|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Zhuge Liang article.|
|Zhuge Liang received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.|
|Zhuge Liang has been listed as a level-4 vital article in People. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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. --18.104.22.168 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?
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. --22.214.171.124 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.
- 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)
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)
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. --126.96.36.199 06:43, 12 May 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 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ba Xing (Eight Dispositions)
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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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."
- 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. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
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)
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."