Talk:Yu the Great

Name confusion

are you sure that "da yu" and "yu huang" are identical? i always thought they were different persons... also, the "yu" in yu huang is different from the "yu" in da yu...

yeah I changed it. The Yu in Yu the Great is 禹, and the Yu in Yu Huang is 玉 Wareware 01:21, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Note that the Encyclopedia Mythica link is to yu-huang but the entry there that corresponds to this Wikipedia article is "Da-yu".How are the two related?--Louis E./[email protected]/12.144.5.2 21:41, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Da Yu (Yu the Great) has no relation with the Yu Huang Da Di (The Great Jade Emperor). I believe Stargate, which I watch and which features a character by the name of Yu, may be the cause of this confusion, since it doesn't seem to distinguish between these two persons. But then, hey, what do you expect from TV?...... I've removed that misleading link. --Menchi 22:05, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They are different. See Jade Emperor for details. --Countakeshi 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there are links between the Jade Emperor 玉帝,and Yu the Great,大禹.Though 玉Jade,and Yu,禹,maybe the homophone in Modern Chinese.--Ksyrie 19:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yu also was called Di Yu(帝禹), not Yu Di.KJ (talk) 06:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Dating (eras) of this article

The MoS says that either BC/AD or BCE/CE may be used in an article. Since this article is about a non-Christian figure and part of the world, it seems to me that BCE/CE notation would make the most sense. Comments? Sunray 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree.-Agoodperson 02:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

And I strongly disagree. The year one of BCE/CE is just as Christian-based as the system it purports to "replace". What WP:ERA actually says is that neither matters but it's SOP to give precedence to the first use to avoid needless edit wars between standard English editors and politically-correct scholars. That usage for this page was BC/AD. — LlywelynII 13:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That is not what WP:ERA says. It says "Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content." Established is the key word here. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk page, yes, established is the key word. The use was established as BC/AD. I personally disagree that the posters above made a valid reason specific to the content: if it were true that BC/AD dating is inherently connected to the Christian church in a more profound way than BCE/CE are and doesn't simply reflect non-scholarly English use, it would be inappropriate throughout the encyclopedia (except possibly articles on church councils) and policy would reflect that. If everyone else disagrees with me about that, they can say so here or (more productively) at the MOS for China-related articles.

As to the rest of your reasoning, it is completely unworkable to expect editors to go through entire page histories to count up how many months the page spend as one, the other, or both and completely counterproductive to reward mass editing of pages to one's preference (in the hope of establishing a 'new normal' or at least disrupting the old one), if there isn't consensus for such changes. The original use establishes the era and, if there isn't a consensus (as with Jewish articles moving away from BC dating), there is nothing inappropriate about reverting changes to that established use and keeping the page stable and consistent rather than mixed or inconstant.

In this specific case, these two may have mentioned this, but (on your reading of "established") the established use of the page was BC anyway. I just brought the infobox in line with the running text. — LlywelynII 23:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

More info

I found a website about Yu:http://www.britishbornchinese.org.uk/pages/culture/legends/yu.html Agoodperson 02:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Redundancy

"... emperors in imperial times ..." -- are there emperors in other times? Mdotley 18:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, Yu wasn´t even an emperor.

Contradiction

The following transcript is contradicting with the literature. "Before Yu's time, the title of emperor was passed to the next person considered by the community to have the highest virtue, instead of from father to son. However, Yu's son, Qǐ (啟), proved very capable himself and was recommended to be the next ruler, which marks the starting of the new dynasty (夏, the first dynasty of China). This became the precedent of rulership based on heredity in China."

Apparently the entry is enter before further reading. The above transcript are either base on Xi-Ji(史记) or Chun-qiu(春秋). It is noted that Yu predecessor, Shun, are taking the throne from his father-in-law, Yi-Fang-Shun(伊放勋). Do take note Yi-Fang-Shun inherit the throne from his father. So heredity is normal practice before Yu.

To avoid contradiction, I have remove the section.

