there are no contemporary written records and the "myth to fact" migration theory holds the most water. Sure, the ancient Chinese believed he was a real figure. I once believed in Father Christmas. Philg88 (talk) 07:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Betty's point is very well taken, but simply points to not really understanding what a legend is and getting it mixed up with myth. The Yellow Emperor is the very archetype of a legendary culture hero.

On the other hand, the article would be very well served by more historical, scientific, and anthropological details about what we really know about the Chinese of this era and what the real Huangdi and his world might've been like. — LlywelynII 08:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

FIFA states that it considers Huang-Ti is the original source for football

The current entry does not appear to make any mention of football (soccer) - to what extent is there evidence to support the FIFA position? Iambrisie (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See Cuju.--Betty (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't very clear in the passage, so I clarified it. — LlywelynII 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward: Avoid hagiography

User:Benjwong did a fine job tidying up the rambling central textblock that preceded him. He also wrote Huangdi's life as though it were history, which is pretty farcical. I know it's bad form to add weasel words or a "supposedly" to every single sentence, but you have to bring out the fact that these are simply stories and not actual events. One way I tried to do that was shifting all the verbs into the literary present.

What would be better would be to reference the primary sources for these tales: According to Sima Qian..., In the Guoyu..., In X's account..., &c.

In any case, claiming with a straight face that he actually invented civilization single-handedly while fighting 82 bull-headed brothers makes no more sense than having a section on "Was Huangdi a reptilian?". — LlywelynII 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I just saw your comments, LlywelynII, and I agree with them. It's important to report what reliable sources have said about the Yellow Emperor, and all English-language scholarship that I know of treats him either as a "legendary king" or as a "mythical ruler" (or something along those lines). Right now, the section called "Historicity" only mentions the Shiji and some unspecified "Chinese historiography following him" in considering Huangdi as a historical character. This produces a very biased picture. I'll see what I can find to balance this claim. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 02:41, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Moving forward: More anthropology & politics

A few things the article could use more of

• returning some of the historical information User:Benjwong removed (such as Huangdi's bear totem) with sources
• more (balanced, sourced, mainstream) anthropology on him and his era or links to those articles
• fuller treatment of the use of his legend in Chinese history and modern politics.

The Taiwanese section may be important or non-notable, I really don't know. But I think it's likely that ceremonial observances and control of his supposed tomb was important in the past and highly dubious that the full rituals (hell, any rituals) were observed by the PRC during the Maoist era. — LlywelynII 08:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I support all your suggestions, especially the third one. The yearly cult of Huangdi was (re-?) established in the Republican period, so it's not surprising that Taiwanese presidents (who also rule over the "Republic of China") would try to perpetuate it. But the context of this cult should be better explained. Let me try to find something on that too. Madalibi (talk) 03:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Gongsun and Ancestral name

http://www.gwz.fudan.edu.cn/SrcShow.asp?Src_ID=1202 公孫源流考。——星光下的人 (talk) 07:10, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

There was also no real "emperors" up until the Qin. Should he also be called "yellow king" (黃王)? Sima Qian is from the Han, is he wrong to write according to his time? So is every modern author that use Gongsun Xuanyuan like a modernized lastname firstname. Benjwong (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Restructure?

I think we should modify the structure of this wiki to make it easier to add relevant info on Huangdi's changing historical roles. The sections "Early years," "Achievements," "Battles," "Death," and "Legacy" should probably be sub-parts of a large section called "Traditional account" (or the like). There should also be a new section on "Origins of the myth" that discusses the earliest mention of Huangdi in Chinese texts. We can do much more, but this would be a good beginning. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 03:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Just thinking: there could also be a section called "Sima Qian's version." Two reasons: 1) Sima Qian wrote the first systematized account of the Yellow Emperor; 2) this version was accepted by so many traditional historians after him. Having such a section would make it easier to explain earlier or contemporary accounts of Huangdi (as ancestor of many clans, as the object of a state cult in Qin, as a patron of esoteric arts, etc.), as well as later developments. Comments? Madalibi (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean toward this structure: 1) Historicity [changing views of the YE's historicity]. 2) Names [like now, but more detailed; could also switch with first section]. 3) Origins [would explain the origin of the Huangdi figure]. 4) Sima Qian's account [deserves its own section because it's been so influential]. 5) Important stories [to explain in more detail the mythology surrounding Huangdi: battle with Chi You, inventions, etc.]. 6) Historical roles [ideal ruler, patron of the esoteric arts, ancestor of some Chinese clans, medicine, Taoism, etc., tons of things to say]. 7) Modern roles [ancestor of all Chinese, role in modern Chinese politics and historiography]. There are enough sources out there to make each section substantial. Comments would be welcome! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

