Talk:Zhuge Liang/Archive 1

Archive 1

Much talk of this man of wisdom has been like myth. For example, he was said to be able to trap an army of 100 000 soldiers by arranging stones or pebbles in a special pattern (bagua zhen). -- 20:13, 23 Nov 2003 . . User:218.94.36.117

Commenting 24.1.141.49

I heard that Zhuge Liang did get poisoned from the expedition, but he showed no sign of it until the northern campaign at Wuzhang. The gliding horse and wooden ox were types of automatic wheelbarrows which transfered supplies.

And as for my opinion, Zhuge Liang is just as well as Guan Zhong, Yue Yi, Sun Tzu (Sunzi sometimes refered as) and Wu Qi.

He shouldn't be murged with anyone, because his own reputation is more important than that of Dong Jue. They could add Zhuge Liang and mention his name in Dong Jue's article, but I am more than sure that Zhuge Liang does not need Dong Jue in his article.

Zhuge Zhan's artice could be murged with Dong Jue, but Zhuge Liang belongs to himself only. His son, however, and Dong Jue were perhaps more "closer" than Zhuge Liang and Dong Jue. I suggest we murge those two together and forget about murging Dong Jue and Zhuge Liang.

Comment from 24.1.141.49

Comment from a reader: It is my understanding that "gliding horse" and "wooden ox" are names for various types of wheelbarrow, but I'm not bold enough to exchange the given text for my own without independent confirmation. -- Originally posted to article by 24.1.141.49 (talk · contribs) at 04:00, 17 Jun 2005 UTC

The Southern Expedition it says that Zhuge Liang is sick during the campaign against Meng Huo, this is false. He is not sick at all. since he did not touch a drop of the poisonous water.

You know, I could swear that I was sick last weak, and I'm pretty sure I didn't touch the waters of Nan Zhong either. And you know, I could swear Zhuge Liang died of sickness and overexertion, and he didn't touch any poisonous waters in Wu Zhang. 74.12.7.56 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron

The Strategist of the Han!

Although Zhuge Liang is the best strategist that has ever lived during the fall of the Han, many other great strategists and advisors such as him have come and gone. Even if the other mindful men did not measure up to Zhuge Liang, please give them the respect they deserve for having knowledge either about the land or the enemy they faced.

• Xu Shu: Advisor of Liu Bei
• Tian Feng: Yuan Shao's Strategist
• Guo Jia: Cao Cao's Advisor
• Zhou Yu: Rival of Zhuge Liang and Strategist of Wu
• Sima Yi: Rival of Zhuge Liang and Strategist for Wei
• Lu Xun: Lu Meng's Successor and Strategist for Wu
• Li Ru: Dong Zhuo's Advisor
• Zhuge Liang: Liu Bei's Strategist
• Pang Tong: Advisor of Liu Bei
• Xu You: Advisor of Yuan Shao

--Zhang Liao 07:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed completely. Give a shout out to Lu Meng, too. He was a pretty competant mind. He was the Zhuge Liang to Lu Xun's Jiang Wei. (Except, Jiang Wei's track record is....not the greatest. Lu Xun on the other hand, haha.) 74.12.7.56 14:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron

Copyright Violation

The "Zhuge Liang Complete Biography" and "Additional Commentary" sections appears to be a direct copy from this site (the site wasn't working at the time of writing this message, cached version available here). Thus, I have removed that section. Akamad 07:03, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't realize either it was a coypright violation. (That is because, actually, the quality of those sections wasn't high, and therefore I assumed that a Wikipedian had attempted to write those sections him/herself.) --Nlu 07:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

All of you have a big mistake

Zhuge Liang was great however He was actually a Politician not a stragetist as people mistakenly thought. This mistake is caused when people who have read the "Romance of the Three Kingdom" and mistakenly thought this book is a real history book.