Another Contradiction

In the section on his death, it says that the mausoleum was built in the 6th century C.E., but it also states that Qin Shi Haung visited. Qin Shi Huang died 3 centuries earlier than Yu's mausoleum was built. If someone knows about this, please clarify. Did Qin Shi Haung visit this site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:282:8300:7A60:39F0:DA4C:BA8D:B552 (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

建碑《大禹陵》

The great accomplishment in controlling the flood of Si Wen-ming, Emperor Yu or King Yu of the Xia Dynasty and commonly known as Da Yu, is included in the book of Famous Chinese People published by China Book Press of Beijing Library in July, 2005. Si Wen-ming, i.e. Da Yu is a hero with much kindness and wisdom in Chinese history who is famous for his fighting with flood. He is also the founder of Xia Dynasty and is regarded as a respectable historic figure who had made great contribution to the development of Chinese civilization. Here is a photo of the stele in front of the Mausoleum of Da Yu 建碑《大禹陵》照片. A one-month self-catered travel starting from Beijing was made in July, 2005. Written by Jiuan Jiuan Yau —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.75.121.227 (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Historicity

The article (in my mind) seems to describe his exploits somewhat as those of a mythical figure, but it also seems to treat him as a historical figure. Except for the "mythological" section at the bottom (i.e. being born from father's corpse, etc.), are the accounts of him considered to be generally historical? Nyttend (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

No, accounts are not historical. The whole Xia dynasty is mythological at this point, and ties to any historical peoples (see Erlitou culture) is controversial. I think this entry needs to be heavily edited to reflect that. --Niten (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we do that for the Bible too? People from the Bible are more indoctrinated as facts than any part of Chinese history on Wikipedia and any input about considering it legendary is shut down. This is just cultural bias! --2001:16B8:3134:FF00:C972:FBF8:E754:29EA (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Not at all. Eg, "Adam and Eve, according to the creation myth of the Abrahamic religions, were the first man and woman. " Doug Weller talk 12:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

dynasty rule in china

some archaeologist found evidence proving that some of the ancient stories of china were based on fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.217.81.25 (talk) 13:14, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yu wa not the first ruler of Xia

Yu's son Qi, was the first fuler of Xia, and made his capital in Xia. Before Zhanguo, Yu was never called Xia Yu, he was considered the last Di.KJ (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

According to "Shiji(史记)", Yu establish Xia Dynasty.

The 2nd Chapter of "ShiJi" says, "禹於是遂即天子位(Yu became the Tianzi)，南面朝天下(He faced South to appear before the people)，國號曰夏后(The name of the country was Xiahou)，姓姒氏(The surname is Si)。" YulouCN (talk) 04:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

More dates issues

The article currently states Yu's birth year was 2059 BCE, yet places his reign to 2194 – 2149 BCE. Which is the correct one? --Koveras ^☭ 18:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Lifetime and Reign

when it is said, he was born 2052 - how can he be the King of China from 2194 BCE to 2149 BCE? -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 10:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

All these dates are too exact for a legendary figure, trying to fix. Dougweller (talk) 13:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

sure it is too exact but still if the dates are just "around" or "something like..." the reign can't be placed before the birth. Even legendary persons should follow the timeline, that they can't do anything legendary before their legendary birth -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 15:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely, and there are at least two sets of 'around' dates for this era. The problem is the timeline, and not just this article, I'm not sure what to do. Maybe just remove it. Dougweller (talk) 16:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

a possible way would be to write "accourding to this-and-that source he was born around ..." - and "according to whatever-source" his reign least from ... to ...." so the ball is played back to the source and not longer the problem from an wikipedia-article -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 23:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that is the standard for scientific works. ;) --Koveras ^☭ 09:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure we can do that, it's the navigation bar at the bottom that is the problem. I'm fixing it to reflect the traditional dates, but there seems to be an issue surrounding a new interpretation of the Bamboo Annals, eg [1] suggesting a 72 year error. If they are genuine, I don't know what happened at this conference to discuss them last month [2] Dougweller (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's what happened -- in April 2007, Dongwenliang (talk · contribs) edited a related group of articles on Chinese rulers adding his preferred version of the dates, which unfortunately don't match what most scholars seem to think they were. I don't know how many articles were involved.. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

so it looks like no way to fix that problem. Even if here it is repaired it don't fit to an unknown count of other articles *sigh* -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