New references

I put a long list of "Further reading" (23 titles so far) at the end of the article. I hope it can help other editors find reliable statements on the Yellow Emperor. Hope this helps! Madalibi (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I translated all the Chinese titles (books, articles, and websites) and moved all the works cited in the footnotes into a newly expanded "Bibliography." The footnotes should now be much more readable. Tomorrow I'll try to do more on content. Madalibi (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

On the infobox

Do we really need that infobox? It makes Huangdi appear as a historical ruler who just happened not to have had any "temple name" or "posthumous name," and whose "official title" was "Yellow Emperor." These notions ("temple name" and the like) were actually invented about 2,500 years after Huangdi's alleged reign, so they seem entirely irrelevant to him. And in what sense is "Yellow Emperor" an "official title"?

Second, his "ancestral name" and "given name" were not mentioned in any source that we know of before the Shiji (ca. 100 BCE). Also, Chinese commentators on the Shiji since at least the Tang have claimed that these were not personal names but place names (same thing with "Shaodian"). The box makes these names appear objective and self-evident, which they are clearly not. We could say somewhere that Sima Qian thought that these were Huangdi's names, but if we go beyond that we will be interpreting (not just citing and attributing) a primary source in a way that is forbidden by WP:OR.

So we could keep a box with a picture and a general identification of Huangdi as one of the mythical Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, as well as a box with Romanization, but the rest is unsupported by reliable sources. What do you think? Madalibi (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

And to stick with the issue of names: the "Names" section contradicts Sima Qian by claiming that "Xuanyuan shi" 轩辕氏 and "Youxiong shi" 有熊氏 were Huangdi's "pseudonyms," with a piped link under pseudonym that leads to an explanation of the notion of hao 号. But Sima Qian does not mention the name "Youxiong" at all, he does not use the term shi 氏 either, and he says that Xuanyuan was Huangdi's ming 名, not his hao 号. So we have a problem... I think we should have a better section on names that starts with Sima Qian and tries to move forward in time to see what other names were given to Huangdi throughout history. Would that be acceptable? Madalibi (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Louis Crompton- claims of homosexuality

Crompton is a scholar of english literature, and not a historian. All edu sites and universities say "pioneer of gay studies", and he was behind several pro LGBT organizations and clearly biased in favor of homosexuality. He does not even have a phd in gay studies though. He was called a "historian" in this article. I fix this error.

Louis Crompton (1925-2009) "Louis Crompton, noted scholar of 19-century British literature and a pioneer of gay studies,"

LGBTQA Programs & Services: Louis Crompton Scholarship "Louis Crompton was an extraordinary pioneer of gay studies and an international scholar of nineteenth-century British literature. "

Louis Crompton Scholarship Fund - "The Louis Crompton Scholarship Fund is the first permanently endowed scholarship providing much needed support to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender (GLBT) students with financial need at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln."

Sonny Fin (talk) 05:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

On Liu Yizheng on the historicity of the Yellow Emperor

I notice that an editor has, in good faith, added several lines to the "Historicity" section, mentioning Liu Yizheng (1880-1956) and Miao Fenglin 繆鳳林 (1898-1959) as possible supporters for the historicity of the Yellow Emperor. To give some context, these two historians were part of a group of intellectuals who worked around the Critical Review, or Xueheng 學衡, a journal that was founded in 1922. While it's true that Liu and Miao often opposed Gu Jiegang and other supporters of the Doubting Antiquity School, who were among the first to doubt the historicity of the Yellow Emperor, here we need specific and referenced information on what Liu and Miao thought of the Yellow Emperor. I tried to find such info as I expanded the page on Liu Yizheng, but all I found was a citation from Hon Tze-ki (a specialist of historical writing in Republican China) saying that "Despite their disagreements, both Liu and Gu rejected the traditional accounts that began Chinese history with mythical figures such as the Yellow Emperor and the Divine Farmer (as recorded in the Records of the Grand Historian)." (SOURCE: Hon's article "Cultural Identity and Local Self-Government: A Study of Liu Yizheng's History of Chinese Culture," Modern China 30.4 [October 2004]: 536, note 27.)