---

• Correction - He was Shu's de facto strategist before the kingdom of Shu was established. Sans the Kingdom, he would have no court to run. Furthermore, the SGYY (The romanticized version which a lot of people do read) has a strong bias towards Shu, as the author did. This is why people get the interpretation that he was more than he was. HOWEVER (and keep in mind, SGZ is the right source to go to, as you've said), he in all points was their strategist for a large portion of time, from when Liu Bei gained Zhuge Liang in his entourage, until they took Cheng Du, and established Shu as their Dynasty. Furthermore, Zhuge Liang is known to have led several missions, that are verified as having taken place (Attacks in Nan Zhong, Against Sima Yi in the Wu Zhang Plains.) So while you may be right that he WAS a politician, do not overlook the fact that he was also their strategist, for a large chunk of time, and later times in the future, after Cheng Du was captured. On the topic of the battle at Red Cliffs (Chi Bi), I'm not sure where you got the idea that the fire attack was credited solely to Zhuge Liang. The last time I read, it was a joint venture between Zhuge Liang, Zhou Yu, and Huang Gai, who suggested the fire attack himself. 74.12.7.56 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron

---

The most accurate book who contains the CORRECT imformation is "San Guo Zhi" wrote by a offical, 30 years after the death of Zhuge Liang. This book claimed the person who won the "battle of Red cliff" was Zhou Yu, not Zhuge Liang. Zhuge Liang never lead a army against the Cao Cao before Liu bei's death, and he didn't have the greatest military experience ( The northern Expedition is the prove, he made a lot of terrible dicision) To be continue deal to technical problem tommarow **Finish this off soon, because as it stands, this paragraph only has one point we already know: SGZ is right, and SGYY isn't. 74.12.7.56 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron**

My issue with SGZ on ZgL is two-fold. 1) It is not known the extent of ZgL's involvement in Chibi. We know that the book of Wei and Shu give the credit of defeating Cao Cao to Liu Bei's army while the book of Wu gave the credit to Zhou Yu. **No one accredited Chi Bi solely to Zhuge Liang on this site. If you're going to comment, make it relevant. Go to GameFAQs or some RotK board if you want to dispute this. 74.12.7.56 14:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron** 2) Chen Shou's father was inprisoned after Ma Su lost Jieting by ZgL, so it is not known how much of a vendetta he held towards ZgL. SGZ aside, other historical books about that era have put the Northern Campaigns in less worse light. Thus we should be careful in creating a biography based on one text.

Zhuge Liang: A Simpleton or Strategist

It is true that Zhuge Liang did not hardly ever participate in battles, but that did not mean he was not a strategist of war.

When Liu Bei allowed him to take control of his army for the first time, Zhuge Liang, which is from the novel, manage to defeat Cao Cao at the Ru Nan area known as the Bo Wan Po to halt their attack on Liu Bei. Also, during the Nanman Rebellion, Zhuge Liang went forth and ended Meng Huo's attack using only simple tactics against him. (The ambushes and winning over his comrads.) Now it is true that Zhuge Liang failed much when he looked towards the north to Wei area. The only mistake that he made for a commander is allowing Ma Su to be in charge of such an important area. (Jieting)

More or less, Zhuge Liang to a degree or less was a strategist regardless of who was better than him at the time. The only reason why he is highly seen as the best is he could foretell the events or ruses being used in battle that would happen. Examples of that would be his conflict with Zhou Yu and yes, all of that is from novel. But beside the novel, can you or I say who the real Zhuge Liang was? --Zhang Liao 18:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. As you may recall Zhuge Liang tried to lure out the great Sima Yi by sending him a gift of woman's clothing to enrage him. Obviously it makes no sense to do that unless you thought it was going to work. It didn't. Sima Yi saw through Zhuge Liang's scheme and stayed true to his defensive strategy. --Sima Yi

The union with Sun Quan broke down when Guan Yu retaliated on the Kingdom of Wu in 219 after the surprise attack of Lü Meng.

If Lu Meng launched a surprise attack then Guan Yu's retaliation was not the reason the union with Sun Quan broke down, this comment is misleading. I understand that Lu Meng struck first and it was Wu that broke the alliance (considering Guan Yu was attacking Fan castle of Wei at the time). Unless I'm missing something? Feel free to correct me. Just thought I'd point this out anyway.--RBlowes 00:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I can already tell that you read the Romance instead of the History. Lu Meng attacked Jing Zhou twice. The first time, Lu Meng took three castles. Liu Bei began to panic and he made a deal with Wu in which half of Jingzhou was returned to Wu. Afterwards, Guan Yu began to held a long grudge against Wu culminating in Lu Meng's second attack which took all of Jingzhou. --User:Haow 4:25 April 2006

The Event of Fan Castle

Sun Quan had long for the return of the Jing Province which Guan Yu guarded. It is true that the Wu ruler did break the alliance of the Wu and Shu treaty; however, the only reason why Sun Quan sent Lu Meng to attack Jing is because (If you read over the battle of Chi Bi and the events leading up to Guan Yu's assault on Fan Castle.) Liu Bei with Zhuge Liang's help manage to take over the Jing Province right when Zhou Yu, Commander-In-Chief, manage to send Cao Ren fleeing from the Nanjun territory. (Correct me if I'm wrong.)

