Talk:Emperor Gaozu of Han

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Levi.keith.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
I moved this page from "Emperor Gao of Han" to "Gaozu of Han" to reflect the "use most common name in Chinese" rule. In Chinese, the most common name is "Han Gaozu" which translates to "Gaozu of Han" in English. --Jiang 07:35, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Rebellion reason
Is there a source for the prison transport story? This appears to be confused with the Chen Sheng Wu Guang Uprising, but I have found no source which confirms the listed reason for Liu Bang's revolt.

Liu Bang (Gaozu or Gaodi) seems in fact to contradict it. Liu Bang and Xiang Yu offers a different story, with superficial similarities though (workers escort, but with desertion as the main issue, and no mention of the remainder joining his army).

The prisoner transport story is true for both Liu Bang and Chen Sheng. The fact is at that time Qin Dynasty drafted a lot of men to build Great Wall and other labors.

Yiyu 06:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

As of 2023, I am unable to find a single source online that verifies the story about the escaped prisoners. The earliest piece of still-existing online evidence for the story is the version of this very article as it was edited to be on. Every other reference to it online comes from places like modern blogs, meme pages, and some stupid Reddit TIL threads that include no sources other than (ironically enough) this page, which itself cites no sources for the story. I can't speak for the Chinese sources as I don't know Chinese, but none of the ones in this article are connected to the paragraph that includes the story. The story is cute in the way a comedy adventure might be, but that is itself an indication of it being fabricated. What confuses me the most is wondering, if the story is indeed false, where it even came from?

mads (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Mads-madas, it's in his biography in the Shiji (vol. 8), also carried (with a few extra details) in the Book of Han (vol. 1). It probably doesn't have a citation because its presence on Wikipedia predates citations on Wikipedia. Folly Mox (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Cross reference to Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 30 -- largely to Haiduc
The relevant passage that was used to suggest that Gaozu of Han's relationship with those younger attendants were homosexual ones presumably came from Chapter 125 of Shi Ji, entitled the Biography of the Wicked Favorites (佞幸列傳). This is how I'd render the relevant part of the passage:
 * Many were favored for their appearance. After Han was established, although Gaozu was harsh and unrefined, Ji Ru was favored for his flattery.  And during Emperor Hui's time there was Hong Ru.  These two were not known for their abilities, but because they were careful in their flattery.  They lay with the emperors.  The officials therefore often relayed their requests through those two.  So during the times of Emperor Hui many court officials wore jewlery, belts made of shells, and put on makeup, to be more like Ji and Hong.  The two eventually moved to Anling [the location of Emperor Hui's tomb].

My translation isn't really much different from Hinsch's, but Hinsch omitted the context of the passage; this was in a group of officials who were known for their flattery -- not necessarily for their sexuality. There might have been sexual relationships, but it's hardly shown. Sima Qian went on to list, in this same list, two individuals whom I (and later on, officials of Emperor Ai's time clearly felt so as well) believe could have had sexual relationships with the emperor -- Deng Tong, with Emperor Wen, and Han Yan, with Emperor Wu -- but the evidence was far stronger with regard to Han than with Deng. But here's the crucial part: he also listed several individuals who were clearly not considered to have had sexual relationships with the emperors, including Zhao Tong (favored by Emperor Wen for his fortunetelling skills), Beigong Buozi (not as clear why; I interpret it as that he was a good procurer of musical talents for Emepror Wen), Zhou Wenren (favored by Emperor Jing, apparently only for his flattery), Li Yannian (favored by Emperor Wu for his musical skills and his beautiful sister Consort Li, who bore several sons for Emperor Wu), Wei Qing (favored because his sister was Emperor Wu's empress Empress Wei Zifu and later for his military skills), and Huo Qubing (similar situation; he was Empress Wei's nephew). It would be a highly strained interpretation that all these men had sexual relations with the respective emperors. It is possible, but of the list that I gave you starting from Zhao, I can conceive of a sexual relationship between Emperor Wu and Li -- but that's it. To create this many sexual relationships out of thin air is simply stretching things.