Since the newly added sentences are unreferenced and since I found a reliable source saying explicitly that Liu Yizheng rejected the existence of the Yellow Emperor, I am making the new additions invisible. I will delete them in a week or two if no reference can be found to support them. I am also reestablishing the claim that "most [not just "some"] scholars now agree that the Yellow Emperor was originally a deity who was later transformed into a human figure." Even with references, two scholars from the Republican period would not be enough to disagree with a scholarly consensus that is supported by dozens of modern sources cited in the bibliography. Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

More than two weeks have passed since the above message, and no new references have been found, so I just deleted the new sentences altogether. Similar content can of course be reinserted if we find proper references for it. Madalibi (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

2 yellow & noah

as further background ... see above several locations where the distinction is made between early china 'yellow' emperor c. 2500 BC and later also sometimes called 'yellow; emperor, the first emperor who consolidated china and died 209 BC... and what that garbled discussion leads anyone to, is, the conclusion that the scholars pontificating about any of it have little or weak sources and are confused and so are NOT scholars (educated ab a subject) at all... ; 2nd subject, the descent from adam to noah to joktan and so on to china AND back to the mideast has been out, as a copyrighted descent/listing some time now ... (7 years) and bears some consideration, as those same scholars unknolwedgeable about any of those lines of descent, are the same sherry ? ladss who opined so eloquently, on the various discussions above without any clues ... the detailed royal lines are there and part of history ... read up ... etc - the real huangdi, speak to the dragon !! 24.186.56.245 (talk)jr —Preceding undated comment added 20:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: "the descent from adam to noah to joktan and so on to china AND back to the mideast has been out, as a copyrighted descent/listing some time now ... (7 years) and bears some consideration"

Really? Other theories connecting the Chinese to other names in Genesis 10 besides Joktan have been "out" for much longer than that too... But no one of these theories has ever been taken that seriously outside a small group, and it would need some reference tying it in specifically with this topic to even be considered. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 20:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Claims of descent from the Yellow Emperor in the Warring states period and beyond

http://books.google.com/books?id=QmnqOHMjl8UC&pg=PA37&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rZk4UpHnArKl4APEgoCICA&ved=0CEEQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=UcYRpKmh-W4C&pg=PA9&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rZk4UpHnArKl4APEgoCICA&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oJbpoEwvQzcC&pg=PA190&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=rZk4UpHnArKl4APEgoCICA&ved=0CCsQ6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=Smlfbq4oTKkC&pg=PA129&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CF0Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=VJfbNnquT8EC&pg=PA172&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CFcQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=eVge45uL4_8C&pg=PA37&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=WBoqTHVQFHEC&pg=PA68&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XORD7ODG2NUC&pg=PA69&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=hJqr-MakP10C&pg=308#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=nzV5iS90_0IC&pg=PA308&dq=yellow+emperor+descent&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bZk4UszgH4fk4AOt64GoBw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=yellow%20emperor%20descent&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=49HGTJYg4ScC&pg=PA61&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=-Z1uzIlau4YC&pg=PA200&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=8d93YqW1xysC&pg=PA30&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=MADlfH002mAC&pg=PA27&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CE8Q6wEwBg#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XW9IAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA73&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CFkQ6wEwCA#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=aLNH6p719q4C&pg=PA27&dq=Yellow+emperor+descent+zhou&hl=en&sa=X&ei=X6M4Ut3uCIj54APn7YCQCg&ved=0CFQQ6wEwBw#v=onepage&q=Yellow%20emperor%20descent%20zhou&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=QlEZd4x9LUAC&pg=PA64&dq=zhou+yellow+trace+ancestry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rss4UtW0MI28qQHq3IDgBA&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=zhou%20yellow%20trace%20ancestry&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=uai3o_DQmwQC&pg=PT92&dq=zhou+yellow+trace+ancestry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rss4UtW0MI28qQHq3IDgBA&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=zhou%20yellow%20trace%20ancestry&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=7QzcoeCezLcC&pg=PA15&dq=zhou+yellow+trace+ancestry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rss4UtW0MI28qQHq3IDgBA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=zhou%20yellow%20trace%20ancestry&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=BeVS1n4iTmcC&pg=PA46&dq=zhou+yellow+trace+ancestry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rss4UtW0MI28qQHq3IDgBA&ved=0CEsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=zhou%20yellow%20trace%20ancestry&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=oJbpoEwvQzcC&pg=PA171&dq=zhou+yellow+trace+ancestry&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rss4UtW0MI28qQHq3IDgBA&ved=0CFEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=zhou%20yellow%20trace%20ancestry&f=false

