Talk:Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors

San HuangWuDi

I just moved "Sanhuangwudi" to "The Three August Ones and the Five Emperors". Google shows beside us, only 1 webpage uses Sanhuangwudi; whereas the translated name is used, excluding us, well...4 hits, that is ...more often. I saw this translated name from the Cambridge History of Ancient China. ---Menchi 09:54, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would appear to be Anglecized since San means Saint (holy), as the San Huang-Wu-Di. For those interested in Genesis, they should note that 2852bc is 100 years after the Chinese Flood of Creation by NuWa in the year 2953-2952bc. Another factor to note is that Huang Di is the Yellow Emperor (GongSun or XuanYuan), one of Three Sovereign to some, but not to others since he is one of the 5 emperors. Further, if Huang Di is the Yellow Emperor, then there is contradiction because Yellow Emperor ruled 112 years (2852-2737bc; =100 years after Flood 2953bc to 100 year before calendar 2637bc) and the 60 years of Huang Di (2697-2637bc). Though I would like to point out that anytime ancient history uses the number 52 (112 = 52+60 or 60+52), it could be, probably is, the practive of regarding 52 as the planet Mars via the name Marduk. So if 360-day calendar preceded Chinese 60-year, the 52+60 could be origin of the 112 years.98.144.71.174 (talk) 12:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

You're funny. To any humans reading this autogenerated botspam at a later date, no, Chinese "three" (san) has nothing whatsoever to do with the Spanish title for saints ("San..."). It doesn't even sound the same. — LlywelynII 08:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

They are all koreans

It is wrote by famous chinese historian. -- WonYong (talk) 09:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Korean nationalists always please me with their funny jokes... lol -- G.S.K.Lee 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

All Koreans are Chinese. It is wrote by king Sejong in Chinese. -- WonYong (talk) 10:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Korean created the whole word.KJ (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

as if, korea was just a tributary state of China —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.134.178 (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

What does "August One" mean?

Would someone please add a reference to the article about this transliteration "August One"? This transliteration appears puzzling to me, a native Chinese. --Pkchan 11:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to be a customary translation in English.[1] I don't speak Chinese very well myself, do you think some other translation would be preferable? —Veyklevar 13:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that "August One" is not a good enough translation to 皇. 皇 as well as 帝 refers to a ruling state; modern studies indicates these eight people were most likely some reverend tribunal heads in ancient times, yet "August One" is not a clear enough translation to hint on this fact. Though I too have no idea on a better translation. -- G.S.K.Lee 07:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Well then i would like to know if it diifers from August which I regard to mean Reverend and Most honorable One, a Holy One. The use of the name San implies this.98.144.71.174 (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

August one is pretty much exactly the English equivalent to the divine Roman Augusti, which is the closest equivalent if we don't just want to start saying huang all the time.

The problem isn't a literary synonym for "emperor". The problem is that to the extent that these guys are makebelieve gods, "emperor" doesn't quite cut it. Similarly, if they were historical figures, it's far too misleading and grandiose for what were glorified tribal chieftains and/or personifications of the tribes themselves. — LlywelynII 08:14, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

length of Ruling

The article says "The Heavenly Sovereign (天皇), who ruled for 18,000 years... The Earthly Sovereign (地皇), who ruled for 11,000 years... The Human Sovereign (泰皇 or 人皇), who ruled for 45,600 years..." I can not find these in the Record of Grand Historian, where is this source? According to the Bamboo Annals, two ruled 100 years, others ruled 50-70 years. Dongwenliang 02:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The Bamboo Annals are not the Traditional layout. These figures here are traditional figures and i would like to know if 45,600 is a typo because another source online says 456,000 years for SuiRen. The importance of this is that it is the only Sumerian preFlood number not divisible by 360-day. The 97 sar is 97x 3600 day decades or 970x 360 days. The 67 sar of 8 kings is likewise 67x 3600 and 670x 360. This 456,000 (debate if you wish days or years) is 1266.6 years of 360 day but this article's 45,600 is only 126.6 years; the difference raising question to whether ten preFlood kings (456,000) are or were ever confused with Gilgamesh who ruled 126 years (45,600 days). An interesting connection is that as a Sovereign from heaven or the gods, it connects to the time before the Flood or of the Flood. However, as Gilgamesh it connects to being Human (a sovereign in fear of dying). 98.144.71.174 (talk) 12:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

It is not in the original Shiji, written by Sima Qian, but in a chapter on the three sovereigns added by Sima Zhen in his commentary on the Shiji, Shiji suoyinxu 史記索隱序). See here for the Chinese text of this chapter, here for a translation in English and here for a French translation. Guss2 (talk) 12:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We need to distinguish history and myth. Those recorded in Records of the Grand Historian, Classic of History, etc. is of serious history. -Daohuo (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Great idea. Completely impossible with these guys. Sima managed by just completely ignoring them. We can't. This is what you get. — LlywelynII 08:15, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding Validity