We can tediously go back and forth from Yu and try to fix the rest! Dougweller (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

please don't involve me in that - my english is so horrible bad, that I'm lucky if I understand the facts of english articles and the discussion pages - sorry  ;-( -- Hartmann Schedel (talk) 17:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the date from this article. I might go looking for the others if I find time. This stuff has already caused some citogenesis with Wikidata. CC Dougweller --Artoria2e5 🌉 11:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I believe that the newly created article Great Flood (of China) should be merged with this one as it already has a section on the subject. The title of the new article would then become a redirect. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the suggestion is premature. As the article stands now, I would agree with you; however, it would make developing the Great Flood encyclopedic content much more difficult to do it within this context. Merger into "Yu the Great" would also involve incorporating material about subjects that are only connected to Yu the Great by virtue of their mutual connection with the Great Flood, and don't really belong in that article. I've thought about it quite a bit. Is there some reason that this has to be a big, urgent issue? Wouldn't it be better to give the article a bit of a good faith chance, say a reasonable developmental phase, and then seeing what the article is like, before jumping in when the article is barely twenty-four hours old and start hinting at deletion (see the initial beginning of this discussion, on my user talk page) and then pushing for a merger? At this point, I've spent far more time writing about the article than on developing it. Suggestions for mergers or deletion at this point constitute merely jumping to conclusions about what the final article would look like. Furthermore, it puts me at the distinct, and unfair, disadvantage of trying to defend something that doesn't even exist yet. Is this going to be the future of Wikipedia? Dcattell (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, from Wikipedia:Notability, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article...." I intend to demonstrate that this is the case in this regard, over a reasonable time period. Dcattell (talk) 23:58, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Although the two subjects are closely related, I would suggest giving the author of the new "Great Flood" article more time to develop it. While Yu is mostly known for his taming the flood, it seems that potentially the "flood" articles can have quite a bit more material that's not part of Yu's legendary "biography" directly (don't forget the yellow dragon and the black turtle, and the magic xinrang zh:息壤 powder! :-), and the Yu article also has at least some "bio" details that are before and after the flood (e.g., the Lo Shu Square), as well as some info about the veneration of him throughout history etc. Perhaps there was also some comparative study of the Chinese Flood legends as compared against those in the world's other mythologies, etc.? -- Vmenkov (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Im not familiar with this historical event, but i would say that such an event, regardless of how well it was documented, or how few sources we have, was a significant geographic event. the person, Yu, who was most noted in association with it, would simply not be the right place for all the content for the flood. if Yu CREATED the flood, stopped it, and put in measures to stop such a recurrence, and if the event was more localized, i could see merging. I agree the article needs more time to be developed, and if it seems at a later date that its not as significant, a merge might make sense.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge: the "Great flood" page has a place in the world's flood mythology (Category:Flood myths) while Yu himself has an independent place in Chinese history and legend. Better to merge most of the "flood" section of the present page in the other direction with a "main article" link. Redheylin (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Oppose merge: The flood event is not the same as the biographical person. There is at least two parts to the flood event. What's on this page is the 2nd part with Yu basically. The first part is with Gun. And if you believe there are more than 2 parts, that's fine too. There is also artwork related to the flood, and other cultural references that has nothing to do with Yu. Is good to see topics expanded. Benjwong (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oppose: the stories of Yu from historical sources focus more on actual flood control, not the great flood itself. Interestec to see what anyone else says.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

9 Provinces

We could use a map, but not the one I just removed. At best, it represents their position during the very late Zhou and not anything like the time period of Yu. At worst, it seems to be completely made up, without sources and with borders contradicting several accounts I've seen. — LlywelynII 13:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt there are any reliable Xia maps in existence, let alone one of the Nine Provinces/Settlements. The only thing close I can think of is the tentative Xia site list in the Zhongguo lishi ditu ji 中國歷史地圖集.  White Whirlwind  咨  05:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yu the Great. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100911080836/http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/cn_whyc/2006-10/19/content_87161.htm to http://www.chinaculture.org/gb/cn_whyc/2006-10/19/content_87161.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

I've split one of the paragraphs in the opening section

It seemed quite long, so I hope others here don't mind.--Thylacine24 (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Same picture?

So why is the same picture of Yu the Great in this article twice? Mistake or something else? MasterWolf0928-Æthelwulf (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BartonRei (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WZ2372 (talk) 14:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Nine provinces paragraph needs work

The last paraghraph in the Nine Provinces subsection is written so poorly I don't actually know what it's trying to say but I don't know enough about the topic to rewrite it 207.172.179.210 (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Birthplace

Why does the infobox unequivocally say that Yu was born in Shiquan County when it isn't clear exactly where he was born, and several different areas are proposed in the text of the article? Please fix! 76.190.213.189 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done Remsense留 01:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)