The Yellow Emperor and the origin of Chinese surnames

http://books.google.com/books?id=Va0pTViARqkC&pg=PA110#v=onepage&q&f=false

Mitrophan Chin (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC) Here is genealogy of Yellow Emperor and it traces down to my surname Chen:

http://www.geni.com/people/Hu-ng-D-J-Xu-n-Yu-n-1/6000000001381274001

The Xianbei claimed to be descended from the Yellow Emperor

The Xianbei claimed to be related to the Chinese through descent by the Yellow Emperor

http://books.google.com/books?id=rHeb7wQu0xIC&pg=PA68&dq=xianbei+yellow+emperor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjwQUrOJKsqQyAHVsIEw&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=xianbei%20yellow%20emperor&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=XT5pvPZ4vroC&pg=PA55&dq=xianbei+yellow+emperor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjwQUrOJKsqQyAHVsIEw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=xianbei%20yellow%20emperor&f=false

page 75

Because his forces were victorious in this battle, the Yellow Emperor's clan came to be known by the surname of "Bear" (Youxiongshi). The Weishu also states that the Xianbei were descended from one of the sons of the Yellow Emperor, ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_HpAAAAMAAJ&q=xianbei+yellow+emperor&dq=xianbei+yellow+emperor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjwQUrOJKsqQyAHVsIEw&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg

http://books.google.com/books?id=-_HpAAAAMAAJ&q=Because+his+forces+were+victorious+in+this+battle,+the+Yellow+Emperor's+clan+came+to+be+known+by+the+surname+of+%22Bear%22+(Youxiongshi).+The+Weishu+also+states+that+the+Xianbei+were+descended+from+one+of+the+sons+of+the+Yellow+Emperor,&dq=Because+his+forces+were+victorious+in+this+battle,+the+Yellow+Emperor's+clan+came+to+be+known+by+the+surname+of+%22Bear%22+(Youxiongshi).+The+Weishu+also+states+that+the+Xianbei+were+descended+from+one+of+the+sons+of+the+Yellow+Emperor,&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vj8QUoW1LKeiyAGehYBY&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

page 279

They have a fanciful history complete with legends claiming the Yellow Emperor as one of their ancestors.2 Although much of Xianbei culture is similar to that of the Xiongnu, there are distinct differences.' Xianbei burials commonly contain a ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZDXrAAAAMAAJ&q=xianbei+yellow+emperor&dq=xianbei+yellow+emperor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjwQUrOJKsqQyAHVsIEw&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBA

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZDXrAAAAMAAJ&q=They+have+a+fanciful+history+complete+with+legends+claiming+the+Yellow+Emperor+as+one+of+their+ancestors.2+Although+much+of+Xianbei+culture+is+similar+to+that+of+the+Xiongnu,+there+are+distinct+differences.'+Xianbei+burials+commonly+contain+a&dq=They+have+a+fanciful+history+complete+with+legends+claiming+the+Yellow+Emperor+as+one+of+their+ancestors.2+Although+much+of+Xianbei+culture+is+similar+to+that+of+the+Xiongnu,+there+are+distinct+differences.'+Xianbei+burials+commonly+contain+a&hl=en&sa=X&ei=2D8QUpGGH4iTyQGOn4GgBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA

page 4

The Taba Xianbei, however, disliked the idea that they were mixed blood of the Han and Xiongnu. Instead, they traced their ancestry to the Chinese legendary Yellow Emperor (Huangdi H^?, the symbol of "earth" of the Five Elements) in order ...

http://books.google.com/books?id=FmBmAAAAMAAJ&q=xianbei+yellow+emperor&dq=xianbei+yellow+emperor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kjwQUrOJKsqQyAHVsIEw&ved=0CEwQ6AEwBQ

http://books.google.com/books?id=FmBmAAAAMAAJ&q=The+Taba+Xianbei,+however,+disliked+the+idea+that+they+were+mixed+blood+of+the+Han+and+Xiongnu.+Instead,+they+traced+their+ancestry+to+the+Chinese+legendary+Yellow+Emperor+(Huangdi+H%5E?,+the+symbol+of+%22earth%22+of+the+Five+Elements)+in+order&dq=The+Taba+Xianbei,+however,+disliked+the+idea+that+they+were+mixed+blood+of+the+Han+and+Xiongnu.+Instead,+they+traced+their+ancestry+to+the+Chinese+legendary+Yellow+Emperor+(Huangdi+H%5E?,+the+symbol+of+%22earth%22+of+the+Five+Elements)+in+order&hl=en&sa=X&ei=6j8QUt3mIaWbygGL6oCwAg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA

00:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Where can I confirm that most chinese families descend from the Yellow Emperor?