After Jing was still in control of Liu Bei's rule for quite some time, Sun Quan was still ever so upset that Liu Bei would not return the province even after Zhou Yu with Zhuge Liang's aid sent Cao Cao's forces back to Xu Chang. More or less, Sun Quan had only wanted Jing back, but due to Zhuge Liang's deft speaking and ability to understand people, the kingdom of Wu would had never gotten back Jing had Lu Meng and Lu Xun not decided to attack Guan Yu from behind. --Zhang Liao 22:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Merging

Apparently someone wants to merge this with Dong Jue. I don't believe it should be done, because they are not the same person. Cao Wei 01:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I am mildly against it, but it should be noticed that merger would be from Dong Jue into this article; in other words, what the editor was proposing is to effectively delete the Dong Jue article (apparently believing that Dong is not sufficiently notable?) and insert a couple lines in this article about Dong. --Nlu (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Dong Jue article doesn't have a lot of information, so it should probably be deleted but I don't know if it should be merged with Zhuge Liang or Jiang Wei...but since he was with Jiang Wei when he died it makes more sense to move it there?--Zhang Lmao 07:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps put a {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} flags on Dong Jue and Jiang Wei respectively? I don't think Dong Jue should be deleted because he is sufficiently notable as a general of a historical state, in my opinion -- far more notable than some of the junk biographies that somehow survive AfDs, for sure. --Nlu (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There is NO WAY Zhuge Liang should be merged with anyone. His stance in history is far too amazing and glorified. I definitely veto - very strongly - against any merger with this page. Jazza 16:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the Dong Jue article now, it looks like someone has added information to it. That backs up the fact that he should stay in his own article. Cao Wei 15:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dong Jue is another person. Why would someone make such suggestion? Would you merge "Ceasar" with "Antonio"?

Disagree - Reason: 2 different person. Period. HistoryManiac 10:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, why merging 2 different persons?

His being may be disputed; One would have to go over RotK again, to see if it's falsified. 74.12.7.56 14:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron

Zhuge Liang's Video Game Apperances

I should add that I completely redid the gaming section, as it wasn't very clean. I elaborated on all the games Zhuge Liang can be found in. You can tell some Dynasty Warriors fanboy, like the ones you guys had to deal with, tainted it, because that's all it spoke about. No mention of the 'Romance of the Three Kingdoms' game, which dates back to NES. I'll venture around the TK articles, and fix whatever little mistakes the young'ns may have left. 74.12.7.56 14:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Joe Caron.

I've drastically cut down on this section and lumped it with Legacy, because it's now too short to warrant a section of its own. I'm not convinced that describing Zhuge Liang's appearance and ability in a video game is particularly relevant to a better understanding of his cultural and historical role. I haven't played Dynasty Warriors, by the way, and since none of the previous content regarding that seemed relevant, I've removed any references to it.

I've also removed the entire Huang Yueying section, since she has her own article with almost exactly the same content. Although it's missing in some of the content here, the section in this article was flagged for cleanup anyway, so I didn't bother moving anything across. The history's always there if sources and whatnot are found and the Huang Yueying article is cleaned up. --Omdal 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Original image

Crap!!! I accidently overwrote the original image of Zhuge Liang! Can somebody restore it?! Gamer Junkie 02:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking how come we have replaced the original image with the one from the game.... --Cyktsui 02:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I tried going back, but the image is already gone! Well, at least the game Zhuge looks almost identical to the real Zhuge... Gamer Junkie 02:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The article looks okay to me. Doesn't seem to have any problems - the game pic looks really nice, though. Thanks for putting it in! –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) | Review 06:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the picture, you have to reupload the game image under a different name. _dk 07:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, dk. Kungming2, I'll re-upload the picture, and this time I'll pay closer attention. Gamer Junkie 08:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Greatest Mind under Heaven

There is always much debate behind Zhuge Liang and much is always said about the methods he used in battle. One of his methods is his deft rhetoric that he used during his conversation with the military officers of the South Land.