I would be interested in assisting with a coordinated effort of verifying this information. Please let me know how I can be of assistance. Caddcreativity 03:00, 08 November 2007 (UTC)

Youchou

Youchou (有巢氏) has been mentioned in some sources before. It has been left off the article until someone can get a better academic source. Benjwong (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting effort in cleaning up this article. It makes it much better as it was before, Guss2 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Youchao was added back but to a different section. Benjwong (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to know info on YouChou, and Yao, and Yu, etc. Is YouChou any connection to Yao (or Yu) of the 100 years 2333-2233bc. From what I have been reading Yao gave his throne to Shun (without dying) who then ruled 50 years to 2183bc; and this puts the end of that rule as 22 years after the Xia Dynasty starts in 2205bc. Because Chinese Flood of Creation is 2953bc, I choose to see Yu (as Reu the son of Peleg); born in year 531, he dies at 239 in that same Year 770 as Yu does when Shun's rule ends. I also note that Yellow Emperor is named Gong-Shun. But not all sources say Yao and Yu are the same person. Some internet writers (one sounding like Hislop in his conclusions) says Yu is the brother of Yao. I don't beleive this one source because he also says Shulgi & Dungi are brothers, and Bur-Sin and Amar-Sin are brothers, both as sons of Shulgi. Of one thing I am certain, there are two Xia and two Yu, pre-Xia is in Sumer as 3 sovereign 5 kings, Xia is the city Ur, and then a trek to China creates a Xia there east of Tibet in 1437bc. Obviously the Yu of 1437bc cannot be the Yu of Ur in Sumer dated by Chinese as 2233bc. (My conclusion for this 1437bc is based on Chinese honoring of 1200-year calendar 2637-1437bc as the Hindu who also honor 1900-700bc /1902-702. But it seems to me that Ur's suicide dated by C-14 as 2030bc was peceded by an exodus flight before it, and after it, and that as typical the Chinese choose to believe their flight was 2037bc before it, while Monkey Year 2029bc was everyone else taking flight in horror and shock. Denial of Chinese involvment. Mayans say world was destroyed turning into escape as Monkey; but strong implications that Chinese and Maya left together. Both before? or both after? I choose after, and since they couldnt join Hindu who were not yet in India, it seems to me that Chinese-Mayans are the city of Mari Syria taken to Babylon from 1762-1625bc. This places dynasty Xia first in Ur, before it was located in China. ANOTHER QUESTION: How does sources say Xia is 439 years and then provide figures of only 429 years? The 429 reminds me of Abram's leaving Ur until Jewish Exodus of Egypt, and the 439 reminds me of the 1200 years of 1437bc ending at the division of Israel by a July 10 Tamuz that matches both 1770bc and 997bc. I find splitting divisions are as common as mergings; like claiming JFK and John Kennedy are two different people; but Theodore Franklin Roosevelt as one.)98.144.71.174 (talk) 13:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there's a long tradition of nonsense exactly like this in European sinology—the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1st ed., specifically glosses these guys in order to lay out their relationship with Noah—and you're right the article should mention it to nuke it from great height. Here's a loooong example of some Freemasons doing it... with great erudition but to a similarly wheel-spinning effect. — LlywelynII 08:17, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

禮記 as source for Five Emperors

Youchao isn't mentioned in 禮記, so Liji can't be used as a source for the Five Emperors. However the Youchao myth is mentioned in 韓非子 Hanfeizi, chapter 五蠹 (which is chapter 49), Guss2 (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC).

One missing guy doesn't mean it's completely irrelevant. It might be, but your issue is entirely beside the point. — LlywelynII 08:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-mythical`?

I just read this article and don't think it gives any hint what about these figures is "semi"-mythical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.173.132.118 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Significance of the five emperors

1. Jerezembel (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

That's never helpful. Don't do that. — LlywelynII 08:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Tai Sovereign (泰皇), Human Sovereign (人皇) - difference?

What's the difference between Tai Sovereign (泰皇) and Human Sovereign (人皇)? Tai is linked to human?? Thanx! --HilmarHansWerner (talk) 08:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Longevity and the Bible

Why is the longevity of these historical figures the main argument why these people did not exist, while any criticism to the historical accuracy of the Bible for the same reasons is shut down? Wikipedia should be neutral.--2001:16B8:31E8:1300:4885:61B:FD38:A2A4 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