The reference given is a book about Irish genealogies, there is nothing about the family tree of the Yellow Emperor there. Does somebody have a correct reference? It is difficult to believe that most of the Chinese descend from a single individual, but well, I guess there is a remote possibility... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.64.65 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The article does not claim that most Chinese families descend from the Yellow Emperor. The article states that he is "said to be the ancestor of all Huaxia Chinese." Not that "huaxia" means "cultured society". It is a cultural heritage not a biological heritage. I can't see any references about Irish? Rincewind42 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Not so difficult to believe most Chinese could descend from the same individual, once you get to understand more about where ancestors come from, and the way they leave many decendants 71.246.156.66 (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

It might be possible (though still extremely unlikely) that all Chinese are biologically descended from the Yellow Emperor if he had been a real person, but he is a mythological figure. All those claims to descend from the YE are attempts to trace clan ancestry as far back into the past as possible for the sake of prestige. The section called Claims of descent needs a clean-up, especially the paragraph that starts with Most Chinese genealogies trace their family ultimately to Huangdi. @Rincewind42: The reference to a book about the Irish was rightly removed by the first commenting IP.[3] Madalibi (talk) 04:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I still don't follow your pronouncement of "extremely unlikely"... Let alone the question of whether a person existed that long ago with the specific name "Yellow Emperor"... The more you study about the technical reality of how populations grow, the more you will realize that it is extremely "likely" they had common ancestors, and did not independently spring up from the ground, nor fall down from the sky. You may argue about what their names may have been, or whether any of them might have named "Yellow Emperor". But to assert all authoritatively-sounding that it is "extremely unlikely" that modern populations could possibly have common ancestry, simply flies in the face of everything we know about how human beings in fact do operate. 71.246.158.74 (talk) 12:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, my comment was indeed a bit short. The main point of it was that the YE is a mythical character, and that this should end the debate on whether all Chinese are really descended from him. It's true that if you go back far enough into the past, you will find that everybody is either the ancestor of all humans alive today, or of no humans alive today, and (obviously) you don't have to go back to Homo erectus to find that situation. On a smaller scale, I guess this is true for Chinese people too. What is extremely unlikely (and actually demonstrably false through an analysis of Chinese people's Y chromosome) is that all Chinese today are the direct patrilineal descendants of any man who lived 5,000 years ago. I say direct patrilineal descendant, because this is what all these Chinese clans are claiming. But Wikipedia is not a forum,and I think we're moving away from a discussion of how to improve this article, so we should probably leave it at that! Madalibi (talk) 12:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: speedily closed as not moved. The request was initiated by a sock of a site-banned user, and per WP:BMB, all his edits may be reverted. A bona fide editor may file a new request if deemed necessary. Favonian (talk) 16:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Yellow Emperor → Huangdi – Huangdi is a personal name. It is irregular to try to translate a Chinese personal name into English. Britannica calls this person "Huangdi." WP:RECOGNIZABLE says, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of...quality encyclopedias." According to etymology section of the article, "huang" might have originally meant "yellow," or perhaps it meant "august." "Di" originally meant "ancestral deity," so that's a problematic translation as well. It is not like China had emperors of various colors. The general idea of an encyclopedia is to disseminate information as opposed to misinformation. Huangdi is certainly a very common usage, albeit somewhat less common than "Yellow Emperor."[4] "When there are multiple names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." (Same guideline as above). The Smart Cheetah (talk) 05:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose it is a title, and this person is legendary. And it avoids confusion with Shi Huangdi, the First Emperor, also sometimes appearing in print as "Huangdi". "Yellow Emperor" 330k ghits, mostly about this person. "Huangdi" 530kghits but some NOT about this person. Yellow Emperor 73k gBooks hits (mostly about this person) vs Huangdi 44k gBooks hits (some not about this person); Yellow Emperor 10.7k gScholar hits mostly about this person, Huang Di 8.6k gScholar hits but mostly not about this person. So it seems clear that "Yellow Emperor" is the most reliable name in English, especially with Google Scholar going on about prehistoric life, and in Google Books/Google Regular many hits for the First Emperor Qin Shi Huangdi. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What does the Qin emperor have to do with this issue? Nine of the top ten Web hits for "Huangdi" refer to this subject. So it's certainly primary topic. The character for "huang" used to write the name of the Qin emperor is different, and it has a different meaning. In "Qin Shi Huangdi," Huangdi is a title that's usually translated as "emperor." There is no reference to the color "yellow." The subject of this article is a mythological character whose name is Huangdi. It sometimes happens that two well-known people have similar names. It's not our responsibility to "fix" it. I get 463k Web hits for "Yellow Emperor", 1.2 million for "Huangdi." "Qin Shi Huangdi" gets 10,000 hits, so subtract those. Is it not clear that Web hits are nonsense numbers? The Smart Cheetah (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. The main point of WP:RECOGNIZABLE (aka WP:COMMONNAME) is obviously not that we should "observe the usage of...quality encyclopedias". That page says that we should choose "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources," which is a completely different point. "Huangdi" 黃帝 is the name of a mythological sovereign, not a personal name. Whereas nobody ever translates Mao Zedong as "Hair Benefit-the-East" (or "Benefit-the-East Mao"), people constantly translate Huangdi as "Yellow Emperor". And this makes a lot of sense, as huang 黃 unambiguously means "yellow", and di 帝 has meant "emperor" for more than 2,000 years. That's why we get 463,000 Google hits for "Yellow Emperor". 1.2 million hits for "huangdi" includes the innumerable cases in which "huangdi" just means "emperor", without any reference to Qin Shi Huang or the Yellow Emperor. "Yellow Emperor" is only a problematic translation for pre-imperial China (before Qin Shi Huang). That's why specialists of that period often refer to him as the "Yellow Thearch" or the "Yellow Lord" instead, but by denying the validity of "Yellow Emperor" in the name of this minority of scholars, we fall into the WP:specialist style fallacy. "Yellow Emperor" satisfies all WP:NAMINGCRITERIA: it is recognizable (much more so than the arguably better "Yellow Thearch"), natural (WP readers will likely look it up that way), precise (unlike the ambiguous "Huangdi"), concise (two words), and consistent with other articles on Chinese mythology that have a widely accepted translation (e.g., Jade Emperor, Yan Emperor, and Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors, the last of which incidentally shows that China did have emperors of different colors!). If no other translation of "Huangdi" is as common as "Yellow Emperor" (and the nominator has not shown that), then "Yellow Emperor" is the common name, and we should stick to it. Madalibi (talk) 10:28, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