Although they each tried to bait him, every word that they breathed was well approached by Zhuge Liang. The best knowledge he showed was during the attack of the South Land by Cao Cao. At the time, Zhou Yu was trying his best to eliminate him with every ruse he could think of. Zhuge Liang overshadowed his every attempt and was always well prepared for the next.

The hardest thing that is still debatable today is wondering how did Zhuge Liang call forth the South-Eastern Winds for the fire attack he and Zhou Yu had planned on. Some people say he knew when it would blow from talking with the sailors or fishermen; some believed it was magic and many did not even say.--Zhang Liao 06:05, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

There is no debate today regarding how Zhuge Liang called forth the wind to his aid, at least not among Chinese meteorologists. An annual reflux of colder air from the land and the warmer air from the waterbodies in the vicinity reversed the otherwise prevalent North Wind around the region. Zhuge Liang was a local farmer, he would be familiar with such weather anomalies. And the Chinese had very accurate calendars since Xi Han. It was possible to fix such annual weather changes to specific days of the year. (In fact many traditional Chinese festivals orginated from days of prominent weather changes.) Though the same weather pattern still exists today, due to deforestation, rerouting of Chang Jiang and commercial and agricultural settlement around the region, it is no longer a very stable, predictable and measurable. Unfortunately, my source is very veritable but not eletronic. --64.180.11.169 06:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The story of him vs Zhou Yu is a ROTK concoction, as Cai Mao and Zhang Yun were not recorded to be even present in the battle, and that 100K arrows on 20 ships is impossible by law of physics (the method used is ridiculous). His calling the winds is often attributed to magic of just being very able to predict the weather due to his experience as a farmer.Annihilatron (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You assert that it is impossible to have 100,000 arrows transfixed on 20 ships. What is the basis of this assertion of yours?

And were you there that we must take your word that it did not happen, that it is a fabrication? And who says it is impossible to transfix 100,000 arrows on 20 ships?

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

100k arrows on Archestrategos big fat ass will be possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.37.112 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

So BS

Zhang Liao and others, I don't know if you are doing this for fun or for laughs. You have made comment on every single page related to three kingdoms and all of them full of historical inaccuracies resulted from reading too much ROTK. Please realize that Wikipedia is a place for objective truth not subjective conjecture and fantasy. If you are going to comment, please do constructive comment and not just interpretations from ROTK. Please cite reputable sources and not a fantasy novel. I seriously doubt that French Historians quote The Three Musketeers as a reputable source on 16th century France. Please refrain from doing this, authors like me don't want to build up an objective wikipedia just to see it degenerate into rubbish nonsense. -- User:haow 4:37, 12 April 2006.

Hear hear. I am not the most knowledgable man in Wikipedia and will not claim to be, but I do try to contribute about real history. You want to put in some untrue information, that's well and good, but don't do it here. User: Cao Wei 10:55 PM Sunday April 16 2006

Under western traditions, The Three Musketeers is a legend, while the Romance is an epic. Epics are not fictions. They are valid historical sources. Of course, this is chinese history, we have official records, the Romance is only a reference. But please do not analogize between The Three Musketeers and the Romance of Three Kingdoms. If you must pick something French, perhaps the Song of Roland. --64.180.11.169 06:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you pick, the comparison is not the point being made. The fact of the matter is that historical articles cannot be based on false or fictional information of any kind, no matter the level of accuracy or truth. Zhang Liao is not only using ROTK as a reference, but also the Dynasty Warriors video games. Whilst one may be more accurate and plausible than the other, neither qualify as references or merits for historical mention unless done so in their respective fictional sections of the articles. Gamer Junkie 06:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

you can read the official biography, many have their deeds "enlarge" so you see overlapping claims. but it is recorded history so it is at least not very far of.