Another thing is that Hinsch reads the character "Ru" (孺) as "boy"; I don't see it that way. No other person in this list is listed by family name only. It's far more likely that the two both had "Ru" as their personal names, which would defeat Hinsch's reading entirely. --Nlu 04:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, since you mention it... (Sort of like reading a Sunday broadsheet, but several centuries old - where's the Page 3 girl?). Ok, I know zero about Chinese history of culture, and come to this as a total outsider. Here's my reaction to the quoted passage, what I believe it's saying: The two named emperors each had a favourite, each of whom corrupted his emperor's morals - not his sexual morals, but his judgement, so that he listened too much to them, and officials, who should have served the emperor with honesty and directly, were forced to ape the effets manners of the favourites and take their advice to them rather than to the emperor himself. I imagine the historian goes on to describe how disaster befell the state as a result. Were the two favourites boys? I have no idea - I gather that 'ru' means boy, and that it's possible that both had this same surname. Ok, I'll accept two as a ersult of chance, but if a thoird one turns up I'll have to reconsider. Did they exert sexual influence over their master? The etxt does does say they 'slept with' the emperor - of course, that might just mean they slept in the royal apartment, but I do think, on literary grounds (remember that your historian isn't scrupulously recording historical fact here, no more than did Thucydides, he's writing a moral parable), that if I were Ssu-ma, I'd have laid it on with a trowel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Ssu-ma was making a point about homosexual emperors - the point he was making (my reading of course) was that the emperors had allowed themselves to fall below their proper status, consorting with persons who wore perfume and belts made of shells. (I'd be pretty wary too of persons wearing belts like that). PiCo 06:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Article name
The current article name Gaozu of Han does not reflect that he was an emperor. Besides that, it doesn't match with articles of other Chinese emperors, e.g. Emperor Gaozu of Tang not Gaozu of Tang, Emperor Taizu of Song not Taizu of Song. IMO, the article should be moved to Emperor Gaozu of Han. -- Joshua C hi  e  w  08:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in Naming
In the current revision of the article, Liú Bāng is written in Hanyu Pinyin (i.e. with tones) throughout, while most other names dispense with the tones as is normal in English. It should be regularized to whatever Wikipedia's standard is these days - I assume that means removing the tones. Zhwj 16:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards: "The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged; their usage depends on whether they appear in verifiable reliable sources in English, and on the constraints imposed by specialized Wikipedia guidelines. Provide redirects from alternative forms that use or exclude diacritics." personally, I prefer tone marks: they help distinguish otherwise identically Romanized names. Pgagge (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Liu Bang in Chinese characters
Can someone look it up and put down the Chinese characters (traditional and simplified) in the main article page?

Thanks!

Il consiglieri (talk) 00:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)il_consiglieri

Needs more sources/revamp
Almost all the info on this page comes from http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Emperor-Han-Gaozu-of-China which wasn't even cited until I did it. Seriously, this page needs work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PEiP (talk • contribs) 21:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to do a revamp in the next few days. I'm planning to start with translated info from Chinese Wikipedia and Baidu Baike. Any suggestions for improvements from anyone? _LDS (talk) 05:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've basically rewritten the sections about his early life and the Chu–Han contention. I'll leave the other sections to other editors who are more familiar with them than me. The evaluation part needs some citations as well. _LDS (talk) 08:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The evaluation section is still the most lacking on the page. How important do others feel it is to the article? I've seen other articles have a Legacy section that discusses impact, which I think could be more appropriate. I will look into it more, but if anyone else has an opinion, I'd like to hear it. — Zujine |talk 16:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Almost everything after the introduction and early life sections need more citations. Most sections have no citations at all. Levi.keith (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

To add to article
Was he also referred to as Han Gaodi? If so, can the name "Gaodi" be added to this article? 173.88.241.33 (talk) 15:33, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

"Han Gao Zu," listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Han Gao Zu,. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 14 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 20:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)