What about consistency with Shangdi? The text mentions that Huangdi and Shangdi may have been a pair of gods at one time. Huangdi already directs to this page, so we are not currently treating it as ambiguous. The Smart Cheetah (talk) 11:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@The Smart Cheetah: I think Shangdi is a bit different, because there is no dominant or established translation for it. Sometimes it's rendered as the awkward "Lord on High", in other contexts it means "God" (see Names of God in Chinese), etc. With "Yellow Emperor", we're lucky to have an English term for our topic. (Incidentally, WP:ENGLISH is an extra reason why we should stick to that translation!) I think the hatnote on top of the Yellow Emperor article shows that we're treating "huangdi" as possibly ambiguous. We probably have a redirect from "Huangdi" to here because some editors think that "huangdi" refers to the Yellow Emperor more often than to the title of "Emperor" or to Qin Shi Huang, who created that title. Madalibi (talk) 12:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as pointed out by the original poster, Yellow Emperor is the common name based on multiple reliable sources (rather than only Britannica). While Huangdi might be more correct, that is not Wikipedia policy. There are many articles on Wikipedia with technically incorrect names but they stand because of the common name policy. As for the comment above regarding Shangdi – there is no policy requiring us to be consistent. Naming is decided individually on an article by article basis. Rincewind42 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support - You might find more sources for YE but it still strikes me as antiquated, like a term used ca. 100 years ago when the number one comic strip in the US was "The Yellow Kid"... It doesn't seem to belong to our era, and I always think of this figure as "Huang Di" anyway when thinking about this period in Chinese historiography. Of course, despite everyone's best warnings, it's interesting how "Google search results numbers" have regardless become our default Urim and Thummim that we always look to for guidance like a sacred cow, and how a new art form is currently being developed on wikipedia, the art of calculating together said Google search results the most "favorably" to your desired outcome. 71.246.147.221 (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

On the meaning of "Xuanyuan"

As I just pointed out here, Xuanyuan was Huangdi's name, not a title that means "Mysterious Origin". The first line of the Shiji, which is our earliest significant source for the story of the Yellow Emperor, makes this clear: "The Yellow Emperor was the son of Shaodian. His surname was Gongsun, his name Xuanyuan." (黃帝者，少典之子，姓公孫，名曰軒轅。) In later Taoist material, Laozi—not the Yellow Emperor—was sometimes referred to as "Xuanyuan huangdi" 玄元皇帝, which some reliable sources translate as "Emperor of the Mysterious Origin", but here we're talking about xuanyuan 玄元, not Xuanyuan 軒轅, and about "August Thearch" huangdi 皇帝, not "Yellow Thearch" huangdi 黃帝.