"In the historical novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Zhuge Liang attempted to extend his lifespan by twelve years, but failed when the ceremony was disturbed when Wei Yan rushed in, announcing the arrival of the Wei army." maybe he just needed rest and use "ceremony" as an excuse to not work... lol, too bad he got no rest.. kekeke nah. historically, the Xinye escape plan was Liubei's own ideas, Zhugeliang was only a jurior official at that time. and chibi is won but the wind was natural, Caocao managed to broke camp, so Guanyu never really met Caocao at the pass etc... but history is such diffcult things to correct with a couple of chinese student damanding heads of historian who "suggest" something other than what was in the novel. Akinkhoo (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Who gets to decide what's objective truth and what's subjective fantasy in regard to history? Just because it sounds implausible to you, the whole world must reject the record as fiction? What arrogance.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would have to really disagree that because the story is an 'epic,' it must be true. Sure, the Three Musketeers is no epic, but the Illiad and the Oddysey sure are. The same was ROTK is rooted (emphasis on rooted) in historical truth, those two great Greek epics are. But to claim that the Illiad or the Oddysey were anything approaching factual would be silly. The same goes for ROTK. Heck, the Lord of the Rings is an epic...we certainly don't claim that as truth. It is a fun read that gives an incredibly exagurated account of what may or may not have actually happened. Sevey13 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

tactics..?

Hmmm? No Empty Fortress? No Borrowing Arrows? I haven't read the whole Romance of the Three Kingdoms yet, but am familiar with those stories and others... was there a conscious decision to exclude them? --Ling.Nut 21:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Because none of them happened. And no one bothered to write a section about his almighty powers in the novel yet. _dk 22:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, the Holocaust never happened either, but there are articles about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friedchikinz (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Holy crap. There's someone who could travel through time here! More books=More knowledge=Less stupidity flowing in the brain

No need for that. pull it into line. Gamer Junkie 00:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wu Hou Ci

There's a place called Wu Hou Ci in the province of Sichuan. It's mostly in memory of Zhuge Liang, so I think this page should mention it somewhere. It's pretty famous :]Treecake88 07:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)treecake88 :D

What does this place represent in regard to Zhuge Liang? Make sure you state this. Photos and references regarding this place would also be good. Gamer Junkie 23:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Qian Hou Chu Shi Biao

I noticed that there is no mention of said primary source in either the article or here on the discussion board, which is rather ironic, especially to those who very self-righteously accuse and ridicule others of not refering to the right source. Perhaps introducing Chu Shi Biao can shed a bit more light over the debate of how much of a strategist/advisor Zhuge Liang was/could have been. In any case, I think there should be at least a link to Chu Shi Biao in the article, if not a whole section dedicated to it. --64.180.11.169 06:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Descendants

I saw in a documentary many years ago that his descendants are still alive and living in China. Anyone's got a clue? Chensiyuan (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

He lived some millennium ago, of course he has descendants if he had children, and I am sure his direct descendants are many. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.37.191 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ba Xing (Eight Dispositions)

He is credited with creating or developing Ba Xing. Can somebody include information about this series in this article? GenuineMongol (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Borrowing arrows and Sun Quan

The "borrowing arrows strategem" section on this article makes the assertion that the feat was not actually accomplished by Zhuge Liang, but by Sun Quan. What is the basis of this assertion? What we can only know from the Romance is that the Romance records the strategem as being accomplished by Zhuge Liang. Short of going back in time using a time machine and ascertaining the truth with our own eyes, the most neutral statement we can say is that "Zhuge Liang is recorded in the Romance as having performed the borrowing arrows strategem", period.

Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. It isn't a place for pet theories and attitudes. The fact we have is that the Romance does record Zhuge Liang as having performed the borrowing arrows strategem.

Keep your attitude to yourself, and let it not contaminate neutral dissemination of knowledge.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The section even made the assertion that the feat was ascribed to Zhuge Liang, as with many other great feats in the Romance, to increase his greatness. This means that the writer of that sentence is practically accusing the author of the Romance of historical revisionism.

What is the basis for this assertion? This is not neutrality. This is arrogance. Such biased piece of garbage does not belong in the Wikipedia.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Romance of Three Kingdoms, Folklores, Pseudohistories, Chinese Operas, and Zhuge Liang fanfiction

It is asserted in the article that several feats which are not actually performed by Zhuge Liang has been instead ascribed to him to increase his greatness. What is the basis of this assertion?

Until a citation or reference can be provided which proves such assertion, it does not belong in this article.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you first read the relevant articles at Romance of the Three Kingdoms and Records of the Three Kingdoms carefully and then come back if you still have outstanding questions. Thank you. _dk (talk) 07:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

All right. The Romance is said to be 70% history and 30% fiction. Is there proof that indeed feats which were not actually performed by Zhuge Liang has been revisionistically ascribed to him instead to increase his greatness?

Until there is, such an assertion has no place in Wikipedia.