By whom, and where, is "any criticism of the historical accuracy of the Bible" for the reason of the implausible longevities of the biblical patriarchs shut down? For that matter, where in English wikipedia is any portion of the book of Genesis treated as anything other than myth, much less as accurate history? (Unless you mean, as an argument against the historical accuracy of anything anywhere in the entire bible, from beginning to end: in which case, the answer would be that the bible is a hodgepodge collection of dozens of different writings of various genres written by dozens of different people over the course of centuries; and that, therefore, any arguments against the historical accuracy of any one of those writings individually - in this case Genesis - is only relevant in regard to Genesis and not to any other section (though the historical accuracy of many other sections is also disregarded, but for other reasons)). Firejuggler86 (talk) 08:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

See here. Yes, (a) of course the lifespan of the Biblical patriarchs is utter nonsense that precludes their historical existance. It's still worth mentioning the important nonsensical/overly-hopeful tradition. Same thing applies here. Of course, as written these are legends with no more historical basis than the Greek trade war with the Hittites turning into an epic saga full of divine interventions and beneficial human sacrifice. Doesn't mean those stories haven't been meaningful and influential. Yes, (b) these guys have absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrews' campfire stories but there is a long tradition of pretending they mesh in some interesting ways. It's worth discussing specifically to debunk it. — LlywelynII 08:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Family tree of ancient Five Emperors

Fuxi and Youxiong aren't shown on Chinese language version. Fuxi is folkloric creator of humanity, it seems, while Youxiong is apparently not a person, but the family tribe founded by Shaodian. I am not capable of determining whether they belong on the family tree, but I did add their Chinese names as every other entry has Chinese. The numbers in parenthesis are explained nowhere. I've deduced that they're all candidates for being one of the "Five Emperors" referred to in the page and section titles, and that there are eight because the lists don't agree as to which five the five are. The numbers in parenthesis are present in the Chinese version of this page, but numbered starting with the Yellow Emperor (where that page's family tree in fact starts), giving us exactly five emperors, which implies a consensus that the English page doesn't see to recognize. Swiss Frank (talk) 17:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup badly needed

The dates of these mythological figures may be fictitious...

You don't say! To the extent that there's any underlying history, they are legendary, not "mythological". To the extent they're solely mythological, there's no possible basis for them in history.

...but according to some accounts and reconstructions, they supposedly preceded the Xia Dynasty.[2]

No, according to any account or reconstruction where these people exist at all, they definitely preceded the Xia dynasty. The current form of the rest of the page is similarly written by people who obviously don't understand what they're talking about and/or are unable to clearly focus and organize their thoughts. Luckily it's a pretty old page: just at random this version from 2010 shouldn't use the word ubermensch but otherwise presents the lead far more clearly and helpfully than the current mess. Someone with the time and interest, please restore any earlier version of the page and then just restore the helpful newer sources and content as necessary to bring it back up to snuff so we don't lose out on any actually improvements that are hidden in the current chaff field.

In that regard, it's worth noting that WP:MOS-ZH specifically discourages the current useless hanzi clutter. If people want to know the exact variants on Fuxi's name, they're available on clickthrough. At most, we should provide it once with a {{linktext}} to the Wiktionary entry, not every time the name appears in the running text. Better still, only have the hanzi for the actual subject of this page and leave all the other characters on their separate pages, like the style guide already calls for.

Just to show how much I support any able editor in this task, I'll even run the request through OpenAI for you:

write a new introduction section in two paragraphs for the Wikipedia article on the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors

The Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors were ancient Chinese rulers who were revered as the founders of Chinese civilization. According to legend, the Three Sovereigns were god-kings who ruled in the time before history, and the Five Emperors were mortal rulers who followed them. The names of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors vary depending on the source, but they are generally considered to be Fuxi, Shennong, and Yellow Emperor for the Three Sovereigns, and Huangdi, Zhuanxu, Emperor Ku, Yao, and Shun for the Five Emperors.

The Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors are important figures in Chinese mythology and are often depicted in Chinese art and literature. They are revered as cultural heroes and are believed to have introduced many important inventions and cultural practices to China, such as the concept of the family and the use of fire and agriculture. Despite the mythological nature of their stories, the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors continue to be an important part of Chinese culture and are often invoked as symbols of the country's ancient past.

Add on links to (eg) Chinese kinship and Chinese mythology and that's a vast improvement over what we've got now. It could benefit from 1 the 2010 article's discussion about how misleading the word "emperor" is here (although that could go into a badly needed #Names section); 2 some discussion—linked to Chinese ancestral veneration—about these guys' centrality to Chinese genealogy and genealogy's centrality to Chinese culture; and 3 maybe you'd want to emend were revered in the first sentence to are revered for the 12 true-believing die-hard Taoists (heh) left... but still much better. — LlywelynII 09:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to say, however, that the huge amount of {{dubious}} tags (especially in the infobox) is simply unnecessary and makes the article even harder to read. It should be understood based on the template on the top that the article needs cleanup, and it should be left at that. —ME_isSCAMMER (scam) 18:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)