As not a single reliable source has been shown that translates Xuanyuan 軒轅 as "Mysterious Origin", and as footnotes 25 and 26 already present two possible explanations of the name Xuanyuan, I deleted all references to that translation. Madalibi (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Madalibi and Aethelwolf Emsworth: In regard to these edits, there is a discussion at Talk:Religion in China#Principles progenitor, ancestors, dead that may interest you.

There was also a discussion of "Yellow Emperor" at Talk:Chinese folk religion#"Yellow deity" to "Yellow emperor"? that supplies some context.ch (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing these out ch, as I was not aware of these discussions. I may not have time to join in, but I am now aware of them! Madalibi (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

玄元 and 軒轅, like 皇帝 and 黃帝, are taboo characters of one another.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Do you have evidence from reliable sources to support this claim? It sounds very unlikely, as taboo characters are usually replaced by characters with a similar meaning (元 with 原, for example). Madalibi (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

This is common sense in Chinese. However, in 何新 --- 诸神的起源第一卷·华夏上古日神与母神崇拜 "Origin of Ancient Chinese Sun God and Mother Goddess Worship", 中国民主法制出版社 2008, it is clearly stated <黄帝号轩辕,即“玄元”。>=<Huangdi 轩辕, that is to say "玄元"> (can't determine the page number). Laozi has the title of "Mysterious Origin" because in Huang-Lao he and the Yellow Emperor were one and the same.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 15:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You have said that Xuanyuan written 軒轅 means "Chariot Axle", this is even more significant in terms of theology and cosmology. This translation of 軒轅 should be indicated in the article.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

The "mysterious origin" starts to be clear! According to The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China p. 117 note 11, "Xuanyuan" 軒轅 means "Axle Shaft" 軒轅, that is a metaphor for "Chariot".--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aethelwolf Emsworth: Thank you for your response! Starting from your last message, I don't understand why the claim that Xuanyuan literally means "axle shaft" or "chariot axle" – a meaning that does seem worth mentioning in the text, by the way – would justify translating it as "Mysterious Origin" (of all things). The translators of the Huainanzi explain the term "Chariot Frame" because the Huainanzi passage they are translating mentions by name the six departments of "heaven" (Tian 天), and one of these departments is called xuanyuan 軒轅. They translate that term as "Chariot Frame" because the passage makes no mention of Huangdi. Their entire footnote states that, "'Chariot Frame," Xuanyuan 軒轅, is the personal name of the Yellow Emperor, after the name of his supposed birthplace in Henan. The compound word means "axle and shafts"—that is, the basic frame of a chariot." In other words, the footnote supports not translating Xuanyuan when it refers to Huangdi, as it is a personal name that comes from a place name. And it gives no trace of "Mysterious Origin".

Of course if some reliable sources ("reliable" being the key term") give an explicit cosmological significance to the literal meaning of Xuanyuan, then yes, it would be worth mentioning as such in the article. But we have to be careful not to overextend ourselves by translating Xuanyuan throughout as if it this name always commonsensically meant the same thing.

Speaking of which: the equivalence between Xuanyuan 軒轅 and xuanyuan 玄元 is not "common sense in Chinese". For one, the thorough and authoritative Hanyu Da Cidian 汉语大词典 [Great Dictionary of Chinese] does not include this reading: it explains that xuanyuan 玄元 sometimes refers to Laozi (no mention of Huangdi), and it does not give xuanyuan 玄元 ["mysterious origin"] as an equivalent of Xuanyuan 軒轅.

You cite one source, a book by He Xin 何新, claiming that Xuanyuan 軒轅 (which incidentally is said to have been Huangdi's name 名, not his hao 号) means xuanyuan 玄元 ("Mysterious Origin"). But this page from the Baidu encyclopedia claims that He Xin's book is a novel (xiaoshuo 小说). If you do find a reliable source to support your claim, then sure, the interpretation of Xuanyuan as "mysterious origin" can be mentioned — e.g.: "Historian of Chinese religion [?] Xxx Yyyy claims that Xuanyuan means 'mysterious origin' (xuanyuan 玄元)" — but even such a source would not be sufficient basis for translating "Xuanyuan" as "Mysterious Origin" throughout as if the two terms were equivalents.