--Archestrategos (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is no proof that the borrowing arrows strategem has been revisionistically ascribed to Zhuge Liang to increase his greatness. The "historical accounts" (which I take to mean "Records of the Three Kingdoms" and others) do not record Zhuge Liang as having performed the borrowing arrows strategem, but do records Sun Quan as having performed the same.

However, this can mean two things:

1. Zhuge Liang did perform the strategem first, and Sun Quan also performed it later.

2. Zhuge Liang didn't perform the strategem, and it has been revisionistically ascribed to Zhuge Liang.

Since we cannot know in certainty which of the two possibilities is correct, the correct neutral statement would be "it is recorded in the Romance, but not in the historical accounts", period.

Or, if a certain scholar (named X) thinks that possibility #2 is the most likely case, then we can say "scholar X believes that the borrowing arrows strategem has been revisionistically ascribed to Zhuge Liang to increase his greatness."

--Archestrategos (talk) 08:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a good point, all assertions made on the articles should be backed up by sources. Further efforts are necessary to reach that goal. But I can say this: the Romance is said to contain 30% fiction, therefore anything included in the novel but not in the Records should be treated as less reliable. I also believe Luo Guanzhong did not mean to revise history, he merely wrote a novel based on history. _dk (talk) 08:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

So what Archstrategos is saying, as far as I can tell, is that the historical texts should be brought into question by us 2000 years down the line and written in here at Wikipedia as possibly/likely incorrect? I'm not sure if I should laugh or cry at such blatant gall. 115.64.118.162 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Meng Huo

According to Zhang Hua Lan's article, "Discussion on Meng Huo," Meng was only a fictional character invented by later historians. Modern historians like Huang Cheng Zhong also pointed out Zhang's view represents the majority of the academics. Note that the the word "Huo" (獲) means "captured" in Chinese.----EkmanLi (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

In Meng's main article, there're more references given on the subject. As the article of Zhuge had not been modified for the southern campaign and Meng, I brought up this discussion in Zhuge's talk page.----EkmanLi (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor changes had been made on Zhuge's main article, yet more changes should be made so no reader would be misled to take the "seven times freed story" as historical truth. Discussion on the legitimacy on the story should be held on the talk page of the article Zhuge Liang's Southern Campaign.----EkmanLi (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

These are all very interesting, thanks for brining them up. Can you provide full citations (including where the articles can be found, the publish dates, and page numbers) so we can read them ourselves and word them into the relevant articles? I also advise against saying that the character of Meng Huo was completely fabricated, it might be better to say that it was convincingly argued that was the case. Also, there might be scholars that hold different views about Meng Huo's historicity. _dk (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Those are not books, but eassys (I was told that if an article is posted online, it's regarded as published at the date it went online), still I will try giving out when they were included/published in a magazine (mostly university press). "Discussion on Meng Huo"《孟獲辯》is archived in the library of Fu Jen Catholic University in Taiwan. Tan Xiaoliang expressed his view in《諸葛亮“七擒孟獲”質疑》, and the article was published in a university press,《雲南師范大學學報》, at 1985. Huang's article《蜀漢孟獲史實瑣談》was published in 《四川彝學研究》. In April, 1983, Miao Yue expressed his view during an academic discussion (formally the First National Romance of the Three Kingdoms Discussion) concerning the content of the novel, "Romance of the Three Kingdoms."----EkmanLi (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Yup, there are scholars who hold different views about Meng's historicity, and I will present their views in respective articles soon (after my dinner).----EkmanLi (talk) 06:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Early Life (height)

Is the height reference correct? "According to historical texts, Zhuge Liang was eight chi tall, roughly between 1.85 metres (6 feet and 1 inch) and 1.95 metres (6 feet and 4.75 inches)."

Since a unit of chi has had a number of different values over time... e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chi_%28unit%29#Historical_values "during the 2nd century BC to 3rd century AD the (Qin Dynasty to Han Dynasty to the Three Kingdoms period), the value of the chi varied between 23.1 to 24.3 cm."

"In the 19th century, the value of chi, depending on the part of the country and the application, varied between 31 and 36 cm."

Where and when did the 8-chi tall reference come from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.173.51 (talk) 22:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Copied content from User:Lds/Sandbox/Zhuge Liang

Copied content from User:Lds/Sandbox/Zhuge Liang; see that page's history for attribution as Lds's work is an all around far better and complete version of the current Wikipedia page. More detailed and well sourced. For further information, see these two discussions. first and second.