Finally, in some Taoist texts, Laozi is referred to as Huang Lao Jun 黃老君, showing that in some cases Laozi may be merged with Huangdi. But this is far from being always true, and it does not justify transferring everything that is said about Laozi onto Huangdi – including the title "xuanyuan" 玄元 given to Laozi under the Tang dynasty, whose rulers saw Laozi as their ancestor – as if "Laozi" and "Huangdi" were the same god.

Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 06:26, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Madalibi: Regarding the first source that connects 軒轅 and 玄元, "Gods of the Origin • Volume 1: The Sun God and the Ancient Chinese Goddess Worship": it is not a novel; even the description at Baidu says "The purpose of this book is to study the Chinese ancient sun god worship, outline the main issues, but also seek to systematically explore and trace the origin of Chinese primitive mythology, religion, and some basic philosophical concepts". It is a scholarly work, even filled with graphical historical evidences, published by 中国民主法制出版社. The same description is reported at Google Books, and there there's no mention that the book is a 小说.

Huangdi is a deity of key importance associated to the Big Dipper or Great Chariot, part of the Ursa Major. The astral and cosmic connections of his name 軒轅 "Axle Shaft" is glaring. Unfortunately I have no access to databases of academic papers; maybe you could help providing good quality sources that support a translation of Xuanyuan to "Axle Shaft", at least in discourses about his religious significance.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

John S. Major's Heaven and Earth in Early Han Thought p. 331, note 14, has: <Chariot Pole (Xuanyuan 軒轅) is an appellation of Huangdi, the Yellow Thearch.> And then describes that this titles identifies him as the main of the five departments of Heaven.--Aethelwolf Emsworth (talk) 10:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Aethelwolf Emsworth:The Google Books link did not give me access to the content of Zhushen de qiyuan 诸神的起源, but I have now found a way to search within it. It's true that it doesn't look like a novel despite what the lede of the Baidu article says! Depending on who the author is, the book may or may not be a reliable source. I see that the author He Xin glosses 玄元 as 轩辕 in this passage from the Huainanzi: “当此之时，玄元至砀而运照。” Classical commentaries say something else: 高诱 注：“玄，天也；元，气也。砀，大也。”一本作“ 玄玄 ”。

Otherwise, sure, it would be my pleasure to add more interpretations of Huangdi's name and of his cosmological significance to this article based on reliable sources! I don't think these sources will support translating "Xuanyuan" as "Chariot Axle", but these explanations are definitely worth noting. Also, the Huainanzi looks very important in the Huangdi mythology, as the discussion of Xuanyuan in He Xin, John Major, and The Huainanzi: A Guide to the Theory and Practice of Government in Early Han China all refer to that book. I will look more into it later this week! Cheers, Madalibi (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

It's worth noting—since no one seems to have—that (a) 軒轅 doesn't mean "chariot axle". Neither one nor any combination means "axle". Some older bilingual dictionaries gloss 軒 as referring to a crossbar, drawbar, or yoke. Present-day Chinese sources seem pretty unanimous in treating it as a particular style of Chinese chariot with a high front and low back, with some imperial connotations since it's the kind recorded as being used by some rulers. 轅 is always the shaft connecting the animals' harness to the car. It's either "crossbar-&-shaft" if a sense somehow fell out of the modern Chinese dictionaries since this is ancient hardware or, more likely, it's "xuan[-style chariot] shaft". (b) We can obviously record that Sima claimed it was the Yellow Emperor's "given name" but we should be blunter in saying it's almost certainly untrue.

(c) There are plenty of sources on China's legendary prehistory—which Sima Qian was so uninterested in he basically skipped the 3 Huangs, pissing off his descendants enough that Sima Zhen wrote an entire new preface to the Shiji—that treat Xuanyuan as an entirely separate figure at an entirely separate time, a culture hero they credited for the invention of the first chariots. I'm not saying that version's true either—although that etymology is a lot more likely than it being a personal name, let alone one randomly picked up from a hill that just happens to share its name with a legendary earlier ruler—but we should be presenting it and the incredibly likely scenario that the Yellow Emperor just hoovered up Xuanyuan as part of his cult and/or for the astronomical allusions.

(d) Personally, I'd rather take some of the crush of badly formatted {{zh}} cruft—I don't know how many times I've pointed out that traditional and simplified Chinese and pinyin aren't separate languages and shouldn't be presented this way but it never gets any traction since everyone's 差不多 about it—and either turn it into easier to read sentences or (better) shunt it into more altnames= in the {{infobox Chinese}} on the side. — LlywelynII 03:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

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)